Author Topic: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?  (Read 13979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:42:00 pm »
Let me count the ways...

New face, same imperialism: Obama no better than Bush

Tariq Ali
The Age
October 6, 2010

After all the hope and hype, Obama's foreign policy mirrors the ugliness of the Bush years.

The election to the presidency of a mixed-race Democrat, vowing to heal America's wounds at home and restore its reputation abroad, was greeted with a wave of ideological euphoria not seen since the days of Kennedy. The shameful interlude of Republican swagger and criminality was over. George Bush and Dick Cheney had broken the continuity of a multilateral American leadership that had served the country well throughout the Cold War and after. Barack Obama would now restore it.

Rarely has self-interested mythology - or well-meaning gullibility - been more quickly exposed. There was no fundamental break in foreign policy between the Bush and Obama regimes. The strategic goals and imperatives of the US imperium remain the same, as do its principal theatres and means of operation.

Obama's line towards Israel would be manifest even before he took office. On December 27, 2008, the Israeli Defence Forces launched an all-out air and ground assault on the population of Gaza. Bombing, burning, killing continued without interruption for 22 days, during which time the president-elect uttered not a syllable of reproof. By pre-arrangement, Tel Aviv called off its blitz a few hours before his inauguration on January 20, 2009, not to spoil the party.

Once installed, Obama called, like every US president, for peace between the two suffering peoples of the Holy Land, and again, like every predecessor, for Palestinians to recognise Israel and for Israel to stop its settlements in the territories it seized in 1967. Within a week of the President's speech in Cairo pledging opposition to further settlements, the governing Netanyahu coalition was extending Jewish properties in East Jerusalem with impunity.

However, war-zones further east have the first call on imperial attention. In 2002, on his way up the political ladder as a low-profile state senator in Illinois, Obama opposed the attack on Iraq; it was politically inexpensive to do so. By the time he was elected President, his first act was to maintain Bush's Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, long-time CIA functionary and veteran of the Iran-Contra affair, in the Pentagon. A cruder and more demonstrative signal of political continuity could hardly have been conceived.

Before his election, Obama promised a withdrawal of all US ''combat'' troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office, that is, by May 2010 - with a safety clause that the pledge could be ''refined'' in the light of events. It promptly was.

There persists the uneasy thought that the Iraqi resistance, capable of inflicting such damage on the US military machine only yesterday, might just be biding its time after its heavy losses and the defection of an important segment, and could still visit havoc on the collaborators tomorrow, should the US pull out altogether. To ensure against any such danger, Washington has put down markers in the modern equivalents - vastly larger and more hideous - of the Crusader fortresses of old.

As for Iran, schemes for a grand reconciliation between the two states had to be set aside. The calculation was upset by political polarisation in Iran itself. For Obama, the opportunity for ideological posturing was too great to resist. In a peerless display of sanctimony, he lamented with moist-eyed grief the death of a demonstrator killed in Tehran on the same day his drones wiped out 60 villagers, most of them women and children, in Pakistan.

The Democratic administration has now reverted to the line of its predecessor, attempting to corral Russia and China - European acquiescence can be taken for granted - into an economic blockade of Iran, in the hope of so strangling the country that the Supreme Leader will either be overthrown or obliged to come to terms.

From Palestine through Iraq to Iran, Obama has acted as just another steward of the US empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with a more emollient rhetoric. In Afghanistan, he has gone further, widening the front of imperial aggression with a major escalation of violence, both technological and territorial.


The True Meaning of War and Peace. Barack Obama versus Martin Luther King

by David Swanson

Global Research, August 24, 2011  

That sounds like a crazy question, doesn't it?  Why would President Obama denounce Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Well, the reason I ask is that he's done it before.

Really?  But surely he wouldn't do it on such a solemn occasion?

Well, the time he did it before was in a Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.

When President Barack Obama joined the ranks of Henry Kissinger and the other gentle souls who have received Nobel Peace Prizes, he did something that I don't think anyone else had previously done in a Peace Prize acceptance speech. He argued for war.  And he opposed the position of a previous Peace Prize Laureate, namely Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: 'Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.'…But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by [King's and Gandhi's] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history…. So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace."

But, you know, I've never found any opponent of war who didn't believe there was evil in the world. After all, we oppose war because it is evil.

Did Martin Luther King, Jr., not face the world as it is?  Was he delusional?  Did he stand idle in the face of threats?  This is President Obama's position.

Did King oppose protecting and defending people? Of course not.  He worked for that very goal!

Obama claims that his only choices are war or nothing. But the reason people know the names Gandhi (who was never given a Nobel Peace Prize) and King is that they suggested other options and proved that those other approaches could work. This fundamental disagreement cannot be smoothed over. Either war is the only option or it is not -- in which case we must consider the alternatives.

Couldn't we have halted Hitler's armies without a world war? To claim otherwise is ridiculous. We could have halted Hitler's armies by not concluding World War I with an effort seemingly aimed at breeding as much resentment as possible in Germany (punishing a whole people rather than individuals, requiring that Germany admit sole responsibility, taking away its territory, and demanding enormous reparations payments that it would have taken [in fact did take] Germany several decades to pay), or by putting our energies seriously into a League of Nations and International Court as opposed to the victor-justice of dividing the spoils, or by building good relations with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, or by funding peace studies in Germany rather than eugenics, or by fearing militaristic governments more than leftist ones, or by not funding Hitler and his armies, or by helping the Jews escape, or by maintaining a ban on bombing civilians, or indeed by massive nonviolent resistance which requires greater courage and valor than we've ever seen in war.

We have seen such courage in the largely nonviolent eviction of the British rulers from India, in the nonviolent overthrow of the ruler of El Salvador in 1944, in the campaigns that ended Jim Crow in the United States and apartheid in South Africa. We've seen it in the popular removal of the ruler of the Philippines in 1986, in the largely nonviolent Iranian Revolution of 1979, in the dismantling of the Soviet Union in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, as well as in the Ukraine in 2004 and 2005, and in dozens of other examples from all over the world, including Tunisia and Egypt. Why should Germany be the one place where a force more powerful than violence could not possibly have prevailed?

If you can't accept that World War II could have been avoided, there is still this crucial point to consider: Hitler's armies have been gone for 65 years but are still being used to justify the scourge of humanity that we outlawed in 1928: war. Most nations do not behave as Nazi Germany did, and one reason is that a lot of them have come to value and understand peace. Those that do make war still appeal to a horrible episode in world history that ended 65 years ago to justify what they are doing -- exactly as if nothing has changed, exactly as if King and Gandhi and billions of other people have not come and gone and contributed their bit to our knowledge of what can and should be done.

Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda to lay down its arms? How would President Obama know that? The United States has never tried it. The solution cannot be to meet the demands of terrorists, thereby encouraging terrorism, but the grievances against the United States that attract people to anti-U.S. terrorism seem extremely reasonable:

Get out of our country. Stop bombing us. Stop threatening us. Stop blockading us. Stop raiding our homes. Stop funding the theft of our lands.  Stop taking out natural resources.  Such grievances are being aggravated rather than alleviated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, and elsewhere.

We ought to satisfy those demands even in the absence of negotiations with anyone. We ought to stop producing and selling most of the weapons we want other people to "lay down." And if we did so, you would see about as much anti-U.S. terrorism as the Norwegians giving out the prizes see anti-Norwegian terrorism. Norway has neither negotiated with al-Qaeda nor murdered all of its members. Norway has just refrained from doing what the United States military does, although sometimes participating.

Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama disagree, and only one of them can be right. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, King said:

"Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Love? I thought it was a big stick, a large Navy, a missile defense shield, and weapons in outerspace. King may in fact have been ahead of us. This portion of King's 1964 speech anticipated Obama's speech 45 years later:

"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.…I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up."

Other-centered? How odd it sounds to imagine the United States and its people becoming other-centered. It sounds as outrageous as loving one's enemies. And yet there may just be something to it.  King was a moral man who, if alive today, would be an environmentalist.  He might very well be risking arrest at the White House right now to demand clean energy rather than the opening up of enough new dirty fuel use to finish off the planet.  He would likely be committed to nonviolent actions of the sort planned for October 2011 at

A year ago, on October 2, 2010, a broad coalition held a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The organizers sought to use the rally both to demand jobs, protect Social Security, and advance a hodgepodge of progressive ideas, and also to cheer for the Democratic Party, whose leadership was not on board with that program. An independent movement would back particular politicians, including Democrats, but they would have to earn it by supporting our positions.

The peace movement was included in the rally, if not given top billing, and many peace organizations took part. We found that, among all of those tens of thousands of union members and civil rights activists who showed up, virtually all of them were eager to carry anti-war posters and stickers. In fact the message "Money for Jobs, Not Wars," was immensely popular. If anyone at all disagreed, I haven't heard about it. The theme of the rally was "One Nation Working Together," a warm message but one so vague we didn't even offend anyone enough to produce a counter-rally. I suspect more people would have shown up and a stronger message would have been delivered had the headline been "Bring Our War Dollars Home!"

One speech outshone all others that day. The speaker was 83-year-old singer and activist Harry Belafonte, his voice strained, scratchy, and gripping. These were some of his words:

"Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 'I Have a Dream' speech 47 years ago, said that America would soon come to realize that the war that we were in at that time that this nation waged in Vietnam was not only unconscionable, but unwinnable. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in that cruel adventure, and over two million Vietnamese and Cambodians perished. Now today, almost a half-a-century later, as we gather at this place where Dr. King prayed for the soul of this great nation, tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of life have come here today to rekindle his dream and once again hope that all America will soon come to the realization that the wars that we wage today in far away lands are immoral, unconscionable and unwinnable.

"The Central Intelligence Agency, in its official report, tells us that the enemy we pursue in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the al-Qaeda, they number less than 50 -- I say 50 -- people. Do we really think that sending 100,000 young American men and women to kill innocent civilians, women, and children, and antagonizing the tens of millions of people in the whole region somehow makes us secure?

"Does this make any sense?

"The President's decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion. That sum of money could not only create 600,000 jobs here in America, but would even leave us a few billion to start rebuilding our schools, our roads, our hospitals and affordable housing. It could also help to rebuild the lives of the thousands of our returning wounded veterans."

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2014, 11:46:09 pm »

Cornel West: Obama ‘A Global George Zimmerman’

Melanie Hunter
CNS News
July 24, 2013

Dr. Cornel West on Monday said President Barack Obama “has very little moral authority” to speak about the Trayvon Martin case, because the president is “a global George Zimmerman” for trying to “rationalize the killing of innocent children” in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

“I think we have to acknowledge that President Obama has very little moral authority at this point, because we know anybody who tries to rationalize the killing of innocent peoples, a criminal—George Zimmerman is a criminal—but President Obama is a global George Zimmerman, because he tries to rationalize the killing of innocent children, 221 so far, in the name of self-defense, so that there’s actually parallels here,” West said.

Full article here
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2014, 11:47:24 pm »

Obama betrays the left; cheers continued expansion of drug war, criminalization of plant-based medicine

by Mike Adams
April 16, 2012

(NaturalNews) If you happen to need even more evidence that President Obama has gutted his campaign promises and betrayed not only the left but also African Americans who enthusiastically supported his election, he has just gone public with his support for the continued war on drugs. Keeping marijuana criminalized, it seems -- and keeping more African Americans in prison -- is a top priority for the Obama administration.

This means Obama supports the midnight DEA raids on our citizenry; the filling of prisons with small-time pot smokers; the disproportionately punitive sentences handed down to black men and women across America who aren't really criminals at all... they merely suffer from a chemical addiction that would more rightly be considered a medical issue.

Nearly every country in Latin America has now openly and publicize recognized that the so-called "war on drugs" is a complete and total failure. But Obama thinks it's just great! Fill the prisons! Prosecute more blacks! Buy more guns and night vision gear for the DEA! That's what Obama's America stands for, it seems.

"I personally and my administration's position is that legalization is not the answer," Obama said just hours before the meeting of Latin American leaders at the Convention Centre in Cartagena, Colombia, for the Americas Summit ( Meanwhile, Obama's top Secret Service agents and military commanders were banging Colombian whores in the background, then refusing to pay them their $47 prostitution fee. ( Obama had "no comment" on that particular issue.

Let's get real about all this. Marijuana prohibition simply doesn't work. At least not for reducing crime and drug addiction. Anyone who thinks prohibition works is completely delusional. But it does work for certain special interests. What are those special interests, anyway?

Who BENEFITS from the continued criminalization of marijuana?

If you really want to know why prohibition remains in place with marijuana, it's simple to find out why. Just ask yourself "Who benefits?"

• The DEA. Without a drug "problem," the DEA won't get hundreds of millions of dollars worth of increases in operating budgets from the federal purse strings. If drugs were decriminalized, the DEA would have to be sharply downsized (which would be a great thing for liberty and safety but a terrible thing for the DEA honchos).

• Private prisons. Thanks to illegal agreements between prison operators and state governments, prisons can put prisoners to work at slave labor wages -- just a few cents an hour -- manufacturing goods that the corporate prison owners sell for pure profit. If you thought the Nike sweatshops in Asia were bad, go visit a prison in the USA some time and watch the slave labor taking place right here at home.

• Local police. The "drug war" is the excuse that local police departments use to receive more grant money for weapons, assault gear and now even armored assault vehicles to be used against the citizens. Without the drug war excuse, all this grant money disappears and these cops have to go back to actually serving the community instead of bashing in doors like a bunch of cocaine cowboys.

• The government drug runners! It's now a well-known fact that the ATF, DEA and other government agencies are all heavily involved in running drugs across America. Just Google any of these terms if you want to check it out for yourself. The ATF is even engaged in money laundering through the globalist banks. This is why government crackdowns on drugs are highly selectively -- drug raids are really just a way to eliminate the competition so that the biggest drug dealer of all -- the government itself -- can continue to rake in the maximum profits. Legalizing drugs would obviously cause street prices to collapse, sucking all the profits out of the government-run drug business.

• Local District Attorneys and prosecutors. Without the drug war to give them a juicy field of easy targets to prosecute, their careers would take a huge hit. It's so much harder to arrest real criminals than to go after pot smokers and raw milk farmers, isn't it? Gee, imagine the difficulty of actually fighting REAL crime for a change?

• Big Government. The entire government benefits from the continued criminalization of drugs. For starters, it establishes the outrageous precedent that government can outlaw a native plant -- even a plant that has grown wild across North America for hundreds of years. This alone is an outrageous encroachment on fundamental human freedom. Beyond that, the government can always point to "drug violence" as another excuse to squash our freedoms and put in place a tyrannical police state. It's all "for your own good," of course. Isn't it always?

• Big Pharma and the hospital industry. Because recreational drugs are illegal, they're often cut with dangerous chemicals that cause liver damage and kidney damage. This results in yet more repeat business for hospitals and the drug industry. If street drugs were legalized, they would be standardized and regulated, and adulteration of those products would be extremely rare. They would be safer to use, in other words, which is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry is dead set against. They only make money when people are damaged or sick from using street drugs concocted in somebody's trailer.

Who LOSES from the drug war? You!

So we've covered the beneficiaries of the drug war, but who loses from it? You do, of course: Your liberties, freedoms, tax dollars and personal safety are all threatened by the existence of the war on drugs. Decriminalizing and regulating these drugs would have an enormously positive impact on you and your life.

If drugs were decriminalized, here's what would happen:

• Drug gangs would vanish as their source of revenues (illegal drugs at black market prices) dry up.

• Drug-related crime would sharply fall.

• State revenues would skyrocket from the regulated sale of legalized marijuana.

• The corrupt prison industry would collapse to perhaps only 25% of its current size.

• Your personal safety and security would be greatly enhanced due to the lack of drug violence, shootings, home invasions and more.

• Mexican drug gangs would lose their power base, resulting in a sharp drop in crime along the border.

• Former "criminal" pot smokers would once again become taxpaying members of the workforce, contributing to the financial upkeep of society rather than draining it as prisoners.

• The happiness index across society would sharply rise.

Even the Red Cross says decriminalize marijuana

It's all pure economics, my friends. Cause and effect. Legalize recreational drugs and you end the violence, the crime, the prison system overload and the entire underground market for the stuff.

It's all so obvious that even the Red Cross has called for decriminalization (

At the same time, countless members of the FBI, DEA and active-duty police organizations are also openly calling for decriminalization (

The rational argument for ending prohibition is further detailed at

There are no rational reasons for keeping marijuana criminalized. There are only political reasons for doing so. That's why Obama continues to support the irrational war on drugs -- because it's a political issue.

Obama, the betrayer of the political left

Obama, of course, is a teleprompter-reading puppet of the global elite. He does what they tell him to do, and right now they're telling him to keep pushing Drug War propaganda because it's a highly effective way to expand the police state and keep people living in fear while denying them access to plant-based medicine.

Obama, it turns out, has betrayed the left so many times I can hardly keep count: He supports the GMO industry, he signed the NDAA which expands secret arrests and secret Gitmo-style prisons, he's an opponent of farm and food freedom ( and he has proven himself to be nothing more than a big business operative who defends the status quo while preaching "hope and change" that he never delivers.

Obama has assaulted free speech, due process (, medical freedom and parental rights. In doing so, he has betrayed many of the top priorities of the very people who once put him into office.

He wants to keep marijuana criminalized because that's what the police state fascist system of corporate control wants.

Of course, this doesn't mean the alternatives we're given are going to be any better. This is not some pitch for Romney, for God's sake. That guy is just as much of a corporate sellout as Obama (and Bush before him). Elections are created to present the illusion that the People have a choice when, in reality, all they're voting for is which color of puppet they want to see on television while we're all being imprisoned, exploited, enslaved and oppressed by a growing fascist state.


Obama Fights to Keep Black People in Jail

By Margaret Kimberley
Global Research, August 01, 2013
Black Agenda Report 31 July 2013

The Obama administration is fighting a federal court ruling that would free the remainder of the mostly Black prison inmates convicted under now-defunct, viciously racially disparate crack cocaine laws. The First Black President and his Black attorney general are determined to keep “5,000 people in jail who have no reason to be there.”

“Thousands of inmates, mostly black, languish in prison under the old, discredited ratio. Like slavery and Jim Crow laws, the intentional maintenance of discriminatory sentences is a denial of equal protection.”
– Sixth District Court of Appeals

If Barack Obama’s ascendance to the oval office was worth a fraction of the importance which has been claimed, the president would do something to stop the human catastrophe of mass incarceration and the destruction it has wrought on black Americans. Instead he has officially given it his blessing. In a stunning decision, the Obama administration has made it quite clear where it stands. It stands with making certain that the president spends his two terms in office pleasing white people at the expense of black people.

Mass incarceration was the mechanism used to put black people back in their place after the civil rights movement. It was a perfect means of turning back the clock and diminishing or destroying the citizenship rights which were won after years of struggle. The war on drugs was the pretext for carrying out this plan and the hysteria fomented against crack cocaine created popular demand for draconian law enforcement measures. The United States then became the imprisonment capital of the world with black people paying a disproportionate price.

Under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the federal government officially established that one form of a drug would by statute be treated with greater severity than another form, a 100:1 degree of severity. For sentencing purposes, one gram of crack cocaine was treated like 100 grams of powdered cocaine and thereby established harsh mandatory minimum sentences in federal courts.

Those disparities were opposed from the very beginning by astute lawyers, civil libertarians and anyone savvy about the role that the criminal justice system has always played in imposing the harshest treatments on black people. Years of agitation brought relief in 2010 when Congress passed and President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act. The sentencing disparity didn’t end however, it was merely reduced. The ratio went from 100:1 to 18:1. The legislation should have been called the Not Quite So Unfair Sentencing Act.

The 100:1 disparity existed for some 20 years before it was addressed and didn’t undo the damage of two decades. What would happen to those who were sentenced between 1986 and 2010? According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, those persons ought to have the opportunity for retroactive redress. This court noted that between 1988 and 1995 in seventeen states which included large cities such as Boston, Denver, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles and Dallas, not one white person was tried under federal regulations for a crack cocaine related offense. In US v Blewett it ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act “should apply to all defendants, including those sentenced prior to its passage.” The court’s decision sounds reasonable and fair, but not to the Obama justice department, which is seeking to overturn the ruling. In other words, the Obama administration is leaving 5,000 people in jail who have no reason to be there and they are doing it for the most cynical of motives.

The Obama apologists have ready-made excuses for any and all acts of evil-doing perpetrated by this administration. One of the favorite enabler rationales is that he isn’t just the president for black people, but for everyone. True, but he seems to never be the president for black people. We have no political victories to point to, no reason for happiness except outdated notions of race pride.

It is clear that Obama has chosen to side with white America against black America. There is no other explanation. He is a lame duck and no longer has to worry about re-election. He had a court decision which he could support and which gave him an easy out.

But there is no easy out when it comes to black people, criminal justice issues and the Obama administration. It seems that the protest slogans are true. We are all Trayvon Martin and must be prepared to face attack and even death and have no expectation of redress from the federal government. We are all Bradley Manning and must be willing to risk being hit with the sledge hammer of federal prosecution for any offense.

We are still being told that the term limited president can’t risk being identified with his most loyal supporters. White people must win, black people must lose and black people should just keep quiet about it all.

Of course the president notoriously parsimonious with pardons and commutations could change this situation with the stroke of a pen. He could commute the sentences of the 5,000 people still in federal prisons who were sentenced under the old rules. That will never happen and the unlucky people sentenced just weeks before the 2010 act was signed, are just victims of a “cosmic roll of the dice.”

The hollowness of Obama mania has never been more clear cut than in this instance. When he first campaigned for the presidency in 2008 detractors were urged to be quiet and let him win because his feet could be held to the fire. No such flames were ever lit, and the Obamaphiles maligned anyone who didn’t go along with their cultish fixation.

The constitutional law professor president doesn’t care much about the constitution nor does the technically black man care about black people. The president is just the latest ambitious man who was able to make the right sales pitch to the right people and ended up becoming president as a result. There certainly isn’t any change for the people he could help but has chosen not to.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2014, 11:49:17 pm »

Obama's Scheme to Kill Public Housing and Give the Land to Banks

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

June 02, 2010

For the Obama administration, every bit of public space and property is "on the table" - subject to privatization. Transfer of public wealth to private hands seems a White House obsession. Next on the auction block: the nation's public housing stock. "This is gentrification and urban displacement on a gargantuan scale."

President Obama's greatest domestic imperative is the transfer of public wealth and resources to the private sector. He moved tens of trillions of dollars to Wall Street in the guise of rescuing the economy. Hundreds of billions in public funds are scheduled for transfer to private insurance corporations over the next decade or so, masquerading as a health care plan. His support for corporate-backed charter schools and other so-called public-private partnerships has dramatically escalated the privatization of education in the United States. Obama calls it a "Race to the Top." Now, the Obama administration is serving up to corporate vultures the nation's dwindling stock of public housing, with bankers as the ultimate beneficiaries.

The plan is slick, but easy enough to see through - like the president, himself. Dubbed the Transforming Rental Assistance initiative, or TRA, the scheme would allow banks and other speculators to mortgage public housing, and then raise the rents to ten percent above market value. The federal government would make up the difference, pumping the people's money directly into Wall Street accounts. Eventually, of course, the feds will halt or cut back payments, and the properties will revert to the bankers, who will sell them to developers and kick out the tenants. This is gentrification and urban displacement on a gargantuan scale - brought to you by the First Black President.

Imagine! Obama wants to transfer to banks and developers tens of thousands of acres of public-owned urban property - home to 1.2 million families, disproportionately Black and brown - all the while subsidizing the banksters' profits with billions of taxpayer dollars. He would entrust the fates of millions of poor people to the tender mercies of the same criminal-minded class that has destroyed a generation and more of Black homeowners and displaced legions of Black renters from the gentrifying cities.

Obama wants to transform public housing into a Section 8 subsidy program. That is the kiss of death. Section 8 housing has always been underfunded. In New York City, alone, 10,000 Section 8 voucher holders may not be able to pay their rent because the feds won't come up with the funding.

When public housing defaults on payments to the bankers under the Obama scheme, it will be a second bonanza for Wall Street - which is how billions are made in an economy ruled by parasites who create nothing, but charge a fee for everything.

Those are Obama's kind of people. I'm not just talking about the mega-banks and hedge-funders that backed him to the hilt in his presidential campaign. Obama's closest cronies and former clients from Chicago - including senior advisor Valerie Jarret - made their fortunes milking government subsidized housing programs for the poor until the federal government had to step in and pick up the pieces.

If Obama has his way, speculators will descend on all 3,000 of the nation's public housing agencies, bribing every official in sight in a frenzy of corruption over federal land and subsidies. And the poor will start counting the days before they are put out in the street.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to

Obama’s Housing Program: A Windfall for Wall Street

By Nick Barrickman and Andre Damon
Global Research
August 08, 2013

US President Barack Obama spoke Tuesday at a high school in Phoenix, Arizona, where he outlined a series of proposals that would lead to a windfall for mortgage lenders, in the name of a “better bargain for the middle class.” Obama called for the elimination of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage lenders.

The proposal to eliminate the mortgage lenders represents yet another concession to the demands of Wall Street and the Republican right, which have for decades derided Fannie and Freddie as impinging on the “free market,” and blamed them, as a proxy for government intervention in the private economy, for the 2008 financial crash.

Obama said that his proposal would “end Fannie and Freddie as we know them,” adding that, “For too long, these companies were allowed to make big profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag. It was ‘heads we win, tails you lose.’ And it was wrong.”

Obama said, “I believe that our housing system should operate where there’s a limited government role and private lending should be the backbone of the housing market,” adding “I know that sounds confusing to folks who call me a socialist.”

The call for eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is entirely of a piece with every other action taken by the Obama Administration in response to the housing crisis, which has been aimed entirely at expanding the profits of the Wall Street financial institutions responsible for the 2008 crash.

The US home ownership rate hit its lowest level in nearly eight years in 2013, according to a report released in June by the Harvard University Center for Housing Studies.

In his speech, Obama presented a fraudulent overview of his administration’s record on the housing crisis, seeking to present his policies as aiming to “foster homeownership” and protect the “middle class.” Obama said that, “less than a month after I took office, I came here to Arizona and laid out steps to stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners get back on their feet” through a program which “helped millions of Americans save an average of $3,000 each year by refinancing at lower rates.”

Obama was referring to the Home Affordable Modification Program, which the White House initially claimed would help up to four million families avoid foreclosure. In fact, less than half a million people received permanent modifications to their mortgages as a result of the program, half of whom were still expected to default.

Neil Barofsky, the former Special Inspector-General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) described Obama’s mortgage modification program as a “failure,” which left home-owners in a “far worse place than they would have been had this program not existed.”

Barofsky characterized the program in his book, Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street, as follows: “[Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner apparently looked at HAMP as an aid to the banks, keeping the full flush of foreclosures from hitting the financial system all at the same time.” At one point, Geithner told Barofsky that the intended function of the program was to “foam the runway” for the banks in order to avoid being hit by too many mortgage defaults all at once.

Obama likewise praised the settlement that his administration mediated last year with the five largest mortgage lenders, saying, “we worked with states to force big banks to repay more than $50 billion to more than 1.5 million families—the largest lending settlement in history.”

The terms of this mortgage agreement were entirely favorable to the banks, while doing little or nothing to aid the millions of people who have been devastated by the collapse of the US housing market. In exchange for the settlement, the banks were released from liability for their fraudulent activities, including the widespread illegal practice of “robo-signing,” in which the banks had employees sign hundreds of thousands of foreclosure documents without any knowledge of the underlying mortgages.

Wall Street officials responded positively to Obama’s speech. “Washington has suddenly come alive on housing finance reform,” David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, told the New York Times. “We saw nothing substantive prior to this year, but now we’re in a housing recovery and the odds have clearly improved given that both the House and Senate have weighed in.”

As with all other initiatives Obama has undertaken, from healthcare, to immigration, to education “reform,” the basic parameters of his policies have been tailored to suit the interests of Wall Street and big business, while couched in the language of helping the “middle class,” combating inequality, and creating jobs.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2014, 11:52:32 pm »

50 Years Later – West Defiles Martin Luther King’s Memory

Tony Cartalucci
August 29, 2013

The differences between Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and current US President Barack Obama could not be greater. In fact, the only thing they have in common is that they are both black. Yet somehow, Western media outlets have managed to draw parallels between these diametrically opposed figures – presumably because they are indeed both black. AP recently published an article titled, “Obama Embodies King’s Dream and His Struggle,” stated:

    “The scheduled appearance later Wednesday of Obama, the first African-American president, was certain to embody the fulfilled dreams of hundreds of thousands who rallied there in 1963…”

Why? Merely because President Obama is black? Or because President Obama embodies any of the ideals of justice, equality, and peace that Martin Luther King Jr. championed for during life, and ultimately died for?

There is no greater way to defile the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. than to compare him with US President Barack Obama – a servant of an engine for the greatest disparity, inequality, and injustice on Earth – driven by the very corporate-financier interests King stood up against, was opposed by throughout his entire life, and most likely was killed by.

Image: A visual representation of the corporate-financier special interests represented by US
President Barack Obama’s cabinet, past and present.

Indeed, despite the left-leaning facade President Obama displays publicly, his entire cabinet, past and present, is a collection of corporate-financier special interests, warmongers, criminals, and elitists who merely couch a corporate-fascist, self-serving agenda behind well-meaning liberal-esque causes. A look at these characters more closely reveals just this:

- Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury): Group of 30, Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve
- Eric Holder (Attorney General): Covington & Burling lobbying for Merck and representing Chiquita International Brands in lawsuits brought by relatives of people killed by Colombian terrorists.
- Eric Shinseki (Secretary of Veteran Affairs): US Army, Council on Foreign Relations, Honeywelldirector (military contractor), Ducommun director (military contractor).
- Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff): Freddie Mac
- William Daley (former Chief of Staff): JP Morgan executive committee member
- Jacob “Jack” Lew (Chief of Staff) Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution (Hamilton Project)
- Susan Rice (UN Ambassador): McKinsey and Company, Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations
- Peter Orszag, (former Budget Director): Citi Group, Council on Foreign Relations
- Paul Volcker: Council on Foreign Relations, private Federal Reserve, Group of 30
- Ronald Kirk (US Trade Representative): lobbyist, part of Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, and Texas Pacific Group partnership to buyout Energy Future Holdings.
- Lawrence Summers (National Economic Council Director): World Bank, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution (Hamilton Project)

Image: Brookings Institution’s corporate backers – clear very un-liberal, and clearly not the
sort of interests Martin Luther King Jr. supported.

Of course, representation of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution (page 19, .pdf) should give any genuine left-leaning liberal pause for thought. These are think-tanks created by and for big business. The Brookings Institution in particular is home of the very architects of “George Bush’s” myriad of wars – as well as the wars now being waged under Obama.

In reality, Obama’s policy is driven by not only the exact same corporate-financier interests that drove Bush’s, but in fact, many of the exact same individuals are writing the policy versus nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran today who were behind “Bush’s” Iraq and Afghanistan wars – the consequences of which still are reverberating. This is what is called, “continuity of agenda,” with the feigned political proclivities of both Bush and Obama being nothing more than carefully orchestrated theater to divide and distract the public as a singular agenda transcends presidencies and perceived political lines.

King was also an Adamant Anti-War Activist

On the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, should he still walk this world today, would undoubtedly be taking the podium and speaking out against the latest war the US and its collaborators are gearing up for against Syria. He would undoubtedly have condemned the global war Obama has waged from Mali to Libya, from Syria to Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan, from Yemen to Somalia, to Uganda and beyond.

In a speech given on April 4, 1967 in New York City titled, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence,” King gives what is perhaps the widest encapsulation of his philosophy and worldview, one that would undoubtedly criticize and clash with the disingenuous US presidents of today, during their hollow celebrations of King’s iconic speech.

We should carefully reread King’s enlightening speech criticizing the Vietnam War which in part states [emphasis added]:

"A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.' This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

"America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood."

The US preparing to attack Syria, citing a humanitarian catastrophe it itself intentionally engineered as early as 2007 to divide and destroy both Damascus and its allies in Tehran, is surely “not just.” Rushing to war with fabrications (again), is surely “not just.” Sidestepping international law to pursue a hegemonic war dressed up as a humanitarian intervention is surely “not just.”

It is safe to say that America has not mended its ways and only traveled further down the dark path King warned us of back in 1967. The man “leading” us, or at least the front-man for the corporate-financier interests that drive America’s destiny, may honor King with carefully contrived words and well orchestrated public stunts, but in deeds and actions Obama and the corporate-financier elite that hold his leash, defile and dishonor King in every way imaginable.

If you want to honor King and his life’s work, honor it by implementing the words he uttered while alive, not by playing along with a system that resisted him until his death, and has since dishonored and exploited his memory with disingenuous praise while maliciously carrying out an agenda contra to everything King ever stood for.

You can read and listen to the whole April 4, 1967 speech, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence” on
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2014, 11:56:07 pm »

Obama's Money Cartel

How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

By Pam Martens
May 5, 2008

Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it’s marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn’t the press curious about this?

Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you’ll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers --  this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February  on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don’t. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six  that didn’t compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the “yes, we can” candidate in bed with this cartel? How can “we”, the people, make change if Obama’s money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we’re still in the primary season.


Obama's Big Sellout
The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders

by Matt Taibbi

Global Research, December 10, 2009
Rolling Stone - 2009-12-09

The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway

Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans."

Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

Then he got elected.

What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy.

What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.



"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2014, 12:03:17 am »

Martin Luther King Jr. Niece to Tout Pro-Life View at Memorial

by Steven Ertelt

In conjunction with Sunday’s dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial, his niece, Alveda King, will present the pro-life message at an event at the offices of the Family Research Council.

King, who is the full-time director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life, a Catholic pro-life group, will host a panel discussion and video presentation on Saturday at 11:00 a.m. “Redeem the Dream: The State of the Quality of Life in the 21st Century,” will present a frank assessment of how far African-Americans have come since Martin Luther King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech on August 28, 1963, and how the dream has been imperiled by the abortion industry.

“The murder of millions of African-American babies by abortion was not something my Uncle Martin envisioned or would ever have supported,” King said in a statement to LifeNews. “He was unequivocally pro-life, and it would break his heart to know that so many African-American leaders endorse freedom of choice over the right to life.”

“As people gather in the nation’s capital to remember and celebrate the life of my Uncle Martin, it is an opportune moment to declare that were he here today, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be standing with those working to stop the violence of abortion against children in the womb and restore them to equal protection under the law,” King said.


Dear Cecile Richards: Stop Using Martin Luther King Jr. to Promote Abortion

by Ryan Bomberger

Dear Cecile Richards,

Please stop abusing civil rights history to justify your present-day killing fields. Martin Luther King Jr’s memory is not a dummy that you can manipulate like a ventriloquist.

Although he regrettably accepted the inaugural Margaret Sanger Award from the nation’s largest birth control chain in 1966, he wasn’t praising the slaughter of millions that Planned Parenthood was plotting to make central to its mission.

The nation’s abortionist-in-chief tweeting about Juneteenth, a celebration of the abolition of the dehumanizing institution of slavery, is like China celebrating freedom of speech. “No one is free until all are free” apparently doesn’t apply to the millions of innocent human beings Planned Parenthood grinds in industrial garbage disposals, flushes down drains or stuffs into biohazard waste bags.

As with everything else with your billion-dollar empire, one has to put things into a truthful context. In 1966, abortion wasn’t legal.

MLK wasn’t praising the dismembering and suctioning of defenseless human beings. He, like many others during the 60s when Planned Parenthood feigned advocacy of strong families, was duped by an industry birthed in eugenic racism, that preached overpopulation mythology, demanded discriminatory immigration policies, and promoted forced sterilizations through its state eugenics boards. By the way, Elaine Riddick sends her love.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood, she was one of over 60,000 people sterilized as part of your organization’s “proud” history. If you want to accurately depict history, Maafa21 is a great resource.

I know you suffer from mythomania, but do you distrust women so much that you have to falsify history to champion abortion? You were a history major in college, so I’m sure you know your website’s contention that “women couldn’t vote in Margaret Sanger’s America” is a complete lie. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. Sanger was born in 1879 and died in 1966. Women obviously voted in “Sanger’s America”. This is only one of many lies and distortions on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer-funded website, not to mention the omission of Sanger’s racist, elitist, and Nazi-influencing eugenics pseudoscience.

I know. I know. I know. Today’s Planned Parenthood isn’t like it was during Margaret Sanger’s days. And you’re right. It’s worse. Back then, black communities and other designated “unfit” citizens were targeted with birth control. Today, your blood-soaked abortion empire kills the “unwanted” over 330,000 times a year.  Yes, I can already hear you proudly proclaim: “Three percent!” As if killing human beings only 3% of the time is okay. I wonder if the American public would be okay with just 3% of their food tainted with toxic sewage. It’s only three percent.

Your propaganda is toxic sewage. And it’s been poisoning generations of Americans to believe that your billion-dollar abortion business (funded by half a billion taxpayer dollars annually) is the savior of women and the poor. No amount of seeming beneficence (e.g. breast cancer exams) makes up for the violent mutilation of hundreds of thousands every year. Even the KKK runs bake sales.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2014, 12:08:21 am »
From Chapter 2 of Webster Tarpley’s book, Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography....

Pages 69-76:


We have already seen Obama in his role as a community organizer for the Gamaliel foundation. We must stress that Obama’s role as a foundation operative begins here, but certainly does not end when he goes off to law school. No indeed: the vocation of being a foundation operative constitutes Obama’s family business. His mother was a Ford Foundation operative, and most of the jobs Obama has ever held were with foundations. When it came time for Obama to start going to church, he unfailingly chose a congregation where Ford Foundation race theory is projected onto the plane of heaven and eternity in the form of the provocateur religion of Black liberation theology.

Before we go any further with Obama's own story, it will be useful to offer an overview of the strategic orientation of US foundation operations during this timeframe. Foundations represent an extremely important part of the social control mechanisms which prevail today in the United States.

The foundations are all the more effective in their chosen work of social control, engineering and political manipulation because many people are simply unaware of the immense scale of their operations, even though every broadcast on public television or National Public Radio is always accompanied by a litany of the foundations which have financed that program. One way to understand the pervasive influence of foundations is to say that they are as omnipresent in this country today as the CIA and the FBI were during the Cold War. This is partly because many intelligence community operations of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s have morphed into foundations under the auspices of President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which privatized many of the existing spook activities. Many naïve people still think of foundations as being humanitarian or charitable institutions concerned with education, health, and the improvement of the human condition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like Henry Ford himself, the Pew family and many other oligarchical clans whose family fortunes have been transformed into foundations harbored fascist sympathies during the 1920s and 1930s. Today, they are overwhelmingly multicultural, politically correct, Malthusian, and neo-Luddite in their ideology. They hate science and technology because these are seen as avenues of upward social mobility for the lower orders, and as a threat to continued financier domination. Perhaps more than any other agency, the foundations have engaged in the strangulation and perversion of the American spirit over these past four decades in particular.

The late Christopher Lasch, in his classic study The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1995), notes the important role of class prejudice in forming elite attitudes in this country today. He describes how well-to-do liberals, when confronted with resistance to their ideas of social engineering, “betray the venomous hatred that lies not far beneath the smiling face of upper-middle-class benevolence,” and turn on those who “just don’t get it” (Lasch, 28). The result is an academic culture which appears to be contemptuous of the human potential of vast strata of the American population. This is the kind of mentality which we can see in Obama's infamous San Francisco “Bittergate” rant. This is a condensed version of the elitist and left authoritarian mental world of the pro-oligarchical foundation bureaucrats. In order to understand Obama's mentality and the decisions he might make as the head of the future regime, we are therefore obliged to review some critical points about the recent historical record of the Ford Foundation and its satellites.

Most discussions of Obama's career as what he calls a “community organizer” are crippled by a total lack of historical background on the Ford Foundation and its satellites, and further by any comprehension of the goals of foundation-funded social engineering. Because Obama is so totally a product of the Ford Foundation and the foundation world of which it is the center, we will have to repeat several times in this volume that the main purpose of these foundations by the latter half of the 20th century was to exercise social control, so as to perpetuate the uncontested political domination of Wall Street financial interests over the legitimate aspirations of the various ethnic groups, economic strata, and other components of the American population.

The watchword of the Ford Foundation is Divide and Conquer. The goal of its projects is always to play one group in the population against some other group so as to create conflict, strife, and division, so that the Wall Street interests can emerge unscathed and triumph. The individual foundation grant officers involved in this process may well be motivated by some hallucination of Marxism, multiculturalism, or political correctness, but it is not these values which the foundations finally serve: their goal is to disrupt and abort the emergence of anything approaching a politically conscious united front of the American people capable of demanding radical economic reforms, and especially to ward off a revival of the New Deal, new political formations based on economic populism, a Marshall Plan for the cities, including the urban ethnic minority populations, and so forth.


When Obama says that he was a community organizer, it would be far more accurate to say that he was a poverty pimp for the Ford Foundation network, a paid race-monger whose job it was to organize politically naïve and desperate groups on the south side of Chicago into corporatist, dead-end, fragmented, parochial projects from which they would derive little or no benefit, and the goal of which was simply to use up enough of their lives in futility until they dropped out altogether in despair. The only exception to this was the use of these community control or local control or community action advocacy groups as political pawns against certain state and local political factions, or as battering rams against other groups of working people, above all trade unions made up of municipal employees, especially teachers. This is where Obama learned to support “merit pay” as a weapon against teachers unions.

In order to understand the foundation world, it is necessary to recall that these foundations generally represent the family fortunes of industrialists and businessmen of the 19th and early 20th centuries -- the robber barons -- which have been placed into tax-free status as charitable trusts, all the while perpetuating the urge for power of their founders. The foundations represent family fortunes or fondi which have attained a kind of oligarchical immortality by transcending the mere biological existence of the individuals and families who created them, and becoming permanent institutions destined to endure indefinitely.

These foundations once upon a time had to maintain some credibility by funding hospitals, universities, libraries, scientific research, and other projects which often had genuine social utility. Shortly after the Second World War, there began a trend towards social engineering and social action on the part of the foundations. The leader in this was the Ford Foundation, which, because it was the largest and wealthiest of the US foundations, quickly became the flagship and opinion leader for the other foundations. Foundation officers represent the very essence of the financier oligarch mentality, and one result of this is that they generally all do the same thing at the same time in their respective fields of specialization. Because of this, control over the Ford Foundation represents a social control mechanism of great strength, which has been a decisive force in shaping the decline of US society and national life, especially over the last 40 years.

Dean Rusk had served Averill Harriman and Dean Acheson during the Truman administration, and then became president of the Rockefeller Foundation in the late 1950s; he ‘once described Ford’s influence on other foundations: What the “fat boy in the canoe does,” he said, “makes a difference to everybody else.” And Ford’s influence was never stronger than after it adopted the cause of social change. Waldemar Nielsen’s monumental studies of foundations, published in 1972 and 1985, only strengthened the Ford effect, for Nielsen celebrated activist philanthropy and berated those foundations that had not yet converted to the cause. “As a result,” recalls Richard Larry, president of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, “a number of foundations said: ‘If this is what the foundation world is doing and what the experts say is important, we should move in that direction, too.’” The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, for example, funded the National Welfare Rights Organization--at the same that the organization was demonstrating against Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York. The Carnegie Corporation pumped nearly $20 million into various left-wing advocacy groups during the 1970s.’ (Heather Mac Donald, “The Billions of Dollars That Made Things Worse,” City Journal, Autumn 1996)


In the second half of the 1960s, the social ferment generated by defeat in Vietnam, the student movement, the antiwar movement, the civil rights movement, and the gathering economic decline of the country spurred the foundations into action. With unerring oligarchical class instinct, they could see the grave danger that might be represented for financier domination by the possible fusion in a united front of the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, the labor movement, and the student movement. Their answer to this was to promote and fund organization forms that were so narrow, so fragmented, and so parochial, that they prevented the necessary cooperation among these movements, thus blocking them from attaining most of their principal goals….

Right-wing commentators…are generally incapable of analyzing the real motivations for what the foundations do; they usually attribute the catastrophic results of foundation social engineering to some misguided instincts to do good. Nothing could be further from the truth: the goal of the foundations is to maintain the brutal regime of finance capital, and this presupposes that there be no national coalition capable of expressing a national interest in contradiction to the dictates of the Wall Street financiers. The rightwingers are therefore forced to make up fantastic stories of how Marxists have crept in to the temples of finance capital by the dark of the moon, so as to advance their work of revolution. In reality incendiary race baiting and pseudo-revolutionary and hyper-revolutionary rhetoric are most often the stock in trade of the foundation-funded political operative, who gets paid good money to inflame the mutual animosities and resentments of groups that ought to be uniting against Wall Street, rather than squabbling with each other for some petty and futile local concession. Barack Hussein Obama is precisely one of these foundation-funded political operatives or poverty pimps….


The beginnings of the local control-community control-poverty pimp apparatus of domestic social engineering and counterinsurgency goes back to the Ford Foundation’s Gray Areas Project of the 1960s, which was spearheaded by an obscure and highly influential Ford Foundation operative named Paul Ylvisaker. ‘The first such “action-oriented” program, the Gray Areas Project, was a turning point in foundation history--because it was a prime mover of the ill-starred War on Poverty--a turning point in American history as well. Its creator, Paul Ylvisaker, an energetic social theorist from Harvard and subsequent icon for the liberal foundation community, had concluded that the problems of newly migrated urban blacks and Puerto Ricans could not be solved by the “old and fixed ways of doing things.” Because existing private and public institutions were unresponsive, he argued, the new poverty populations needed a totally new institution--the “community action agency”--to coordinate legal, health, and welfare services and to give voice to the poor. According to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ford  “proposed nothing less than institutional change in the operation and control of American cities….[Ford] invented a new level of American government: the inner-city community action agency.” Ylvisaker proceeded to establish such agencies in Boston, New Haven, Philadelphia, and Oakland.’ (Heather Mac Donald)

The initial phase of Ford Foundation intervention into the black inner-city ghetto under the rubric of the Gray Areas strategy helped to fuel the Watts, Detroit, and Newark riots of 1965-1967. The community action projects that were begun in these years did not deliver what they promised, but did set the stage for the futile and self-defeating violence of “Burn, baby burn,” which was considered fashionable in the radical chic salons of the day. “Unfortunately, because it was so intent on persuading the federal government to adopt the program, Ford ignored reports that the community action agencies were failures,” according to historian Alice O’Connor.

Reincarnated as federal Community Action Program (CAPs), Ford’s urban cadres soon began tearing up cities. Militancy became the mark of merit for federal funders, according to Senator Moynihan. In Newark, the director of the local CAP urged blacks to arm themselves before the 1967 riots; leaflets calling for a demonstration were run off on the CAP’s mimeograph machine. The federal government funneled community action money to Chicago gangs--posing as neighborhood organizers--who then continued to terrorize their neighbors. The Syracuse, New York CAP published a remedial reading manual that declared: “No ends are accomplished without the use of force....Squeamishness about force is the mark not of idealistic, but moonstruck morals.” Syracuse CAP employees applied $7 million of their $8 million federal grant to their own salaries’ (Heather Mac Donald)

McGeorge Bundy should have been arrested for  inciting to riot, since that is exactly what he was doing. The political benefits of the resulting backlash would of course be harvested by demagogues like Nixon and Agnew….


In order to fragment, divide, and frustrate the ongoing political upsurge, the organizational forms which the Ford Foundation was using its fabulous wealth to create had to be as narrow, fragmented, apolitical, exclusive, and petty as possible. “Community Action Programs were a calculated means of keeping control. To deliver a particular point of view, foot soldiers got busy. Militants and Black Power were a joke! The Ford Foundation, through its president, McGeorge Bundy, was one step ahead and positioned to penetrate the movement. In promising to help achieve full domestic equality, they played a vanguard role and become the most important organization manipulating the militant black movement.” (Pulling No Punches, October 28, 2007)

McGeorge Bundy was a Skull and Bones graduate of Yale, a protégé of Dean Acheson, and the director of the National Security Council under President Kennedy....Bundy had left government in 1966, and would stay on as boss of the Ford Foundation until 1979. For much of this time, Bundy was considered to be the informal spokesman for the US Eastern Anglophile banking establishment, otherwise known as the financier oligarchy or ruling class. Accurate accounts of Bundy’s activities are very hard to come by, because no foundation has been willing to pay for an in-depth analysis of how foundation-funded social engineering is destroying this country.

Bundy was, in short, a butcher, but he was also a sophisticated ruling-class political operative. Bundy was a slightly younger colleague of the generation of self-styled “wise men” who had reorganized the Anglo-American world empire in the wake of World War II. Bundy was a dyed-in-the-wool, hereditary, silver-spoon oligarch, who was conscious of representing one of the most powerful and aggressive centers of imperialist social engineering. ‘David Halberstam was correct to quote one of McGeorge Bundy’s colleagues as stating that Bundy “…is a very special type, an elitist, part of a certain breed of men whose continuity is to themselves, a line to each other and not the country.”’ (Vincent J. Salandria, “The Promotion of Domestic Discord, an address at the conference of the New England Branch of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, October 23, 1971)

Bundy was determined to ram through the Ford Foundation counterinsurgency strategy, whatever the cost to New York City and its people: as one student of these events observes, “McGeorge Bundy was not a man given to self-doubt. (He once cut off discussion at a foundation meeting to a group of program officers: “Look, I’m settled about this. Let’s not talk about it any more. I may be wrong, but I’m not in doubt.”) And if he had second thoughts about the path down which he was taking the foundation, he did not express them at the time. Indeed, his speeches and writings in that period showed a confident determination to continue working with black militants.’ (“McGeorge Bundy: How the Establishment’s Man Tackled America’s Problem with Race,” Tamar Jacoby)


Bundy started by revamping the grant priorities inside the Ford Foundation to focus on black oppression, as well as the parallel problems of other ethnic minorities. It is important to note that racial oppression was never defined by the Ford Foundation in broad-based economic terms, such as the need for modern housing, new urban mass transit, top-flight medical care, high-tech jobs with union wages, a quality college education for all ghetto youth, and other reforms which would have necessitated a domestic Marshall Plan costing hundreds of billions of dollars. This was something which the oligarchs had no intention of paying for. Rather, the Ford Foundation claimed that the oppression of the black community was a matter of white racist attitudes, as reflected in institutional arrangements which prevented black self-determination, community control, and self-esteem. In this case, the oligarchs could claim that white blue-collar workers were the real culprits, since they were the ones who came into the most intensive daily contact with oppressed blacks. “Bundy reallocated Ford’s resources from education to minority rights, which in 1960 had accounted for 2.5 percent of Ford’s giving but by 1970 would soar to 40 percent.” The same methods were also applied to Hispanics and Latinos in programs that were the precursors of the lunatic provocateur propaganda of groups like Atzlan, which makes the absurd demand that many American states be restored to Mexico....

    Under Bundy’s leadership, Ford created a host of new advocacy groups, such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (a prime mover behind bilingual education) and the Native American Rights Fund, that still wreak havoc on public policy today. Ford’s support for a radical Hispanic youth group in San Antonio led even liberal congressman Henry B. Gonzalez to charge that Ford had fostered the “emergence of reverse racism in Texas.” (Heather Mac Donald)

Congressman Gonzalez, a real fighter who later pioneered in the effort to impeach George Bush the elder,

    complained that the Ford Foundation had promoted racism among his people, Mexican Americans. He related how the Ford Foundation made a grant of $636,000 to the Southwest Council for LaRaza. He said: The Foundation wanted to create new leadership, and in fact the new leaders it has created daily proclaim that existing leadership is no good … … the president of MAYO, … likes to threaten to “kill” what he terms ‘gringos’ if all else fails … … I must come to the sad conclusion that, rather than fostering brotherhood, the foundation has supported the spewings of hate, and rather than creating a new political unit, it has destroyed what little there was …’ (Salandria)

We will see later on that the methods of the Ford Foundation in regard to the subversion and manipulation of the American Indian movement for financier and provocation purposes are virtually identical to the approach employed towards black and Hispanic target populations.


Martin Luther King was perceived by the Ford Foundation as a very serious threat, because of the inclusive united-front methods by which he proposed to merge the struggles of the black community with those of labor and the antiwar movement. The oligarchical class instinct of the Ford Foundation therefore dictated that ultra-radical racist provocateurs be thrown into the fray who would condemn Dr. King as a collaborationist Uncle Tom who was out of touch with younger firebrand radicals. The general heading for these Ford Foundation provocateurs was the Black Power movement or the pork chop cultural nationalists, who were always notoriously eager for their foundation checks.

    In a sense, in this, Ford was only following up on its own early initiative: the foundation’s Gray Areas program, working in six inner cities in the early 1960s, had pioneered the idea of helping the ghetto help itself. But in 1964 the War on Poverty had taken the notion one step further, urging “maximum feasible participation” by the poor as a virtue in itself – calling on ghetto people not just to help run local services but teaching them to organize politically so that they could bargain with the government. As the idea gained credence, the emphasis of many anti-poverty programs shifted away from health care and education and job-training to teaching “leadership” and in effect telling “Whitey” off. Some people at the foundation were troubled by this new development. But they were largely unable to resist the growing pressure for any and all kinds of participatory programs. And it wasn’t long before Ford found itself paying for street gangs and avowed Black Power leaders. (Tamar Jacoby)

And again, the decision to fund the most incendiary lunatic agitators was a very conscious one, since their outrageous statements could be used to fuel the backlash of the white middle class against the militants for their demands.


Thanks to the sheer power of its multi-billion-dollar endowment, the Ford Foundation was able to create a new fad for shameless, race-baiting provocateurs on the national scene. H. Rap Brown became infamous for his favorite slogan that “violence is as American as cherry pie.” Rap also issued ominous threats, including his classic “If America don’t come around, we’re gonna burn it down.” This was the age of “burn, baby, burn,” while reactionary Republican strategists around Nixon and others thanked heaven for their extraordinary good fortune.

A good example of the Ford Foundation sponsorship for the most extreme black power militants as a countergang to Martin Luther King was the grant allocation in Cleveland, Ohio:

    Among the most controversial of these grants went to the Cleveland chapter of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality). Like even the most moderate civil-rights organizations, CORE had been drifting leftward through the 1960s. Its integrationist national director James Farmer had been replaced in 1966 by the younger and angrier Floyd McKissick, who along with Carmichael was among the first proponents of Black Power. Outflanked on the left by SNCC (Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee) and even tougher ghetto leaders advocating violence and a separate black nation, McKissick felt under strong pressure to prove his militancy. He began to talk of “revolution” and to forge links with black Muslims; he explicitly repudiated the phrase “civil rights,” replacing its appeal to morality with bristling talk of race-based “power.” Before long, his escalating racial rhetoric had driven most white members out of CORE. By 1967, SNCC had actually expelled whites, and in July CORE deleted the word “multiracial” from its constitution. With this, it dropped all pretense that it was pursuing integration or the hope of progress based on racial harmony.

    None of this apparently bothered the Ford Foundation, which announced two weeks later – even as the Newark ghetto erupted into riots – that it was giving $175,000 to CORE’S Cleveland chapter. Bundy explained at a press conference that his board had considered the grant “with particular care.” (In fact among some 16 trustees, only Henry Ford himself had expressed any doubts.) What’s more, said Bundy, “neither Mr. McKissick nor I suppose that this grant requires the two of us – or our organizations – to agree on all public questions.” The foundation had chosen Cleveland because it had been particularly hard hit by riots the past summer; Ford’s theory was that CORE might channel the ghetto’s grievances in a more constructive way, averting further violence in the streets. The money was earmarked for voter registration and the training of community workers who were them to help other blacks articulate their needs.’ (Tamar Jacoby, “McGeorge Bundy: How the Establishment’s Man Tackled America’s Problem with Race”)

Bundy the patrician had made McKissick the minority plebeian into his mercenary as part of an incipient war on the part of the financiers against the majority of the American people in the form of the white middle class and lower middle class.

Rational spokesmen for the black community were horrified by the kinds of reckless and irresponsible agitation which the Ford Foundation was creating: ‘In Cleveland, ‘A black city councilman who opposed the program said the youths were being taught “race hatred” and that they had been heard telling younger children that “we are going to get guns and take over.” Yet Ford continued to defend the grant: “I see it,” said a foundation consultant, “as a flowering of what Black Power could be.” In August 1968, the program was renewed, with explicit instructions to include local gang leaders.’ (Tamar Jacoby) The Ford Foundation was not making mistakes; it was rather acting with diabolical effectiveness to pursue its oligarchical class agenda.

Page 85:


By the time Barack Hussein Obama arrived on the foundations scene in the mid-1980s, the original community action/community control/local control counterinsurgency strategy of the foundation community had somewhat evolved into community development corporations. These CDCs were first of all a reflection of the fact that economic conditions had become much more desperate as a result of rampant economic misrule under the Reagan regime. The trade union movement in its traditional form had now been largely broken. The CDCs were basically apolitical, in that they presuppose  that any attempt to change the policies of the government in Washington was hopeless, and that the most that could be attempted was to make the slide into de-industrialization and poverty a little more comfortable. The CDCs were also corporatist in the strict sense borrowed from the Mussolini fascist corporate state: as an organization form, they brought together workers, bankers, foundation bureaucrats, and government officials in an attempt to cajole corporate interests into creating a few jobs in poverty-stricken and blighted neighborhoods. Alternatively, they sought minor reform such as measures to reduce asbestos or lead poisoning in schools and public buildings.

This is precisely the strategy which Barack Hussein Obama was implementing for the Gamaliel foundation, a satellite of the Ford Foundation, in the Altgeld neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. Obama was therefore a second-generation poverty pimp carrying out an overtly corporatist political plan designed to maintain the control of bankers and financiers over the city of Chicago in just the same way that McGeorge Bundy had done this in New York.

Page 88:


The role of poverty pimp within the framework of foundation-funded strategies for mass political and social manipulation, with a view to keeping the American people in a state of apathy, fragmentation, passivity, and oppression, is a very exact characterization of what Obama did during his years as a “community organizer.” To talk about poverty pimps is of course politically incorrect in the extreme, but it is the only way to convey the social reality of what we are dealing with in the case of Obama. For further background, we read in Wikipedia:

    Poverty pimp or "professional poverty pimp" is a sarcastic label used to convey the opinion that an individual or group is benefiting unduly by acting as an intermediary on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged or some other "victimized" groups. Those who use this appellation suggest that those so labeled profit unduly from the misfortune of others, and therefore do not really wish the societal problems that they appear to work on to be eliminated permanently, as it is not in their own interest for this to happen. The most frequent targets of this accusation are those receiving government funding or that solicit private charity to work on issues on behalf of various disadvantaged individuals or groups, but who never seem to be able to show any amelioration of the problems experienced by their target population.

This self-serving cynicism, in feeding off the plight of a group of desperate dupes who are turned into a salable political commodity, is the essence of Obama's career.

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2014, 12:10:48 am »

Where Was Martin Luther King Heading?

by Dan Sullivan
Saving Communities
August 2013

An intelligent approach to the problems of poverty and racism will cause us to see that the words of the psalmist — "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" — are still a judgment upon our use and abuse of the wealth and resources with which we have been endowed.

-- "Where Do We Go From Here?," A Testament of Hope: The essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr

Italicized passages are quotations.
All unattributed quotes are from Martin Luther King, Jr.

What do we know about King's aspirations?

Martin Luther King's approach was to inspire with a vision of justice, not to merely prescribe. He understood that "I have a dream" would unite us, but "I have a plan" would divide us. He also understood that, in a fluid struggle with combative opponents, a plan becomes a fixation for supporters and a target for opponents. A dream, on the other hand, inspires us not only to act, but to aspire, to plan, to think for ourselves, and to have faith. "Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."

Yet King clearly had a strategy — of pushing against boundaries, going deeper, and taking us out of our comfort zones — politically, intellectually, and spiritually.

He was a master at staying just far enough ahead of his own movement to challenge it without losing it. He carefully deduced what we didn't realize we were ready for and took us there. Clues in his speeches and writings suggest where he was going to take us next.

Beyond Race

No sooner had Martin Luther King become famous as our leading opponent of racism than he began to address poverty among all races. He saw that the most racist whites were themselves held down by an unjust economic system — that even those who reviled him and spit on him were victims. Without leaving race behind, he tackled poverty.

Beyond Poverty's Symptoms

Treating symptoms of poverty was not enough for King; more and more, he examined causes of poverty, asking why "people in the other America find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity."  He began to question, not only why those who worked hardest were poor, but why great concentrations of wealth and privilege kept all working people, and even small business owners, poorer than they ought to be. Even if he didn't "see the whole staircase," at least at first, he saw more with each step. He got many of his supporters, still smarting from abuse they had received because of their race, to look beyond their own plight and work to end poverty for all.

Beyond American Poverty

His volunteers were American; his funding was American; his network and contacts were American; even his expertise was about America; and although his fame was worldwide, it was greatest in America. Yet after seeing poverty abroad, he led us out of our comfort zone once again, asking us to address the causes of worldwide poverty.

Beyond War

His commitment to non-violence took him beyond the question of why poor black men were fighting a rich white man's war, beyond Vietnam, and even beyond warfare itself in the hope of building foundations for peace.

It is not enough to say "We must not wage war." It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but on the positive affirmation of peace.
- Speech in Oslo On receiving the Nobel Peace Prize

Beyond Left, Right, and Middle

King frequently criticized the materialism, lack of spirituality and "the end justifies the means" mentality of the far left, while being careful to similarly criticize these same attributes as prevailing in capitalism. Over and over, he stated that, Truth is found neither in traditional capitalism nor in classical communism. Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Communism fails to realize that life is personal. The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism.

The key word for King was "reconciles," which is entirely different from "compromises." Reconciliation is based on truth, on going deeper, on being truly radical. Compromises have been based on retaining power, avoiding conflict, and treating symptoms. King was impatient with "moderates" who would limit the movement to charitable programs for the poor.

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to the beggar; it understands that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will say: "This is not just." It will look across the oceans, and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of those countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just."

The Guaranteed Income

There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum — and livable — income for every American family.

King increasingly pressed for a guaranteed income to every citizen.

But, if he was against charity as a substitute for justice, where was this income to come from? A strong hint appears in his quote on the cover of this brochure:

"The Earth is the Lord's and the Fullness Thereof"

If the earth is the Lord's gift to all His people, by what right do we go around the world, grabbing it for ourselves? Why, by the "right of conquest"! By that same "right," some in our own country live off land rent they collect from others. Didn't our own system of land titles begin with conquest and political intrigue? How is it that Hispanics are mostly renting from whites in states with Spanish names? How is it that so many blacks rent from whites, not only in America, but even in Africa? Here is a problem that underlies racism, poverty, imperialism, war, and even the folly of left vs. right. For as the left so often tries to socialize what is rightly private, the right privatizes the earth itself, which is naturally social.

Reviving a Repressed Truth

The idea that the earth belongs to all of us equally, and that the rental value of land should be shared as a guaranteed income, is not new to Martin Luther King. It is a repressed truth that has been rediscovered over and over, only to be stifled, dismissed and co-opted by those who enjoyed the fruits of other people's labor. King's view resonates, not only with the Bible, but with Aristotle, the classical liberals, American revolutionaries, and even with Nobel laureates in economics. But the concept was most famously pressed by Henry George, America's first progressive economist. King began paraphrasing and quoting George, at least by 1965, and his approach became more and more "Georgist" as he delved into the question of why the great strides his civil rights movement had made were not abolishing poverty.

Without This Reform, Nothing Else Will Succeed

Up to recently we have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development. The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty....

In addition to the absence of coordination and sufficiency, the programs of the past have all had another failing - they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else.

In this statement, King was beginning to lay out the sad realization that, when the poor earn more because they are educated, their rents go up; that when the poor have stronger families and can earn more money, their rents go up, that even when the poor organize into unions, which he passionately supported, their gains in higher wages are met with higher rents and higher purchase prices for homes -  that landlords and banks operate in tandem to rob them. Even giving the poor public housing has turned out to be a cold, half-hearted effort at best, and a house of cards when speculators wanted land occupied by housing projects.

Only a basic income, a share of the Lord's earth and the fullness thereof, would go to the root of the matter. It would not only provide an income to the poor, but would break up the monopoly that constantly drives up rents.

This is the radicalism toward which Martin Luther King was headed. It is a radicalism that has been suppressed many times, but has resurfaced in the thinking of history's greatest thinkers. It is a radicalism we must embrace to honor Martin Luther King's legacy.

What Others Have Said:

Henry George: "The Crime of Poverty" 1885

"'No taxes and a pension for everybody;' and why should it not be? To take land values for public purposes is not really to impose a tax, but to take for public purposes a value created by the community. And out of the fund which would thus accrue from the common property, we might, without degradation to anybody, provide enough to actually secure from want all who were deprived of their natural protectors or met with accident, or any man who should grow so old that he could not work. All prating that is heard from some quarters about its hurting the common people to give them what they do not work for is humbug. The truth is, that anything that injures self-respect, degrades, does harm; but if you give it as a right, as something to which every citizen is entitled to, it does not degrade. Charity schools do degrade children that are sent to them, but public schools do not.

Tom Paine: "Agrarian Justice" 1796

"Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.... Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.... In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for....

"To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."

Milton Friedman: two interviews

"The proposal for a negative income tax is a proposal to help poor people by giving them money, which is what they need, rather than as now, by requiring them to come before a government official to tally all their assets and liabilities and be told that you may spend X dollars on rent, Y dollars on food, etc., and then be given a handout.... Once [the poor] get on welfare, we make it almost impossible for them to get off. In order for somebody who gets on to get off, he or she has to have a really good job, because to get off gradually, to earn a little bit, now doesn't pay...."

"Governments can collect taxes best on things that don't move. Land is an ideal basis of taxation because you can't take it away."

Abraham Lincoln: letter to law partner Gridley

"The land, the earth God gave to man for his home, sustenance and support, should never be in the possession of any man, corporation, society or unfriendly government any more than air or water -- if as much. An individual or company, or enterprise, acquiring land should hold no more than is required for their home and sustenance, and never more than they have in actual use in the prudent management of their legitimate business, and this much should not be permitted when it creates an exclusive monopoly. All that is not so used should be held for the free use of every family to make homesteads and to hold them as long as they are so occupied."

Winston Churchill:

"Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public conscience, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!

"And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!  

"All goes back to the land, and the land owner is able to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be."

Terence Powderly (Head of the Knights of Labor)

"The believer in absolute ownership must also be a believer in no ownership. He believes in absolute ownership for himself and no ownership for others....

"It is plain, then, that the use of the earth is all that man can lay claim to, and it is but equity that he should pay for the privilege of using it for his own purposes. Some do not want to use their portion, and may allow others to do so. These others should pay for that use, and pay for it in proportion as its possession benefits them, that the remainder may be recompensed for that which they surrendered to them....

"Everything erected upon the earth's surface is the result of labor, but the industry displayed does not confer ownership on the workman. The land made more valuable as the result of man's industry, escapes taxation, while he whose labor enriched it is taxed, and receives no part of the wealth his labor creates, save enough to keep body and soul in union with each other...."

Green Party Platform of 2013: Livable Income and Eco-taxes to help save the planet

"We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.

"We call for a universal basic income (sometimes called a guaranteed income, negative income tax, citizen's income, or citizen dividend). This would go to every adult regardless of health, employment, or marital status, in order to minimize government bureaucracy and intrusiveness into people's lives. The amount should be sufficient so that anyone who is unemployed can afford basic food and shelter. State or local governments should supplement that amount from local revenues where the cost of living is high."

"Enact a system of Community Ground Rent/Land Value Taxation that distinguishes between the socially and privately created wealth of land, by increasing the taxes on the former to retain for society the value that it collectively creates and lowers them on the latter to reward individuals for their initiative and work."

Maryland Libertarian Party Program:

Encourage efficient land use by reducing the tax on buildings and property improvements, leaving only assessments on land itself.

Clarence Darrow:

"The 'single tax' [on land value] is so simple, so fundamental, and so easy to carry into effect that I have no doubt that it will be about the last land reform the world will ever get. People in this world are not often logical."


"Woe unto them that join house to house,
that lay field to field, till there be no place,
that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!
In mine ears said the Lord of hosts,
Of a truth many houses shall be desolate,
even great and fair, without inhabitant."


"The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is Mine."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

"When the missionaries first came, they had the bible and we had the land. Now we have the bible and they have the land."

What to do now?

Those who wish to advance Martin Luther King's dream about sharing the earth and giving every citizen a basic income should contact Saving Communities (below), or any of the organizations listed at: (click on "Georgist Organizations")
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2014, 12:24:55 am »

The Pentagon Budget: Largest Ever and Growing

by Sara Flounders

Global Research, November 19, 2009
International Action Center - 2009-11-07

On Oct. 28, President Barack Obama signed the 2010 Defense Authorization Act, the largest military budget in U.S. history.

It is not only the world's largest military budget but is larger than the military expenditures of the whole rest of the world combined. And it is growing nonstop. The 2010 military budget--which doesn't even cover many war-related expenditures--is listed as $680 billion. In 2009 it was $651 billion and in 2000 was $280 billion. It has more than doubled in 10 years.


Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land

President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
January 1, 2012

Indeed it is a new day. Ushering in the New Year, President Obama signed legislation that helps to further destroy the principles the nation was founded upon.

President Obama, who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has now signed it. Of course, his promise was only for public consumption. After all, lying to your enemy is what invading corporate takeover armies do. It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be added while at the same time telling the American people he was fighting to protect their rights. This is treason on parade, in your face all out despotism– that is, for those paying any attention!

In this video is Alex Jones’ reaction to the bill and Obama’s accompanying signing statement:

As the Associated Press reports, the President signed the bill on Saturday “despite having ‘serious reservations’ about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

However, those reservations have nothing to do with the rights of the people under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that he swore to protect– rather, his reservations dealt with changes that “challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.” He reportedly accepted the legislation only after such impedance was removed.

Instead, it was a deceptive maneuver to appear wary of such powers when the White House demanded it all along. In fact, Obama’s veto threat was always about that issue– the language over Section 1022 and NOT the authorization for the indefinite detention of Americans in Section 1021. Rather, it was a debate over “requiring” military protocol on detention rather than leaving the discretion over whether to detain to the executive branch, under the power of the Presidency.

Yesterday, with a friendly note, Obama issued a signing statement that read:

    “Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

Despite positioning himself in the signing statement as cautious towards the rights of the individuals in the nation, the President has just signed into law a provision that threatens the right of every American to due process, and a public trial with a jury. Instead, he has handed over grotesque authority to himself and EVERY President that comes after him, whatever their intentions might be.

Obama’s signing statement later states:

    "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

Even if Obama’s stated intention here is true, it is no guarantee of the attitudes and interpretations of future presidents, or of the intent of their power advisors, many of whom operate the national security shadow network. Instead, it is yet another Constitution-destroying, power-grabbing so-called law.

The ACLU, too, warns about this deception:


Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement Is Meaningless

Administration itself demanded power to detain American citizens without trial

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Monday, January 2, 2012

Barack Obama’s signing statement that was added to the passage of the NDAA bill in an effort to dampen concerns over the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the bill is smoke and mirrors for a number of reasons – prime amongst them the fact that it was the White House itself – not lawmakers – who demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

On first reading, Obama’s signing statement appears to assuage fears that American citizens could be targeted for arrest and detention without trial.

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation,” wrote Obama.

However, the statement is meaningless for a number of reasons.

Firstly, even if Obama manages to fulfil one of the rare occasions on which he keeps his word, this does nothing to stop future administrations from exercising the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.

Secondly, the Obama administration is already carrying out even more egregious measures than those supposedly authorized within the NDAA, by targeting American citizens worldwide for state-sponsored assassination with no legal process whatsoever.

Thirdly, Obama has reversed almost every single promise he made to get elected – his word is no good. Given the right civil emergency, Obama could turn to indefinite detention of citizens without hesitation.

Crucially, Obama’s promise that he will not use the law to detain Americans without trial is completely hollow – because it was his administration that demanded the power to do so in the first place.

As the bill’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech on the floor last month, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

If the Obama administration is so opposed to the idea of detaining Americans without trial, why did they push for such powers to be included in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act?

It’s also necessary to highlight the fact that just because this bill has been passed into law, that shouldn’t bestow any kind of legitimacy to it given that indefinite detention is anathema to the bill of rights and the constitution. It was once a law that black people were not human – that doesn’t mean it’s right or should be given credence.


Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011

Jonathan Turley
Global Research
January 3, 2012

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.

Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:


Holder To Justify Killing Americans On Foreign Soil

Obama administration firms up support for state-sponsored assassination

Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, March 5, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder will today attempt to justify the Obama administration’s policy of state-sponsored assassination, as he prepares to give a speech explaining how the U.S. government can arbitrarily kill U.S. citizens on foreign soil.

“Holder plans to say in a major speech on Monday at Northwestern University law school in Chicago that lethal force is legal under a Sept. 18, 2001, joint congressional resolution,” reports the Associated Press.

The notion that the White House can target Americans for summary execution by merely claiming that they are associated with terrorism is chilling given the fact that Americans who engage in political activism or even banal behaviors have been characterized as potential terrorists by U.S. authorities.

The White House has asserted the right to carry out state-sponsored assassination anywhere in the world without having to provide any evidence or go through any legal process. The administration merely has to state that the target is a terrorist and it doesn’t matter whether they are an American citizen or not, as we saw in the case of American-born Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, who were both killed last year.

In December, Obama administration lawyers reaffirmed their backing for state sponsored assassination, claiming that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets” and do not have the right to any legal protection against being marked for summary execution.

During a CBS 60 Minutes interview in January, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta revealed that Obama himself personally approves the policy to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without trial on a case by case basis.

“So it’s the requirement of the administration under the current legal understanding that the president has to make that declaration, not you?” Panetta was asked, to which he replied, “That is correct.”

The administration’s support for state-sponsored assassination without a shred of legal oversight puts into context the worthlessness of an Obama ‘policy directive’ last week that promised the White House would not indefinitely detain American citizens under the National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed on New Years Eve.

As we documented at the time, it was the administration itself which demanded the controversial detention without trial provisions of the NDAA be applied to American citizens.

The NDAA defines the entire planet, including America, as a “battlefield,” meaning Americans could also hypothetically be assassinated without any legal process on U.S. soil under the legal framework that has been codified under Obama.

The recent announcement that up to 30,000 drones will be in American skies within ten years, allied to the DHS plan to spend up to $50 million dollars on a spy system that has been used to hunt insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of “emergency and non-emergency incidents” within the United States, makes it clear that Americans are being targeted as terrorists at both home and abroad.

The Cat’s Out of The Bag: Obama Administration And Shadow Government Admit Congress Doesn’t Matter

Saman Mohammadi
March 9, 2012

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted to Senator Jeff Sessions that Congress is dust and trash, and that the decision to take the U.S. military to war rests in the hands of unelected international bureaucrats in the United Nations, NATO, and other international organizations.

Basically, Panetta said that he answers to the despotic criminals who are behind the creation of a global dictatorship, not the American people.

This is high treason. This is a global coup d’etat by the international private banksters who created the United Nations based on a series of lies and two fraudulent and unnecessary world wars. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, President Barack Obama, and top Pentagon Generals are their agents. They are traitors and state terrorists.

The Pentagon, White House, CIA, and Homeland Security are not loyal to the American people and the U.S. Constitution, but to the criminal global banking cartel. They control a shadow government inside the official American government, which means the Congress is dead weight. Their silence regarding the 9/11 false flag event is proof that they are in the process of killing America, its traditions, its people, and its laws.

Senator Sessions told Panetta: “We spend our time worrying about the UN, the Arab League, NATO, and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States.” In response, Panetta repeated standard Pentagon talking points. He said America needs “international permission,” to bomb countries, but even the claim of internationalism is a lie and a fraud.

The United Nations is a sham. The UN’s legal authority is merely a veneer used to justify global conquest by the private banksters and other elements of the Western plutocracy. They knock off countries that refuse entry to Western private central banks, and criminal multinational corporations who love fascism and hate capitalism.

America was taken over by the criminal international private banksters in 1913. The Federal Reserve is their creature. These vultures have used the U.S. Military in WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and the War on Terror as their mercenary to consolidate their own power, and create a global authoritarian government.

Since their global political mission is almost complete, these evil parasites are bankrupting America and reducing it to a third world country. They no longer need America to conquer, steal, pillage, and burn down foreign nations.

Now, it is America’s turn to be pillaged, and burned to the ground by the same group of international aristocratic banking families based in London.

The age of “conspiracy theories” and the systematic denial of reality by the shadow state is over. The age of truth has dawned.

Alex Jones: Panetta Publicly Admits U.S. Military/Obama Takes It’s Orders from The U.N.

Obama’s Latest Executive Order: Martial Law, Confiscation of Private Property and Forced Labor

Kurt Nimmo
March 19, 2012

On Friday, March 16, Obama issued another unconstitutional executive order. The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO allows the government to confiscate your property without due process under the direction of Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security.

Obama’s EO allows the president to “take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements” in the event of a “potential threat to the security of the United States.”

Obama’s latest EO demonstrates once again that the executive will continue to violate the Constitution, in particular Article I, Section 1, which states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Any enactment of law by the executive is made in Excess of Jurisdiction and is by definition treason.

Fascist Executive Orders

Obama’s latest EO underscores and reemphasizes Bill Clinton’s EO 12919, signed on June 6, 1994.

Clinton’s 12919 followed a number of earlier executive orders allowing the government to steal your property – and also force you to be a slave laborer – during a vaguely declared “national emergency.” The government has given itself the authority to seize all communication (from television stations to CB radios), confiscate all food resources (including farms and farm equipment), take control of all transportation (including your family car), and compel you at gunpoint “under federal supervision” to work as a slave.

National Defense Resources Preparedness is a textbook example of fascism. It allows the government to steal privately owned property and publicly owned infrastructure and hand it over to its preferred corporate partners under the guise of a national emergency: “(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and (c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.”

Fascist philosopher and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini used his principle of a “nation in arms” to steal private property from citizens. Obama’s latest EO declares the right to do the same. Mussolini devised fascist corporatism – the philosophy of the “corporative state” – and Obama under the direction of his Goldman Sachs and transnational corporate and bankster controllers has updated this corporate-statist doctrine, including the ability to steal privately earned and held wealth under the pretense of a national emergency.

Martial Law

Previous administrations installed the groundwork for Obama’s authoritarian move. Under Reagan, executive agencies were granted sweeping emergency powers to not only grab infrastructure and private property, but also round up citizens and put them in concentration camps and force them into slave labor brigades.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

Obama’s NDAA was established to provide the legal mechanism for tasking the military to round up activists and others targeted by the government. Prior to the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other related programs, the government devised Rex 84 and in particular Operation Garden Plot, an operational plan to use the Army, USAF, Navy, and Marine Corp. in direct support of civil disturbance control operations. It has since added numerous elements under the rubric of Continuity of Government, the overall war on terror, civil disturbance and emergency response.


Yes, The Re-Education Camp Manual Does Apply Domestically to U.S. Citizens

The time for denial is over

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, May 4, 2012

RELATED: Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America

A shocking U.S. Army manual that describes how political activists in prison camps will be indoctrinated by specially assigned psychological operations officers contains numerous clear references to the fact that the policies do apply domestically to U.S. citizens.

Despite the fact that the manual is well over 300 pages long and would take hours to read properly, within minutes of posting our story yesterday a minority of commenters were claiming that the policies outlined in the document only pertained to foreign combat operations and did not apply domestically to U.S. citizens.

This is similar to the denial witnessed prior to the passage of the NDAA when some argued that the indefinite detention provisions did not apply to American citizens despite numerous legal analysts asserting they did and President Barack Obama himself acknowledging they did when he signed the bill.

Click here [.pdf] to read the full document entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The most alarming portion of the document appears on page 56 and makes it clear that detention camps will have PSYOP teams whose responsibility will be to use “indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes,” as well as targeting “political activists” with such indoctrination programs to provide “understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.”

Let’s make one thing clear – the manual primarily deals with enemy combatants captured and detained in foreign prison camps run by the U.S. Military. However, another thing that is just as clear from reading the manual in full is the fact that it also applies to citizens detained within the United States, whether they be DCs (displaced citizens) or “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”

Firstly, throughout the manual there are scores of references to how the U.S. Army would work together with the DHS, ICE and FEMA (page 24) to implement the policies “within U.S. territory” as part of “civil support operations” in the aftermath of “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.” (page 38).

“The handling of DCs (displaced citizens) is also a mission that may be performed in support of disaster relief or other emergencies within the United States or U.S. territories during civil support operations,” states page 33. Page 56 also states that it is the responsibility of the PSYOP officer to “control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.”

Resettlement conducted as a part of civil support operations will always be conducted in support of another lead agency (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security)” states page 37.

All these passages make it clear that the policies outlined on page 56 are also applicable within U.S. territory as part of “civil support operations” conducted in partnership with domestic federal agencies like the DHS and ICE. The U.S. Immigration authorities have no role in detaining prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq and neither do other U.S. agencies also listed in the document such as the Public Health Service (page 224).

The document also contains numerous references to U.S. citizens (notably pages 13, 41). Page 13 notes how “U.S. citizens will be confined separately from detainees,” meaning they will be separated from foreign prisoners in the camps.

On page 146 of the manual, we learn how prisoners in the camps are to be identified.

“The prisoner’s last name, first name, and middle initial are placed on the first line of a name board, and the prisoner’s social security number is placed on the second line.”

Last time I checked, the United States Social Security Administration was not responsible for handing out social security numbers to people in Afghanistan or Iraq.

On page 193 of the document, we learn that the policies outlined in the manual can be applied domestically. The language makes it clear that so long as the President passes an executive order to nullify Posse Comitatus, the law that forbids the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement, the policies “may be performed as domestic civil support operations.”

The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.”

These examples are just a handful of a plethora contained in the 326 page ‘Internment and Resettlement’ document which prove that the policies in the manual apply not only to foreign prisoners abroad, but also to American citizens within the United States.

On top of this, we have the 2009 story about how the National Guard posted a number of job listings looking for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” to work in “civilian internee camps” within the United States.

The time for denial is over. People spent weeks arguing over the ‘indefinite detention’ provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, ignoring assertions by top scholars and legal experts that the kidnapping provisions did apply to U.S. citizens.

It appears as though cognitive dissonance is causing some people to desperately search for any way of denying the shocking truth contained in these Army documents. This is particularly prevalent amongst Democrats and liberals, whose support for the cult of Barack Obama has blinded them to the fact that his administration is passing legislation which in many cases is far more draconian than anything Bush signed into law.

Take this comment for example from the Democratic Underground forum. Linking to our article from yesterday, a user writes, “A friend of mine just posted (as he usually does) a ridiculous article from InfoWars and it’s pissing me off to no end. I’m trying to find stuff to continuously disprove this drivel, and I’m probably wasting my time. Anyone able to help on this particular “story”?”

The individual does not even have the inclination to look at the source document to find out if the story is true, they would rather just throw out ad hominem insults like “ridiculous” and “drivel”. Rather than being “pissed off” at the frightening language contained in the U.S. Army manual, the individual is “pissed off” at Infowars for reporting on it.

Yes, the U.S. Army has really written a manual which details re-education camps. Yes, the manual does apply to U.S. citizens domestically. Denying these manifestly provable facts will not make the threat go away. This is not an imaginary monster under the bed.

The time for denial is over.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2014, 12:51:54 am »

Obama Puts Monsanto Lobbyist In Charge Of Food Safety

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq.
Organic Consumers Association
Friday, July 24, 2009

Genetically modified foods are not safe. The only reason they’re in our food supply is because government bureaucrats with ties to industry suppressed or manipulated scientific research and deprived consumers of the information they need to make informed choices about whether or not to eat genetically modified foods.

Now, the Obama Administration is putting two notorious biotech bullies in charge of food safety! Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. And, rBGH-using dairy farmer and Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama’s choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Wolfe spearheaded anti-consumer legislation in Pennsylvania that would have taken away the rights of consumers to know whether their milk and dairy products were contaminated with Monsanto’s (now Eli Lilly’s) genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2014, 12:59:16 am »

Obama to Single Payer Advocates: Drop Dead

Corporate Crime Reporter
March 3, 2009

President Obama’s White House made crystal clear this week: a Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, single payer health insurance system is off the table.

Obama doesn’t even want to discuss it.

Take the case of Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan).

Conyers is the leading advocate for single payer health insurance in Congress.

Last week, Conyers attended a Congressional Black Caucus meeting with President Obama at the White House.

During the meeting, Congressman Conyers, sponsor of the single payer bill in the House (HR 676), asked President Obama for an invite to the President’s Marchy 5 health care summit at the White House.

Conyers said he would bring along with him two doctors — Dr. Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young — to represent the majority of physicians in the United States who favor single payer.

Obama would have none of it.

This week, by e-mail, Conyers heard back from the White House — no invite.

Why not?

Well, believe it or not, the Obama White House is under the thumb of the health insurance industry.

Obama has become the industry’s chief enforcer of its key demand: single payer health insurance is off the table.


HR 3962: Why I Voted NO

by Dennis Kucinich
Common Dreams   
November 8, 2009

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.

By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.

Secretive Executive Order Establishes ‘Big Brother’ Health Bureaucracy

Eric Blair
Activist Post
September 15, 2020

On June 10th, 2010, amidst the chaotic 24-hour oil spill coverage, Barack Obama quietly signed an Executive Order that some claim lays the foundation for implementing Codex Alimentarius, which is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines, and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety (Wiki). Codex is widely viewed in the natural health world as a draconian measure to centralize control of all food and other ingestibles. While this Executive Order may not go that far, it does seem to lay the groundwork for much more control over our personal life choices.

Obama quietly signed an Executive Order that some claim
lays the foundation for implementing Codex Alimentarius.

Executive Order 13544, Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council is a short document outlining the goals and scope of the order. The title gives the appearance that it only creates a Council, but buried within are detailed plans to carry out the “goals” of the Executive Order. Let’s take a closer look at the order. To begin with, the document appears to create the foundation for a massive new multifaceted bureaucracy with 12 departments consolidated in the “membership” of the new Health Council:

       Sec. 2. Membership.

       (a) The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:

       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture;

       (2) the Secretary of Labor;

       (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

       (4) the Secretary of Transportation;

       (5) the Secretary of Education;

       (6) the Secretary of Homeland Security;

       (7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

       (8} the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission;

       (9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy;

       (10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;

       (11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs;

       (12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and

       (13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.

       (b) The Council shall meet at the call of the Chair.

This group, under Obama’s orders, is tasked with developing an “integrated health-care strategy” for prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices to make recommendations to the President and the Congress, presumably to create more laws to govern people’s life choices. And, of course, like all other Executive Orders, the Council will also be authorized to “carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.” — Sec. 3 (g)

Section 4 of the order allows the council to choose a 25-member civilian “advisory group” which is promoted as a “diverse group of licensed health professionals” which “shall develop policy and program recommendations and advise the Council” on preventative medicines and lifestyle changes. The notion that this group will be developing policy to manage preventative medicines and “healthy” lifestyles of Americans smells of Big Brother. It also seems to be another example of where a civilian advisory group (no doubt infested with corporate interests) will further control the herd of wild humans.

One of the goals is to compile the recommendations into a report for the President, within one year, to contain the following:


What Is ObamaCare?

Paul Craig Roberts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Growing up in the post-war era (after the Second World War), I never expected to live in the strange Kafkaesque world that exists today. The US government can assassinate any US citizen that the executive branch thinks could possibly be a “threat” to the US government, or throw the hapless citizen into a dungeon for the rest of his or her life without presenting any evidence to a court or obtaining a conviction of any crime, or send the “threat” to a puppet foreign state to be tortured until the “threat” confesses to a crime that never occurred or dies at the hands of “freedom and democracy” while professing innocence.

It has never been revealed how a single citizen, or any number thereof, could possibly comprise a threat to a government that has a trillion plus dollars to spend each year on security and weapons, the world’s largest navy and air force, 700 plus military bases across the world, large numbers of nuclear weapons, 16 intelligence agencies plus the intelligence agencies of its NATO puppet states and the intelligence service of Israel.

Nevertheless, air travelers are subjected to porno-scanning and sexual groping. Cars traveling on Interstate highways can expect to be stopped, with traffic backed up for miles, while Homeland Security and the federalized state or local police conduct searches.

I witnessed one such warrantless search on Easter Sunday. The south bound lanes of I-185 heading into Columbus, Georgia, were at a standstill while black SUV and police car lights flashed. US citizens were treated by “security” forces that they finance as if they were “terrorists” or “domestic extremists,” another undefined class of Americans devoid of constitutional protections.

These events are Kafkaesque in themselves, but they are ever more so when one considers that these extraordinary violations of the US Constitution fail to be overturned in the Supreme Court. Apparently, American citizens lack standing to defend their civil liberties.

Yet, ObamaCare is before the US Supreme Court. The conservative majority might now utilize the “judicial activism” for which conservatives have criticized liberals. Hypocrisy should no longer surprise us. However, the fight over ObamaCare is not worth five cents.

It is extraordinary that “liberals,” “progressives,” “Democrats,” whatever they are, are defending a “health program” that uses public monies to pay private insurance companies and that raises the cost of health care.

Americans have been brainwashed that “a single-payer system is unaffordable” because it is “socialized medicine.” Despite this propaganda, accepted by many Americans, European countries manage to afford single-payer systems. Health care is not a stress, a trauma, an unaffordable expense for European populations. Among the Western Civilized Nations, only the richest, the US, has no universal health care.

The American health care system is the most expensive of all on earth. The reason for the extraordinary expense is the multiple of entities that must make profits. The private doctors must make profits. The private testing centers must make profits.The private specialists who receive the referrals from general practitioners must make profits. The private hospitals must make profits. The private insurance companies must make profits. The profits are a huge cost of health care.

On top of these profits come the costs of preventing and combatting fraud. Because private insurance companies resist paying and Medicare pays a small fraction of the medical charges, private health care providers charge as much as they possibly can, knowing that the payments will be cut to the bone. But a billing mistake of even $300 can bankrupt a health care provider from legal expenses defending him/her self from fraud accusations.

The beauty of a single-payer system is that it takes the profits out of the system. No one has to make profits. Wall Street cannot threaten insurance companies and private health care companies with being taken over because their profits are too low. No health-provider in a single-payer system has to worry about being displaced in a takeover organized by Wall Street because the profits are too low.

Because a single-payer system eliminates the profits that drive up the costs, Wall Street, Insurance companies, and “free market economists” hate a “socialized” medical care system. They prefer a socialized “private” health care system in which public monies flow into private insurance companies.

To make the costs as high as possible, conservatives and the private insurance companies devised ObamaCare. The bill was written by conservative think tanks and the private insurance companies. What the “socialistic” ObamaCare bill does is to take income taxes paid by citizens and use the taxes to subsidize the private medical premiums charges by private health care providers in order to provide “private” health care to US citizens who cannot afford it.

The extremely high costs of ObamaCare is not “socialistic medicine.” ObamaCare is high-cost privatized medicine that guarantees billions of dollars in profits to private insurance companies.

It remains to be seen whether such a ridiculous health care scheme, nowhere extant on earth except in Romney’s Massachusetts, will provide health care or just private profits.

More Evidence Obamacare Ripped Off Americans

By Stephen Lendman
Global Research
February 11, 2013

Make no mistake. March 23, 2010 will live in infamy. With strokes from 22 pens, Obama enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

It’s a ripoff. It’s a healthcare rationing scheme. It’s a boon to predatory providers. It’s a plan to enrich insurers, drug companies, and large hospital chains.

WellPoint, Inc. is America’s largest managed healthcare company. It wrote the plan. It got what it wanted. It benefitted at the expense of people needing care. So did other healthcare giants. They scammed ordinary people for profit.

Ralph Nader calls Obamacare “a pay-or-die system.” It’s “the disgrace of the Western world.” It’s a monstrosity. It mocks a fundamental human right.

It violates the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause. Article I, Section 8 states:

“The Congress shall have power to….provide for (the) general welfare of the United States.”

It means “We the People.” It includes everyone equitably. It means what never was, isn’t now, or won’t ever be under a system favoring privilege, not fairness.

Western-style democracy is the world’s biggest scam. Obamacare proves it. So do numerous other examples in representative/republican societies.

Affordable care is a figure of speech. It’s more deform than reform. It’s not universal care, single-payer or fair. It’s market-based for profit. It does nothing to control costs. It’s regulation light.

It’s a boon for huge profits. It’s got loopholes big enough to reap huge amounts. It helps business at the expense of ordinary people. It leaves tens of millions uninsured. It leaves millions more underinsured.


21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare

by Ralph Nader
Common Dreams
November 22, 2013

Dear America:

Costly complexity is baked into Obamacare. No health insurance system is without problems but Canadian style single-payer full Medicare for all is simple, affordable, comprehensive and universal.

In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson enrolled 20 million elderly Americans into Medicare in six months. There were no websites. They did it with index cards!

Below please find 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare.

Repeal Obamacare and replace it with the much more efficient single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital.

Love, Canada

Number 21:
In Canada, everyone is covered automatically at birth – everybody in, nobody out.

In the United States, under Obamacare, 31 million Americans will still be uninsured by 2023 and millions more will remain underinsured.

Number 20:
In Canada, the health system is designed to put people, not profits, first.

In the United States, Obamacare will do little to curb insurance industry profits and will actually enhance insurance industry profits.

Number 19:
In Canada, coverage is not tied to a job or dependent on your income – rich and poor are in the same system, the best guaranty of quality.

In the United States, under Obamacare, much still depends on your job or income. Lose your job or lose your income, and you might lose your existing health insurance or have to settle for lesser coverage.

Number 18:
In Canada, health care coverage stays with you for your entire life.

In the United States, under Obamacare, for tens of millions of Americans, health care coverage stays with you for as long as you can afford your share.

Number 17:
In Canada, you can freely choose your doctors and hospitals and keep them. There are no lists of “in-network” vendors and no extra hidden charges for going “out of network.”

In the United States, under Obamacare, the in-network list of places where you can get treated is shrinking – thus restricting freedom of choice – and if you want to go out of network, you pay for it.

Number 16:
In Canada, the health care system is funded by income, sales and corporate taxes that, combined, are much lower than what Americans pay in premiums.

In the United States, under Obamacare, for thousands of Americans, it’s pay or die – if you can’t pay, you die. That’s why many thousands will still die every year under Obamacare from lack of health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time.

Number 15:
In Canada, there are no complex hospital or doctor bills. In fact, usually you don’t even see a bill.

In the United States, under Obamacare, hospital and doctor bills will still be terribly complex, making it impossible to discover the many costly overcharges.

Number 14:
In Canada, costs are controlled. Canada pays 10 percent of its GDP for its health care system, covering everyone.

In the United States, under Obamacare, costs continue to skyrocket. The U.S. currently pays 18 percent of its GDP and still doesn’t cover tens of millions of people.

Number 13:
In Canada, it is unheard of for anyone to go bankrupt due to health care costs.

In the United States, under Obamacare, health care driven bankruptcy will continue to plague Americans.

Number 12:
In Canada, simplicity leads to major savings in administrative costs and overhead.

In the United States, under Obamacare, complexity will lead to ratcheting up administrative costs and overhead.

Number 11:
In Canada, when you go to a doctor or hospital the first thing they ask you is: “What’s wrong?”

In the United States, the first thing they ask you is: “What kind of insurance do you have?”

Number 10:
In Canada, the government negotiates drug prices so they are more affordable.

In the United States, under Obamacare, Congress made it specifically illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices for volume purchases, so they remain unaffordable.

Number 9:
In Canada, the government health care funds are not profitably diverted to the top one percent.

In the United States, under Obamacare, health care funds will continue to flow to the top. In 2012, CEOs at six of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. received a total of $83.3 million in pay, plus benefits.

Number 8:
In Canada, there are no necessary co-pays or deductibles.

In the United States, under Obamacare, the deductibles and co-pays will continue to be unaffordable for many millions of Americans.

Number 7:
In Canada, the health care system contributes to social solidarity and national pride.

In the United States, Obamacare is divisive, with rich and poor in different systems and tens of millions left out or with sorely limited benefits.

Number 6:
In Canada, delays in health care are not due to the cost of insurance.

In the United States, under Obamacare, patients without health insurance or who are underinsured will continue to delay or forgo care and put their lives at risk.

Number 5:
In Canada, nobody dies due to lack of health insurance.

In the United States, under Obamacare, many thousands will continue to die every year due to lack of health insurance.

Number 4:
In Canada, an increasing majority supports their health care system, which costs half as much, per person, as in the United States. And in Canada, everyone is covered.

In the United States, a majority – many for different reasons – oppose Obamacare.

Number 3:
In Canada, the tax payments to fund the health care system are progressive – the lowest 20 percent pays 6 percent of income into the system while the highest 20 percent pays 8 percent.

In the United States, under Obamacare, the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent.

Number 2:
In Canada, the administration of the system is simple. You get a health care card when you are born. And you swipe it when you go to a doctor or hospital. End of story.

In the United States, Obamacare’s 2,500 pages plus regulations (the Canadian Medicare Bill was 13 pages) is so complex that then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said before passage “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Number 1:
In Canada, the majority of citizens love their health care system.

In the United States, the majority of citizens, physicians, and nurses prefer the Canadian type system – single-payer, free choice of doctor and hospital , everybody in, nobody out.

For more information see Single Payer Action.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2014, 04:30:07 am »

10 Reasons Obama is Just As Bad or Worse Than Bush

Activist Post
April 5, 2011

George W. Bush was clearly a mentally-challenged puppet of the military/banking/oil elite.  The policies put it in place at breakneck speed after 9/11 were provably predetermined by think tanks well in advance. Not that other presidents were any less controlled by this hidden agenda, but there was a noticeable in-your-face quickening of corporate-government tyranny under Bush.

These policies like wars of aggression, illegal surveillance of Americans, torture of detainees indefinitely held without formal charges, unfair “free trade” agreements, and bank bailouts rightfully enraged many progressives during the Bush years.  Yet, not only have these policies accelerated under Obama, even more of the draconian playbook is unfolding.

After 8 years of Bush’s reign that ended with a record low presidential approval rating in the low 20s, Obama’s promise of hope and change inspired many beyond mainline progressives.  His campaign speeches were so powerful that they landed him the Nobel Peace Prize without having done anything for world peace except to offer the idea in order to get elected.  As a Constitutional law professor and attorney, Obama appeared to have a greater understanding of rights and the balance of power than did flunky Bush.

Although policies being implemented under Obama’s leadership exhibit the continuation of Bush’s tyrannical agenda, his stunning betrayal of populist and Constitutional principles in support of these actions makes him the ultimate hypocrite.  Additionally, because Obama is a much more influential orator than Bush, his service to the puppet masters is far more dangerous to the American people he’s supposed to serve.

There have been many articles written about Obama’s unkept promises and outright lies, but here are 10 actions that prove Obama is just as bad if not worse than Bush:


Even Democratic Party Loyalists Starting to Wake Up to the Fact that Obama Is As Bad As Bush … Or Worse

by Washington's Blog
March 17, 2013

Obama Is Worse than Bush In Favoring the Super-Elite, Bailing Out the Big Banks, Protecting Financial Criminals, Targeting Whistleblowers, Keeping Government Secrets, Trampling Our Liberties and Starting Military Conflicts In New Countries

Glenn Greenwald notes that even Democratic party loyalists are getting fed up with Obama’s Bush-like actions:

    Even the most loyal establishment Democrats are now harshly denouncing the president for his war on transparency ….
    This secrecy has become so oppressive and extreme that even the most faithful Democratic operatives are now angrily exploding with public denunciations.

(Greenwald gives numerous examples.)
The Hill reported last month:

    A majority of voters believe President Obama has been no better than his immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, when it comes to balancing national security with the protection of civil liberties, according to a new poll for The Hill.
    Thirty-seven percent of voters argue that Obama has been worse than Bush while 15 percent say he has been “about the same.” {In other words, a total of 52% think Obama is just as bad as Bush. That was before the drone controversy - discussed below - went viral.}
    The results cannot be fully explained as party line responses. More than one in five self-identified Democrats, 21 percent, assert that the Obama administration has not improved upon Bush’s record. So do 23 percent of liberals.

Indeed, more and more Democrats are waking up the fact that Obama is doing a lot of the same stuff Bush did.
Bush was a horrible president. His warmongering, disrespect for civil liberties, redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the super-elite, and obsession for secrecy were all abysmal.
But how does Obama stack up by objective measurements?
Let’s compare …

"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline iamc2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,933
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2014, 05:18:15 am »
Barry O'Bushma hates Martin because O'Bushma is really white  ???  ::)  :P
"When the Truth was murdered:
Common Sense ran away..."

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2014, 06:09:25 pm »
Hi Geo..
   Excellent, hats off...That is a hell of a study....
   Papa Bush, Clint, Bush & gang, non along came Obama,   * not a coincidence.
   These guys are in it until they expire, there is no way out.. If an underling finds his conscience he too will either kick the bucket or fall under a bus.         
   Is this to be the legacy we leave for the you ones?

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2014, 10:23:53 am »

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr: Where Do We Go From Here?

The Progress Report
January 20, 2014

We have proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils: lack of education restricting job opportunities; poor housing which stultified home life and suppressed initiative; fragile family relationships which distorted personality development. The logic of this approach suggested that each of these causes be attacked one by one. Hence a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities to furnish tools for better job opportunities, and family counseling to create better personal adjustments were designed. In combination these measures were intended to remove the causes of poverty.

In addition to the absence of coordination and sufficiency, these programs have another common failing — they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else.

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by the guaranteed income.

We have so energetically mastered production that we now must give attention to distribution. Those at the lowest economic level, the poor white and Negro, the aged and chronically ill, are traditionally unorganized and therefore have little ability to force the necessary growth in their income. They stagnate or become even poorer in relation to the larger society.

In 1879 Henry George anticipated this state of affairs when he wrote, in Progress and Poverty:

    “The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature, and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves, driven to their task either by the lash of a master or by animal necessities. It is the work of men who perform it for their own sake, and not that they may get more to eat or drink, or wear, or display. In a state of society where want is abolished, work of this sort could be enormously increased.”

The poor transformed into purchasers will do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay. Negroes, who have a double disability, will have a greater effect on discrimination when they have the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.

Beyond these advantages, a host of positive psychological changes inevitably will result from widespread economic security. The dignity of the individual will flourish when the decisions concerning his life and in his own hands, when he has the assurance that his income is stable and certain, and when he know that he has the means to seek self-improvement. Personal conflicts between husband, wife and children will diminish when the unjust measurement of human worth on a scale of dollars is eliminated.

Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline. If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would hgave to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.

The program would benefit all the poor. I hope that both Negro and white will act in coalition to effect this change, because their combined strength will be necessary to overcome the fierce opposition we must realistically anticipate.

The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age.

Ed. Notes: James Melvin Washington collected his favorite works of MLK into the book, Testament of Hope: the Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and included the passage above, citing Henry George and noting the need to make the extra income dynamic, so it would “automatically increase as the total social income grows.” This is precisely what a Citizens Dividend does; as progress pushes up site values, one’s share of the resultant Rent rises, too.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2014, 10:59:03 am »
 I hope younger folks have listened to MLK speeches, they will make you hair stand on end, soul touching.
This illuminted man detested the war in Vietnam, public figures speaking out against the war were and are today in harms way.
  The 3 K's, may they never be forgotten..  Each of these fine men were against the MIC/WAR/Elitists/The FED, what does that tell ya!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2014, 11:35:18 am »
I hope younger folks have listened to MLK speeches, they will make you hair stand on end, soul touching.
This illuminted man detested the war in Vietnam, public figures speaking out against the war were and are today in harms way.

Anarcho-capitalist icon, Stefan Molyneux, apparently sees MLK in a different light...

I don't know about anyone else, but if given two choices for President, I'd take MLK over Molyneux any day.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison


  • Guest
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2014, 12:10:18 pm »
Anarcho-capitalist icon, Stefan Molyneux, apparently sees MLK in a different light...

I don't know about anyone else, but if given two choices for President, I'd take MLK over Molyneux any day.


Any chance of a brief synopsis ?

Offline iamc2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,933
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2014, 03:41:59 pm »
O'Bumbles has turned  "The Dream" of Martin Luther for everyone, into a 'Nightmare' for all of us.
"When the Truth was murdered:
Common Sense ran away..."

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2014, 06:49:52 pm »
Anarcho-capitalist icon, Stefan Molyneux, apparently sees MLK in a different light...

I don't know about anyone else, but if given two choices for President, I'd take MLK over Molyneux any day.
Me too. If there is one human being on this planet who is 100% pure, show me.
  Folks rag on the 3 Ks petty faults., I rant on about their deeds.
Didin't some guy say judge them by their works, as I said before, they stood against the MIC/Elitist war in Nam, the FED, corruption-ya know, all that scum that infiltrated this nation. Yes they paid the price with their lives.

Offline Que gooden

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2014, 09:08:26 pm »
There are plenty of blacks who are now starting to question Martin luther king jr and the civil rights movement and the biggest running secret is most of them were communist,Martin was not. He was a republican who made some
questionable decisions.Like that the fact that he work whit the democrat party who at one point in time was know as the Dixiecrat party,because they were started by the klu kluk klan.The biggest question has to be has integration really help or hurt the blacks or them?

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2014, 03:28:21 am »
There are plenty of blacks who are now starting to question Martin luther king jr and the civil rights movement and the biggest running secret is most of them were communist,Martin was not. He was a republican who made some
questionable decisions.Like that the fact that he work whit the democrat party who at one point in time was know as the Dixiecrat party,because they were started by the klu kluk klan.The biggest question has to be has integration really help or hurt the blacks or them?
          Two questions please. You reference to many blacks question MLK and the  civil rights movement , can you be specific, back up, source, statistics, etc.
          Your question has integretation really helped or hurt blacks...This statement depresses me, black, white, red, yellow all of us bleed red, maintain the spectrum of emotions conducive to being human, good, bad, the ugly.
          MLK pulled of a miracle, was spiritually enlightened, led and suffered along with those who marched. Not only was he fighting for black equality he was standing up to those in places of power,he openly stood against the war in Vietnam and bigotry of any kind as being a demoralizing tool used by the power structure in their art of creating divisions. He was killed in the same era as two white men JKF,RFK, who's view were contrary to the elites values as well.. I remember well those days, both black and white considered MLK to be a man of courage.
 Had MLK been a scam artist he would have had a long and prosperous life. I suggest you contact those who marched with him,.... of all colors.
  The true enemy of mankind are those who prosper from the manipulation of the masses, the parasites who embrace divisions in order to control.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
Re: Why is Obama the ANTI-Martin Luther King?
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2017, 10:48:38 pm »
Bumped for obvious reasons.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison