Brzezinski Call’s The Shots; Obama’s job Is Simply To Sell Them To The People.

when your country is telling you noAnd a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a ‘man of the people’, would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to ‘set free’.

You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has appointed to his administration team, to see what his ‘change’ is truly planned to be.

By: David Icke

His mentor, Svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati’s Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today ‘terrorists’ in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower ‘their Vietnam’. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all.

Brzezinski’s ‘freedom fighters’ would become known as the ‘Mujahideen’ and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be ‘Al-Qaeda’. This is the man behind ‘anti-war’, Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president. It is one of many great ironies of the Obama presidency that he was demanding massive troop reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban terrorists who were initially armed, trained and organized by Brzezinski, the man behind Obama. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: ‘Fate, it seems, is not without its sense of irony’. if they are Brzezinski’s targets, they are Obama’s targets.

The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call the shots; Obama’s job is simply to sell them to the people. This is rather alarming when you think that it had been said Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving Russia and China.?????

‘Obama’s’ policies come straight from Brzezinski’s books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognize and it was made before Obama ran for president: ‘Needed social reassessment … can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works.’
Now where have I heard that before? As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski’s aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army – a global dictatorship – underpinned by a micro chipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:

NATO International NWOFalse flag events are the new modus operandi of U.S New World Order Shadow Army– NATO and its allies, as we have witnessed in recent years, the most blatant example of which was provided in Libya before the FUKUS Axis (France-UK-US) again breached international law and slaughtered civilians. Another is planned in Ukraine to blame Russia

**The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.’ He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago: ‘Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … Whose ties cut across national boundaries … It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook …** The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty … Further progress will require greater American sacrifices

More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.’

And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about ‘change’? ‘Make sacrifices’. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said: ‘We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired … to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place.’** You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades.

Brzezinski’s son, Mark, was an ‘advisor’ to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was *foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). His daughter, the Obama-supporting Mika Brzezinski, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.
Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. He has been covertly funded and supported ever since by the Trilateral Commission and its network of foundations connecting into the Ford Foundation, for whom Obama’s mother worked.

And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a ‘man of the people’, would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to ‘set free’.

The sources of Obama funding read like a Wall Street Who’s Who – Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and so on. No wonder he went back on his pledge to accept the limitations of public funding for his campaign and instead took the no-limit option of ‘private’ funding.
And those people are going to support a candidate who does not represent their best interests?? Oh please.

Obama and his seasoned network of professional manipulators, sorry his ‘campaign team’, sold the lie that he had refused to take funding from ‘lobbyists’, those who are paid to ensure that politicians frame legislation, or block it, in the interests of their clients.

But like everything that surrounds Obama, past and present, it’s a sleight of hand and mouth. They funneled vast sums of money into the Obama accounts through law firms that represent lobbyists and lobby groups. It provided ‘plausible denial’ about funding from lobbyists while the money poured in from lobby interests via third parties.

Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati’s Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider.

You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama ‘revolution’ in the United States.
It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organizations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments. These manufactured protests were sold to the world as ‘peoples’ revolutions’, but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along – the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.

Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding.** It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.

Obama is just another Banksters’ moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that’s why he supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people.

110420obamamansionObama’s Chicago Home

His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street ‘A’ list, including Paul Adolph Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips. Obama has made him head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is dominated by insiders, including its staff director and chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, a close Obama associate from the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is an initiate of the infamous Illuminati Skull and Bones Society at Yale University, which also includes Boy and Father Bush.* It was Goolsbee who told the Canadian government not to worry about Obama’s attacks on the economic effects of ‘free trade’ agreements because his words were just to win votes in the election campaign.

Another Wall Street insider, the Zionist Timothy Geithner (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations), was appointed by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary. Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful in the private ‘Federal’ Reserve cartel that masquerades as America’s ‘central bank’, and he is a former employee of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the appalling Kissinger Associates.

Obama’s Treasury team locks into the inner circle around the Zionist Robert Rubin, the Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, and economic advisor to Obama. Rubin, a member of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group, was the man behind Citigroup’s strategy of expanding its risk in debt markets which forced it to be rescued by taxpayers’ money.

*The very people who caused the financial crisis appointed by Obama to decide how to respond to it (more taxpayers’ money for them and their friends).

Obama’s new “Executive Order 13524 — Amending Executive Order 12425″ grants the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) “rights” on American soil that place it beyond the reach of our own law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)!

This lays the ground work for INTERPOL do do what the President cannot legally justify doing. INTERPOL, on instructions from the Obama regime, will now be able to carry out actions prohibited to our own law enforcement!

Barack Obama is taking the U.S. down the path to MARTIAL LAW –

 

Legal battles against conservative state governors keep cropping up. Rick Perry, Scott Walker, and Bobby Jindal—all conservatives and all potential 2016 presidential candidates—have become the victims of vile smear campaigns from the left. What’s even more disturbing is that the trail of money financing these flimsy legal cases all seem to lead directly to George Soros.

George Soros has donated over $52 million to numerous liberal media outlets. He also has woven a web of influential left-wing operations, including Media Matters and Center for American Progress, that advance his socialist ideology.

Having funneled millions into journalism schools and more than 180 media outlets across the nation, it’s no wonder that the liberal media fail to report the connections between Soros and his attacks on elected officials he disagrees with. While ABC, CBS, and NBC were eagerly salivating to report on Scott Walker’s legal problems and Rick Perry’s indictment, not a single one mentioned the financial connection to George Soros.
 Media scoffed at the existence of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission and their goals for creating a one world government and economic system. Today prominent politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, make press statements with the CFR logo in the background as if to signal her allegiance to their globalist goals.

Hillary more of the sameHillary Clinton stands poised to inherit that activist indifference from the media (provided the even more thinly resumed Elizabeth Warren doesn’t decide to run). Her lack of accomplishment is being swept aside and replaced with “having been there” as some sort of resume enhancement. Her tenure as secretary of state is being portrayed as a relatively stable time, not the planting of currently sprouting seeds of problems because of her indifference and the president’s fecklessness.

Here’s some of the real Hillary as President.

Soros

whitewater

Benghazi gate

communism

it takes a village

redistribution

Billions vanished from the U.S. State Department mostly while Hillary Clinton ran it,according to alert issued by the agency’s inspector general.$6 billion are missing and it’s highly unlikely any of the money will ever be recovered. The cash was supposed to be used to pay contractors but it just disappeared and documents that could help track the dough cannot be located. How convenient! The paper trail, which federal law says must be maintained in the case of government contracts, has been destroyed or was never created to begin with.

soros picHillary’s Mentor Soros

 

Truth, lies and Afghanistan – How military leaders have let us down

By LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners

My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground. Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress. Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.  I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

From Bad to Abysmal

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress. And I can relate a few representative experiences, of the kind that I observed all over the country.

In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.

Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.

“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”

As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.

“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”

According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.

In June, I was in the Zharay district of Kandahar province, returning to a base from a dismounted patrol. Gunshots were audible as the Taliban attacked a U.S. checkpoint about one mile away.

As I entered the unit’s command post, the commander and his staff were watching a live video feed of the battle. Two ANP vehicles were blocking the main road leading to the site of the attack. The fire was coming from behind a haystack. We watched as two Afghan men emerged, mounted a motorcycle and began moving toward the Afghan policemen in their vehicles.

The U.S. commander turned around and told the Afghan radio operator to make sure the policemen halted the men. The radio operator shouted into the radio repeatedly, but got no answer.

On the screen, we watched as the two men slowly motored past the ANP vehicles. The policemen neither got out to stop the two men nor answered the radio — until the motorcycle was out of sight.

To a man, the U.S. officers in that unit told me they had nothing but contempt for the Afghan troops in their area — and that was before the above incident occurred.

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”

On Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the infamous attack on the U.S., I visited another unit in Kunar province, this one near the town of Asmar. I talked with the local official who served as the cultural adviser to the U.S. commander. Here’s how the conversation went:

Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”

Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.

“Also, when a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. So when the Taliban returns [when the Americans leave after 2014], so too go the jobs, especially for everyone like me who has worked with the coalition.

“Recently, I got a cellphone call from a Talib who had captured a friend of mine. While I could hear, he began to beat him, telling me I’d better quit working for the Americans. I could hear my friend crying out in pain. [The Talib] said the next time they would kidnap my sons and do the same to them. Because of the direct threats, I’ve had to take my children out of school just to keep them safe.

“And last night, right on that mountain there [he pointed to a ridge overlooking the U.S. base, about 700 meters distant], a member of the ANP was murdered. The Taliban came and called him out, kidnapped him in front of his parents, and took him away and murdered him. He was a member of the ANP from another province and had come back to visit his parents. He was only 27 years old. The people are not safe anywhere.”

That murder took place within view of the U.S. base, a post nominally responsible for the security of an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Imagine how insecure the population is beyond visual range. And yet that conversation was representative of what I saw in many regions of Afghanistan.

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.

Credibility Gap

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.

I first encountered senior-level equivocation during a 1997 division-level “experiment” that turned out to be far more setpiece than experiment. Over dinner at Fort Hood, Texas, Training and Doctrine Command leaders told me that the Advanced Warfighter Experiment (AWE) had shown that a “digital division” with fewer troops and more gear could be far more effective than current divisions. The next day, our congressional staff delegation observed the demonstration firsthand, and it didn’t take long to realize there was little substance to the claims. Virtually no legitimate experimentation was actually conducted. All parameters were carefully scripted. All events had a preordained sequence and outcome. The AWE was simply an expensive show, couched in the language of scientific experimentation and presented in glowing press releases and public statements, intended to persuade Congress to fund the Army’s preference. Citing the AWE’s “results,” Army leaders proceeded to eliminate one maneuver company per combat battalion. But the loss of fighting systems was never offset by a commensurate rise in killing capability.

A decade later, in the summer of 2007, I was assigned to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) organization at Fort Bliss, Texas. It didn’t take long to discover that the same thing the Army had done with a single division at Fort Hood in 1997 was now being done on a significantly larger scale with FCS. Year after year, the congressionally mandated reports from the Government Accountability Office revealed significant problems and warned that the system was in danger of failing. Each year, the Army’s senior leaders told members of Congress at hearings that GAO didn’t really understand the full picture and that to the contrary, the program was on schedule, on budget, and headed for success. Ultimately, of course, the program was canceled, with little but spinoffs to show for $18 billion spent.

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members.A nonclassified version is available at http://www.afghanreport.com/. [Editor’s note: At press time, Army public affairs had not yet ruled on whether Davis could post this longer version.]

Tell The Truth

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.

Continue the conversation: Use #DavisAFJ when discussing this story on Twitter. Follow us at @afjournal.