On February 10, 2007, Senator Barack Obama announced the first candidacy for President of the United States by an African-American. Before the year was out, he would break fund raising records, strike a national nerve with a campaign centering on "change" and rocket to a coveted level of prominence on the American mindscape.
Despite his apparent successes, however, we have noted certain curiosities and questions which we believe are, at the very least, noteworthy but which we also believe will have far-reaching consequences in the future. The Tin-Cap Journal neither endorses nor disparages Mr. Obama or his campaign but we believe there is more to the nomination of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Much more.
Our analysis is lengthy, and for that we apologize. We felt it important to fully develop the rationale that leads to so disturbing a conclusion; one with which we expect you will strenuously disagree. That expectation, however, has not been factored into the analysis. You are encouraged to try to consider the analysis separately from any feelings you may have about Barack Obama, whatever they may be.
The Inner Workings of the Machine
Drop a properly labeled envelope into a mailbox and a few days later it will show up potentially anywhere in the world. A deep knowledge of the complexities and subtleties of the postal service is not required to mail a letter, but knowledge always has advantages. Aside from enhancing one's appreciation for the process, the one with more knowledge has more options, more power and an increased chance of success. Anyone lacking deep knowledge of the workings of a given system may still be able to use it on a basic level but, beyond that, he is free to imagine whatever occurs to him about that system--including that there is nothing worth knowing.
Drop a properly labeled envelope into a mailbox and a few days later it will show up potentially anywhere in the world. A deep knowledge of the complexities and subtleties of the postal service is not required to mail a letter, but knowledge always has advantages. Aside from enhancing one's appreciation for the process, the one with more knowledge has more options, more power and an increased chance of success. Anyone lacking deep knowledge of the workings of a given system may still be able to use it on a basic level but, beyond that, he is free to imagine whatever occurs to him about that system--including that there is nothing worth knowing.
Whatever one's perspective, the delivery of a single envelope testifies to two things 1) a myriad of advanced technologies, a vast network of people and countless refined policies were successfully engaged and 2) the envelope was properly prepared. All of the money, time and effort which has made the postal service possible would be for naught if no one understood how to correctly address an envelope. Rather than a tangent, we offer the foregoing principles as the foundation for understanding The Obama Deception:
The Media Machine
On September 11, 2001 all strata of Americans were united in shock and awe as the nation was deluged with news of an apparent terrorist attack. Before the day was out, the name Osama Bin Laden would be associated with this unprecedented attack on the American way of life. Soon after, another name and face was associated with the events of 9/11. The nation's leaders associated Sadaam Hussein with Bin Laden and swore certainty that the former was using his nation's vast oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction.
"Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies."--Ralph Waldo Emerson
With all of the many thousands of hours of television broadcast time invested in 9/11 and the Iraq war, it is unlikely that there is a single American who could not connect dots between Hussein and Iraq, Bin Laden and 9/11.
Anyone who has watched television news in America, for any appreciable length of time, would be hard pressed to disagree that there is at least a fair amount of similarity between newscasts. Not coincidentally, none of the major news outlets are independent; the overwhelming majority of the thousands of mainstream news outlets are owned by a handful of corporations. News broadcasts may, at times, truthfully claim the occasional exclusive, but the lion's share of major news stories are regularly disseminated with such similarity that it could be asserted that the workings of a machine seem to be implied by such order.
What has been the result of all the media attention devoted to 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war? Americans, for a time, experienced a rare unity as the US war machine mobilized. Afghanistan was invaded and the Taliban deposed. Since the Taliban had destroyed all of Afghanistan's poppy fields, the secondary effect of the invasion of Afghanistan was the restoration of the flow of heroin to the world market. Bin Laden has not since been neutralized, apprehended or even charged for 9/11 in absentia. We assume the FBI will get around to updating his most-wanted page.
Hardly a year later and, in association with Osama Bin Laden, Sadaam Hussein would be labeled a terrorist threat and the war machine mobilized once more resulting the deaths of upwards of one million Iraqis. No weapons or weapons programs were uncovered but whereas the US had the option of changing course, apologizing for their "mistake" and returning Hussein's keys, they changed their rationale instead. Sadaam Hussein was tried for the deaths of 148 of his own people two decades earlier and met his end in the gallows as a war criminal.
Donald Rumsfeld feigns friendship with Sadaam Hussein twenty years before Hussein's execution at, essentially, the same hand.
In the years since, the Downing Street Memo would surface proving conclusively that the link between Sadaam Hussein and "Al Qaeda" was patently false and that there never was any real concern that Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction or WMD programs. The 9/11 Truth Movement had then arisen, casting serious doubts on the government's entire 9/11 story. Massive protests and even the impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush have been just short of completely ignored by virtually all of the nation's thousands of mainstream media news outlets.
What does any of this have to do with Barack Obama? Nothing--at least not directly. The Journal endeavors to establish that, for better or worse, influential people have demonstrated their ability to use the national media like a machine in order to advance their agenda. Because the Bush administration spent so much time selling the WMD lie in advance, we're going to take a leap here and guess that the Bush administration was unwilling to invade Iraq without the support of a majority of the American people. It is clear that they knew they could gain that support--even on fraudulent terms--simply by inserting a name and a face into the national media machine.
Donald Rumsfeld displayed skillful manipulation of the media machine when he called a press conference one day before 9/11. Rumsfeld clearly anticipated that the news that the Pentagon "lost" $2.3 trillion would be dwarfed by the news he must have known was coming the following day.
The not-so-obvious question in all this is: "What responsibility does the Media have for the outcome of these events?" Well, what blame do you place on the post office for delivering junk mail? If anyone has charged media complicity in the ruses, deceptions and outright lies in the aftermath of 9/11, the media has not reported it. Perhaps you agree that the media holds no culpability in the events that resulted in untold suffering to millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We invite you to consider a question: Would the invasion of Iraq still have occurred had the media not covered WMD and Al Qaeda falsehoods to the extent that it did?
The Party Machine
Though there are a number of political parties in the United States, there has not been a United States president that was not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party since the Whig party successfully nominated Millard Fillmore in 1850. Other parties currently exist but, with the exception of Ross Perot in 1992, no other party in recent memory has achieved poll numbers that approached parity with the two major parties. It is, therefore, not difficult to argue that any candidate for president who is going to have a plausible chance at becoming president must first be selected for endorsement by either the Democratic National Committee or its de facto counterpart, the Republican National Committee.
The histories of the two parties are long, complex and, we believe, not critically relevant to the matter at hand. The major difference between the two is that RNC ostensibly takes a conservative approach (one that favors traditional beliefs and customs) to governance while the DNC has espoused a liberal ideology; an approach that "seeks to use the power of the state to effect change upon society".
The practical difference between the two is that the policies the RNC openly supports tend to reflect a predisposition toward the benefit of corporations and the wealthy while the Democrats voice advocating of policy from a "common people's" perspective. Considering that both parties normally receive the lion's share of their financing from corporations, it seems the separation that once distinguished the two has become blurred at the very least.
What specific criteria is used by either party to determine whose candidacy it will support is unknown to the Journal. It does, however, seem likely that as with most human endeavors the decision comes down to a single, influential person. Even an entire committee may yield to its most influential member. Whom exactly that person proves to be from year to year we do not believe to be terribly important; it is always someone. What is important, however, is that person's motive for choosing or rejecting would-be candidates. This leads us to our first question:
Why now?
The Democratic party lost elections in 2000 and 2004, albeit in each case there were indications of--to put it mildly, less than fair play. In those same two terms, Republican George W. Bush conducted what may go down in history as the most scandal-laden presidency to date. Considering the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the politicizing of the Justice Department and the invasion of Iraq on patently false evidence--to name just a few of the administrations confirmed misdeeds, it is little wonder that many clamor for "change".
The Democratic party lost elections in 2000 and 2004, albeit in each case there were indications of--to put it mildly, less than fair play. In those same two terms, Republican George W. Bush conducted what may go down in history as the most scandal-laden presidency to date. Considering the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina, torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the politicizing of the Justice Department and the invasion of Iraq on patently false evidence--to name just a few of the administrations confirmed misdeeds, it is little wonder that many clamor for "change".
With the approval rating of the incumbent at the lowest level ever recorded for a sitting president, and that incumbent inseparably linked to the opposition party, one would think that the Democrats would have the 2008 election locked. Further, one might reasonably expect that the Democrats, still smarting from two consecutive defeats snatched from the jaws of victory, would want to win in November all the more.
Considering that the misgivings inextricably associated with the Republican party initially seemed to tilt the playing field decisively toward the Democrats, the Journal finds it more than curious that the Democrats pick now to attempt to elect the nations first African American president. Please try to resist the urge to label the Journal racist--we are certain that we are not.
Few would argue that Barack Obama being elected to the highest office in the land would be considered to be of historical significance. Why? Clearly, he would not be the first president. Would he be the smartest? The wealthiest? Poorest? Oldest? Youngest? Tallest? Let's not pretend--he'd be the darkest. Considering that history bears out that the presidency of the United States is a job thus far held by 43 men, 100% of whom have been Caucasian, it is clear why the election of Barack Obama would make history.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."
--Arthur Schopenhauer
The question of Mr. Obama's qualifications deferred, we find it more than curious that that the Democrats have chosen now to attempt to elect the United States first African American president. In a time when the nation has weathered crisis after scandal after debacle; the "Patriot" act has all but voided the Constitution. Habeas Corpus has been suspended, and the Geneva Conventions have been abandoned as "quaint". With the nation teetering precariously on the precipice of fascism, why have the Democrats have chosen now to add to their effort the dimension of complexity introduced by an arguably unnecessary attempt to overcome the nation's enduring history of racism?
One may assert that there has been sufficient progress in American race relations in the forty years since the Civil Rights Movement that the DNC could reasonably expect that an African American would have an even chance of being elected president by a majority of United States Citizens. The Journal embraces a different point of view, however, even if the DNC truly believed in the nation's progress they would have to know that choosing to nominate an African American would not exactly be playing it safe. This added level of risk is all the more curious for an election that, by many accounts, comes at a potentially critical turning point in American History.
Why Barack Obama?
There are three Constitutional requirements to qualify for the office of President. Some have suggested that a president must be a Freemason. While it doesn't appear to hurt one's chances, many presidents have not been. Nearly half of presidents have been a direct, if distant, relation to European royalty. While clearly a plus, genealogy does not pass muster as a bona-fide, occupational qualification for president. When the constitution was written, women were not permitted to vote and African Americans were still slaves. With Manifest Destiny fresh in the minds of those who governed under it's auspices, it was a foregone conclusion that only a white male could ever hope to be president. The Constitution thus specifies neither gender nor race as a qualification for president.
Even if his primary opposer does not, Barack Obama meets all three constitutional requirements to be President being (1) a natural citizen of the United States; (2) at least thirty-five years of age; and 3) a fourteen-year resident of the States. The same, however, could be said of any number of people. Of all the Senators in all the states; all the lawyers, congressmen, plumbers, doctors, men and women who are citizens over thirty-five years of age, why has Barack Obama been selected by the Democratic party for the would-be honor of running for President?
Forty percent of all presidents since Fillmore have been affiliated with the Democratic National Committee. In that time there have been any number of campaigns and speeches, televised ads and debates, news stories and interviews, scandals and debacles, successes and failures. It stands to reason, therefore, that the DNC must have gained much knowledge from its years of study and experience. When it comes to elections, therefore, the DNC must have some idea of what works, what does not work and what to expect when nominating a candidate.
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
--Albert Einstein
Something sets Obama apart from the pack. He is, by all accounts, an excellent orator and has espoused some practical policies but, again, the same could be said of any number of other would-be candidates. There is yet something else that sets Obama apart.
What's in a name?
Think of a person you know named "John". Got the face? Now think of a "David". Got one? Now come up with a face for the name "Judas". We're guessing that one didn't come so quickly--probably not at all. John and David are persons whose Bible accounts, overall, read favorably. Traitor, liar and thief, Judas Iscariot, on the other hand, ruined the name "Judas" for all the would-be Judases to come. Likewise the mere mention of the infamous surname "Hitler" brings to mind black and white footage of concentration camps littered with the starved corpses of millions of murdered holocaust victims. Association by comparison with Adolf Hitler is likely to remain offensive and objectionable for decades to come.
Think of a person you know named "John". Got the face? Now think of a "David". Got one? Now come up with a face for the name "Judas". We're guessing that one didn't come so quickly--probably not at all. John and David are persons whose Bible accounts, overall, read favorably. Traitor, liar and thief, Judas Iscariot, on the other hand, ruined the name "Judas" for all the would-be Judases to come. Likewise the mere mention of the infamous surname "Hitler" brings to mind black and white footage of concentration camps littered with the starved corpses of millions of murdered holocaust victims. Association by comparison with Adolf Hitler is likely to remain offensive and objectionable for decades to come.
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.
--Auric Goldfinger
Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein have, likewise, become household names and, courtesy of the American mainstream media, their reputations have become such that any association--express or implied--with either is to be avoided. That brings us to Barack Hussein Obama.
How many people do you know who have a Muslim name? Statistical probability suggests, relatively few. How many people do you know named Barack? We've never met one. How many people do you know whose first name sounds like Iraq? Probably not many. How many people have you ever met whose middle name is Hussein? Again, probability suggests very few. Factor the two together and you have an exponentially smaller pool of persons from which to choose but that pool can be made smaller still. How many persons have you ever met whose surname is so close to "Osama" that you can't help but occasionally misspeak and say "Osama" when you meant "Obama"? Have you ever received mail even though the sender misspelled your name?
Duplicitous (adj).Marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another
Nearly everyone would easily overlook any similarity were the man's name Barack Jones. Perhaps someone might take note a curiosity were he named Barack Hussein Smith but what are the odds of finding one person with three names that so closely lend themselves to unintentional misassocation with infamous "terror" duo of such ill repute as Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein? Could the DNC really have overlooked such obvious potential for mischaracterization by the press and a long-time opposition that is known for word-play and dirty tricks?
The Big Picture
January 1961. In his outgoing address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of a danger which he was in a unique position to observe. The Military-Industrial Complex had "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power". The danger, he warned "exists and will persist". He continues, asserting that the rise of the American Military-Industrial Complex could "endanger our liberties or democratic processes".
Barely three years later, John F. Kennedy similarly warned of a dangerous secret society; a warning which he would punctuate with his very life. In his words: "We are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means...that relies on infiltration instead of invasion. On subversion instead of elections. Intimidation instead of free choice".
He would go on to describe a "machine" in such terms as "tightly-knit", "highly efficient" and having "conscripted vast resources". A machine, in his words, that "combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations". It would seem that Eisenhower's warning went unheeded. Has anyone been able to stop this "machine" in the 45 years since Kennedy's reiteration? We see reason for doubt.
Into the Machine
When you were a young child, how did you think mail got to your house? Chances are you didn't think of it at all; mail just appeared and you just accepted that fact. Now that you are old enough to know that there is a sophisticated national network of people, technologies and protocols that move mail from point to point, how much do you know about the many procedures, particulars and nuances that must work in concert to get mail delivered?
Most of us label our envelope with the desired destination, stamp it with postage specifying how we desire it to be treated and then it's someone else's job. We don't need to know any more about the system than that. Consider, however, what it would it say about a person who, as an adult, is still unaware of the existence of the machine that underlies the postal service.
When OJ Simpson's mug shot was inserted into the media machine, some people knew just what to do.
Campaigns of years past have featured Republican, Democrat and the occasional independent taking jabs and/or pulling punches over each other's policies, records and even character. Most other campaigns have featured a homogenized array of candidates so bland that there was little to discuss outside of issues, policies and minutiae. The 2008 campaign, however, has a new wrinkle. Mudslinging has long been part of the game but how often has one candidate felt comfortable labeling the other dangerous? In the video below, Fox K`news goes above and beyond the call of duty.
Could all of Obama's advisers, backers and financiers have failed to foresee a conflict of interest of such magnitude in a business in which every word is scrutinized for subtle shades of meaning, carefully inspected for tone and obsessively filtered for the slightest adverse implication? If the DNC were honest about its intent, a well-calculated effort should yield results consistent with its stated goals.
Allow us to restate: The Journal supports neither Obama or McCain; we are publishing an analysis, nothing more. We do, however, find it more than a little unusual that a United States Senator has been labeled, "risky", "dangerous" and even "terrorist". How could the DNC not have seen this coming?
The "C" word.
We believe they could have foreseen it and did. 1960 saw the United States' first televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Kennedy's performance may well have taken a back seat to his appearance because the latter seemed to be the determining factor. Nixon's refusal to wear makeup cost more than he gained from his apparent substantive advantage and the election went to Kennedy. There were no presidential debates between 1960 and 1976 but, since then, candidates for president, senate, congress and other major elected offices have been all but completely dependent upon television as the primary means of reaching a majority of voters.
The lessons learned from the Kennedy-Nixon debate are reflected time and again as campaigning candidates force the public to look up to them by authoritatively standing before podiums with cameras positioned below. Surrounded with flags and other patriotic symbolism, they invariably repeat loaded buzz-words such as "freedom" and "America". We doubt any politician would dare show up on television not wearing make up.
This they do because they know that the use of such patriotic symbols and buzz-words bypasses thinking and reason and and appeals directly to the viewer's emotions. Since a majority of voters in every election in the age of television have responded to this, it would be foolhardy to attempt a campaign without invoking loaded imagery and language. The principle behind these predictable behaviors is the driving force behind much of the success of television programming: conditioning.
He who controls what you see controls what you think. If a person sees anything with sufficient frequency, he becomes desensitized; indifferent to its presence. He eventually accepts it as normal and normalcy is thus defined. He will, in time, come to expect to see more of the same and, if he does not, may even object; conditioning has occurred. Conditioning through repetition has the power to make bad appear good; slavery, free and lies, true.
So where are the leaked memos directing media executives to brand Barack Obama "dangerous"? There don't appear to be any so why do we assert that the DNC should have expected Obama to become so labeled in the press? Who has not seen on television news, a black male in a police sketch or in a perp-walk so many times that each new impression simultaneously fatigues and exasperates? That's just what the media does with black faces.
The media machine has so frequently associated the faces of black males with crime (usually before trial) that every jury pool in America, often unbeknownst to themselves, is effectively prejudiced by default. The "best" part is that everyone gets plausible deniability since nobody ever has to actually say anything racist. Did you think marketing principles only sold soft drinks?
Did the DNC really believe that the Obama Campaign would be unaffected by decades of the media machine's association of African American faces with crime?
Jurors have no problem believing something they have seen so many times thus the situation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, of sorts. The effect is so simultaneously wide-spread and subtle that "turning it off" for the benefit of Barack Obama would be as difficult as stopping delivery of a letter that has already been mailed. Obama would start his campaign handicapped with an unspoken presumption of guilt until--and unless--proven innocent.
The Clinton Connection
The ground-breaking campaign of Barack Obama isn't the only recent attempt at history-making from the DNC. As the widely-known senator-wife of a very popular two-term president, Senator Hilary Clinton had about as good an argument as anyone could make for a bid for the DNC nomination. The epic clash between Barack Obama and Senator Hilary Clinton would end with Clinton bitterly defeated in the primaries. The victory could hardly be called insignificant for Obama who, through it, made a plausible case for his potential as a nominee. If the DNC has set up Barack Obama for failure, how could his victory over Hilary Clinton have been guaranteed?
To aid in understanding the answer to that question, watch this video (5 minutes), and ask yourself which of the two sides you thought was more believable.
Whom did you believe? The representatives from Popular Mechanics? Why? Because they appeared more mature? More controlled? Could you have responded to the fact that they have the backing of an established, profitable institution? They certainly did attempt to sway your opinion. Did you notice? Was it necessary that they accuse the opposing gentlemen of being "paranoid"? Does their expertise in engineering qualify them to make a mental health diagnosis? Did they address the facts or take shortcuts through thought-stopping, emotionally charged buzzwords? These are some of the principles of propaganda. If did you choose to believe the representatives of Popular Mechanics, however, we think there may be a very simple answer:
Barack Obama had one simple advantage over Hilary Clinton; she could not wear a necktie.So conditioned have Americans (perhaps even the majority of the world) become to symbolism that almost no one can tell when they are being influenced by it. The necktie is the element of credibility. The image of the "respectable" man is not complete without a suit and a tie. So often have we been faced with such a subtle image that the necktie has become a powerful symbol of respectability and credibility. Many accept the word of men so attired as the measure of truth no matter what they say.
"Credibility, alone, must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false" -- Joseph Goebbels
How did the DNC know they could back the best-qualified woman in the world and she would fail as a would-be president? The media machine has never invested in the image of a woman as president. The DNC knew that you, the general public, would not be able to see it because the media machine never showed it to you. The graphic below (not directly based upon any scientific study) is an illustration of the authority structure that has been sold to the American public by the national media machine.
Years of fictional, dramatic portrayals have conditioned
America to accept authority structured
male over female, white over black.
Could it really be that simple? How many movies or television shows have you seen in which a character portrayed the President of the United States? How many times has that character been played by an African American man? There may have been more but we can readily think of one instance; Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact. With no commentary intended upon his performance, we must confess that we felt he did not appear "presidential".
When have you seen the role of President of the United States played by a woman--of any race? We cannot say that it has never happened, but we cannot think of a single instance. All other occurrences are so overwhelmingly white and male that it would literally be impossible to count. It comes down to a simple matter of conditioning; Americans have been shown white males as their president so often that it is what everyone expects to see.
Have you ever seen an actor with this appearance cast as President of the United States? In what role would you more likely see him?
"But", some may ask "what do fictional portrayals of presidents have to do with real elections of real people"? The truthful answer is the effect of conditioning via fictitious portrayals cannot be overstated. The man pictured above is far more likely to be cast in the role of terrorist than President.
The Heart of the Matter
The Journal is not affluent, influential or well-connected enough to gain access to the decision makers of either party. Were we, however, to personally inquire of the motives of the individual(s) whose approval greenlighted the candidacy of Barack Obama, there are only three possible responses. Either 1) we would be told the truth; 2) we would be told lies; or 3) we would be told some combination of the two. Asking questions, therefore, does not necessarily get one where one wants to be. As it happens, however, the Journal believes that such access is not necessary.
Disingenuous
- Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating:
- Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated.
People do things because people want things. Motives are thus exposed by the actions one takes to satisfy that motive. The action of a person reaching for food, for example, may expose hunger as a likely motive before the outcome is observed.
If the results of actions taken do not match the stated goals, then the words are (in most cases) exposed as lies. True, things don't always turn out the way we intend but one's choices in life are either take everyone at their word or hold the educated, informed, equipped and responsible accountable for their actions.
A sufficiently influential person suggested, approved or both that Barack Obama run, with the backing of the Democratic National Committee, for President of the United States. Although the end result of that action has yet to be observed, the Journal believes significant circumstantial evidence already exists to expose the motive of that individual as disingenuous. Whatever else we write or to whomever else we refer in this article, the motive of this unnamed person is our main focus.
The Implications
The Journal believes that the advance of the Military Industrial Complex, and the dangers of which we were warned, have proceeded unimpeded. All branches of the US government appear to be rife with cronyism and so saturated with corruption that the Justice department has been faced with enforcing subpoeneas against itself.
The "free" press is, illegally, infiltrated with "message force multipliers", propaganda pushers conducting psyops on the American public. The nation's largest financial institutions have publicly confessed that they know nothing about money or banking, hence they have all, simultaneously, gone bankrupt. The Republicans and Democrats joined forces to hand them the biggest corporate welfare package the world has ever seen.
Do you see an inherent conflict of interest with this arrangement?
All for-profit Corporations have a single interest, more profit. The Journal flatly rejects any suggestion that corporations contribute to Republicans to advance their agenda and then pay Democrats to resist that same agenda. We have observed how consistently Democrats voice dissent in the press but invariably kowtow to the will of the corporate lobby when it comes time to vote.
We can only conclude that corporate contributions to the RNC advance corporate policies to the extent that Americans will accept them while contributions to the DNC cover the cost of maintaining appearances that there are actually two opposing political parties. Whatever the various members of the respecive parties believe, there exists, for all intents and purposes, a single corporate party.
Having established media synchronicity, entrenched political parties, dubious campaign finance practices and finally, the unlikely nomination of Barack Hussein Obama. We conclude that the entirety of the 2008 national campaigns of both the RNC and the DNC has been an elaborate ruse because the DNC does not want to win the 2008 election. There can be no mistake, the DNC nominated Barack Obama, not despite the potential conflict of interest presented by his decidedly Muslim name and African American face, but because of it.
With the "opposition" party having fallen out of favor with the majority of Americans, the DNC could almost certainly have established a wide, early lead with any caucasian male candidate. The Obama campaign, by contrast, trailed against the RNC in early poll results for some time. The Journal believes that the DNC handicapped itself with the nomination of Barack Obama with the intent to lose the race by a narrow margin.
The one having unfair advantage conceals it by the pretense that the election was close. There is no need to win by a landslide, so no landslide is engineered. If poll results are reported as "too close to call" as election day draws near, uncertainty keeps the voting public off-balance and prepares both sides for the possibility of the defeat that was determined in 1776.
We don't see how, with so long a history of nominating white males, the DNC could possibly have been unaware of the likelihood of our assertion that they could have easily won with a white, male nominee when they chose to back Barack Obama. The Journal points to the dashed hopes of Senator Clinton as confirmation of the duplicitous nature of the appointments of the Democratic National Committee. We also believe the DNC also took a dive in the 2004 election with the nomination of Senator John Kerry, fellow member with George W. Bush of the infamous secret society, Skull & Bones.
The question might arise "Why would Barack Obama do such a thing to himself?" We don't believe he would. The Journal does not attribute ill intent to Mr. Obama, we believe Obama is sincerely (however naively) pursuing the office of president, but is simply being used.
The Journal is aware that, as of October 20, 2008, polls show the Obama/DNC campaign leading the McCain/RNC campaign. We attribute Obama's lead not to successful efforts of the DNC but to exceptionally poor efforts by the debacle-laden McCain/RNC camp. Unable to jettson 8 years of Bush ballast, the bank bailout has apparently left the RNC with an indefensible position so bereft of value that their strategy seems to have become completely dependent upon the certainty that some people will never vote for an African American.
As the experience of Al Gore testifies, being elected does not necessarily, make one president. There are early indications that election fixing is underway. The Journal also finds it plausible that a contingency exists in the unlikely event that steering of the 2008 election fails.
Whether or not you agree, we hope we have established to your satisfaction that our analysis has at least been an honest and unbiased effort. It has been a long journey and yet we have only come half way. We did, after all, promise you a "disturbing" conclusion. Please stay tuned for part II of The Obama Deception.
Posts
