Flooding The World With US Dollars

I mean, it's not as if there is not already a glut of junk US dollars in the hands of much of the world. Now, they are about to flood the world economy with more.

Here comes the New Chief. What did Osama call him? The "House Negroe"? Those "relatively" privileged plantation slavery Blacks who were the domestics of the slave owner: cooking for him, suckling his brats so his wife's tits didn't sag, laying out his cloths and, in the case of Jefferson for sure, being his favoured behind the barn shag, and actually producing a whole separate black line of the Jefferson family. That they not infrequently had a separate "ideology" from the "Field Blacks", more tolerant of slavery, and more sympathetic to the slave owner, should not be surprising, I guess.

Here comes the New Chief, Obama. Sounding and acting a whole lot like the Old Chief. More Socialist, Welfare State Capitalism for the rich and powerful. More laissez-faire capitalism for the working masses of Amerika.

As the ship goes down, things get weirder and weirder.

Here's what we can expect from the real Obama in power.

Ed Deak.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-imperia ... ve-in.html


The Imperialism You Can Believe In

While Leftists Celebrate "Change," Obama Appointees Suggest Massive
Expansion Of Bush War Doctrine

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, November 20, 2008

While naive, giddy and myopic establishment leftists have been celebrating
the great "change" heralded by the election of Barack Obama, the President
elect has been busy appointing people to key positions who advocate the
same Neo-Con imperialist foreign policy crafted during eight years of the
Bush administration.

The New York Times, widely recognized as the voice of the establishment
Democratic left, set the tone of what we can expect from an Obama foreign
policy in a lead editorial last Sunday entitled, "A military for a
dangerous new world."

The editorial calls for U.S. military imperialism not to be scaled back
under Obama, but to be vastly expanded both in terms of budget and scope.

Iran, China, Somalia, Russia and Pakistan are all listed as potential
targets of U.S. military aggression and the paper echoes what Obama himself
has said he will implement - an addition of nearly 100,000 more soldiers
and marines to American ground forces, bringing the total to 759,000 active
duty forces, at a cost of $100 billion dollars over the next six years.

Does this sound like a "change" from the Project For a New American century
framework of endless "multi-theatre warfare," the inspiration for eight
years of Bush administration militarism, or an expansion of that very
doctrine?

Obama's announced appointees and those that are expected to follow differ
only from their Bush administration contemporaries in proficiency and
competence, their zeal for military adventurism is coequal, while others
that shaped eight awful years of spying, torture, eviscerations on freedom
and unprovoked military attacks on sovereign nations will merely stay on in
their roles.

Welcome to the "change that you can believe in".

Obama's likely selection of Hillary Clinton for the position of Secretary
of State highlights the brazen hypocrisy with which the "change" agenda has
begun to be implemented since Obama won the election two and a half weeks
ago.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, a point on which she was attacked
by Obama during the phony punch and judy show of the debates. Obama also
denounced Clinton for voting in favor of a Senate resolution branding the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton promised to
"obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel, a mantra echoed by Obama when he
assured AIPAC, the notorious Israeli lobby, that military strikes against
Iran were very much on the table.

Does this sound like the language of diplomacy or a change from eight years
of the Bush doctrine?

Likewise, one of the favorites to become Obama's Defense Secretary is
Mich?le A. Flournoy, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton
administration and president of the Center for a New American Security
(CNAS) think tank.

As Alex Lantier writes, "Members of CNAS, a rather small Washington
think tank with a staff of 30 employees founded in 2003 by (John) Podesta
and Flournoy, play an outsized role in the Obama transition team."

"So many CNAS members are likely to join the Obama administration that
CNAS officials told the (Wall Street) Journal they were concerned the think
tank might fold after Obama's inauguration."

CNAS has opposed a set timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, has advocated the
deployment of more troops in Afghanistan and has called for U.S. troops to
be stationed in Pakistan. CNAS has also urged military spending to be
beefed up in order to compete with China's growing Navy.

"CNAS publications, many of which are publicly available on its web
site, make it clear that the Obama administration's foreign policy will
have a thoroughly imperialist character," notes Lantier.

How does this represent a "change" from eight years of Bush administration
foreign policy? How does this represent a shift from a strategy of
diplomacy based on intimidation, invasion and occupation?

Robert Gates

Obama's advisors have also been floating the likelihood of Robert Gates
remaining as Obama's Secretary of Defense, so it looks like we're either
going to have a warmonger or a warmonger in the position - what a choice!

The Financial Times reported this week, "President-Elect Barack Obama and
Robert Gates are negotiating terms under which the defense secretary would
remain as Pentagon chief in the new administration."

Gates of course has a history of entanglement with the military-industrial
complex having pushed for the U.S. bombing of Nicaragua when he was deputy
director of the CIA and later being indicted for his involvement in
covering up the Iran Contra scandal.

Gates was the primary advocate for the Iraq "surge" which increased the
U.S. military presence in the country.

Obama's decision to appoint Eric Holder as Attorney General caused a
flutter of controversy considering Holder's involvement in ensuring
billionaire fugitive investor Marc Rich received a presidential pardon at
the end of Bill Clinton's term, but the real dirt on Holder is far more
shocking.

Eric Holder

After leaving the Clinton administration, Holder, who played a key role in
the 2005 re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which Obama voted for, set up
the legal and lobbying firm of Covington & Burling. The firm's most
high-profile case was its defense of Chiquita Brands International, Inc,
whose executives were facing charges of aiding terrorists for bankrolling
and arming right-wing death squads in Colombia.

As Bill Van Auken writes, "Using his longstanding ties at the Justice
Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that
amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the
overwhelming evidence-and the company's own admission-that it had paid out
millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by
its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre,
assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian
workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political
activists."

"Holder's record is not that of a champion of civil and democratic
rights or a defender of the oppressed, but rather a legal servant of the
corporations and the state, complicit in their criminality and repression."

Holder's law enforcement deputy in the Obama administration is likely to be
Robert Mueller, who will remain as FBI Director despite his involvement in
the use of National Security Letters to illegally spy on American citizens
via the collection of email, telecommunications and financial records.

Robert Mueller

Obama's head of the CIA transition team is none other than John Brennan, an
aide to former CIA director George Tenet and a key participant in the
formulation of policies that led to the torture scandal, extraordinary
renditions and secret prisons.

Van Auken notes, "Brennan, like Tenet, deserves to confront a war
crimes tribunal, yet he is shaping intelligence policy for Obama."

"Given these appointments, a report published Monday by the Associated
Press that the incoming Obama administration "is unlikely to bring criminal
charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in" torture
hardly comes as a surprise."

Then we have Rahm Emanuel, "the enforcer", and Obama's new chief of staff.

Emanuel is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which
was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous
Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were
slaughtered.

Upon news of his appointment, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, told
the Jerusalem Post, "Obviously he will influence the president to be
pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to
clean the floors of the White House."

But forget sins of the father, Rahm Emanuel himself is a former Israeli IDF
soldier who has a penchant for making death threats against his political
enemies while crazily slamming a knife into a dinner table. Sounds like a
diplomatic kind of guy.

Rahm Emanuel

When Emanuel's appointment was confirmed, top Israeli newspaper the Maariv
Daily hailed the news with the headline, "Our man in the White House."

Another Israeli news outlet, Y Net, reported, "Emanuel is pro-Israeli, and
would not be willing to consider accepting the job unless he was convinced
that President-elect Obama is pro-Israel."

Recall that President elect Barack Obama's first act of "change" upon
winning the Democratic presidential nomination back in June was to don a
joint US-Israeli label pin, head on over to AIPAC and prostrate himself in
front of the Israeli lobby, vowing to keep military action in mind for Iran
and promising to hand over another $30 billion of American taxpayers' money
in military assistance to the Zionist state.

It seems that Obama has already answered the question of whether he can be
a more hardcore Israel hard-liner than George W. Bush - 'yes he can'!

When are left-wing establishment liberals going to overcome their inane
idolatry for Obama and realize that the people he is putting into positions
of power are the same and in some cases worse than the Neo-Cons who ran
eight years of Bush foreign policy?

When are leftists going to get over their petty power trips and understand
that the mantra of "change" is a mere illusion to provide left cover for a
massive expansion in U.S. imperialism the likes of which the Bush
administration could never have accomplished?

When are liberals going to stop behaving like gloating children and
understand that Obama's exalted messiah status and political capital,
allied with his publicly stated agenda and the nature and track record of
those he has appointed to key positions, is a recipe for a new wave of
militarism and an expansion of the pre-emptive Bush foreign policy doctrine
that Obama himself campaigned against with his rhetorical and empty
promises of "change"?

-------------------

Over the last few days, unlike scores of other left-wing websites who are
still in a zombiefied trance over their new "ObaMassiah", WSWS.org have put
out a series of excellent articles concerning the "change" illusion and we
encourage you to read them via the links below.

Obama's "seamless transition" to endless war by Bill Van Auken
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n18.shtml

Obama's transition: A who's who of imperialist policy by Alex Lantier
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n19.shtml

Obama's attorney general pick and the illusion of change by Bill Van Auken
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n20.shtml

Great stuff, Ed.

As I posted elsewhere from other attributed sources, the total values of real "global" economic production and distribution activity is estimated at around $50 trillion, which is what it is estimated is actually needed in circulation to keep this global capitalist economy financially greased and in motion. Chasing that, and wanting a piece of the profit action is approx. $158 trillion in circulation in global financial markets, mostly, obviously, invested in purely paper "assets"; derivatives and other speculative "casino capitalism" investments. And, of course, the vast preponderance of that (I don't have an actual figure, if even anyone knows what it is.) paper money being US dollars, to here still, the main currency of international trade and finance.

Like a comedian I heard here within the last few days said, in words to the effect, "These rich guys have demonstrated by now, that they didn't even understand this "free market" and the complexity of what they were doing, when it was on the way up. What the hell would make us continue to believe that they understand it any better now, on the way down into catastropne?"

And this is actually the central point. They don't. First of all they are dealing with incredibly complicated, intertwined and moving at lightening speed, computerized global capital market systems, that even the actual players have only been guessing at (casino capitalism again), and dealing with sums of paper money 300 times the actual size of the real global economy, and 158 times the actual age of the universe, fer chri'sake.

Global capitalism, and nowhere more than in the heartland of the system within the US Empire itself, is flying entirely by the seat of its pants right now, making policy up as they go and as this global system collapses in on itself, transforming into a major global economic depression. The effects of this, before its all over, upon the thinking of "the masses" is destined to be huge. For better or worse is yet to be determined.

Someone made the resemblance between Obama and Hitler, both with great speaking voices, and saying what the people want to hear.................

Get ready for Fortress America!