JFK’s Disobedience to the Powers That Be

[Time for change]

I walked into El Presidente’s office two days after he was elected and congratulated him… I said “Mr. President, in here I got a couple hundred million dollars for you and your family, if you play the game – you know, be kind to my friends who run the oil companies, treat your Uncle Sam good.” Then I stepped closer, reached my right hand into the other pocket, bent down next to his face, and whispered, “In here I got a gun and a bullet with your name on it – in case you decide to keep your campaign promises.” I stepped back, sat down, and recited a little list for him, of presidents who were assassinated or overthrown because they defied their Uncle Sam: from Diem to Torrijos – you know the routine. He got the message. – John Perkins, quoting an anonymous source in his new book, “The Secret History of the American Empire – Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption”.

No matter what promises you make on the campaign trail, blah blah blah, when you win (the U.S. Presidency), you go into this smoky room with the 12 industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down...and its a shot of the JFK assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously like the grassy knoll, and then the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions? – Comedian Bill Hicks, telling a joke (or NOT).


JFK’S DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POWERS THAT BE

In past posts I’ve speculated about the “Powers That Be” (PTB), the unelected but powerful and shadowy elite who seem to exercise influence over national and world events far more than a lot of people realize. Though most DUers – if not most Americans – seem to recognize their existence, because of their shadowy nature they are very difficult to talk about with much confidence.

In my most recent post I talked about excessive obedience to authority as one of the greatest sources of evil in the world. Of course, the most important “authority” of relevance to a political discussion of obedience would be the PTB.

Despite their minimal visibility, they seem to have their fingerprints over much of our nation’s history. Their ultimate purpose and motives can only be guessed at, but two aspects of our nation’s current condition seem to stand out above most others: 1) Rampant militarism manifested by a military budget almost equal to that of the rest of the world combined, a philosophy of perpetual war, more than 700 military bases scattered throughout all parts of the world, and imperialistic behavior and attitudes in relation to the other nations of the world; and 2) Obscenely unequal distribution of wealth.

Clearly, an understanding of this issue is of great importance to our attempts to understand how the world operates. Yet, the shadowy nature of the PTB greatly hampers our attempts to understand it. James Douglass’s book, “JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters”, goes farther than any book I’ve previously read in concretely describing the conflict between the PTB and a U.S. President. Consequently, I find it to be one of the most enlightening books I’ve ever read:


Show down with the steel industry

Concerned about the rising price of steel, President John F. Kennedy brokered an agreement] between the United Steelworkers union and the United States Steel Company, signed on April 6, 1962, with the understanding that U.S. Steel would not raise steel prices. Four days later the president of U.S. Steel, Roger Blough, asked to meet with Kennedy. At their meeting he handed Kennedy a copy of a press release announcing that U.S. Steel would be raising steel prices.

In response to Blough’s double-cross, JFK told Blough “You’ve made a terrible mistake”, began immediately to shift Defense Department contracts from U.S. Steel to smaller companies that had not raised the price of steel, and had his Attorney General convene a grand jury to investigate price fixing among the largest steel companies. He then gave a press conference to the nation on April 11th, in which he said:

Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by some $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest… The American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans…

Some time ago I asked each American to consider what he would do for his country and I asked the steel companies. In the last 24 hours we had their answer.

Under attack by the President, and facing massive public resentment, the steel companies then tried to negotiate a compromise with Kennedy, but he refused to compromise. On April 13, 1962, the six largest steel countries in the country surrendered, reducing their steel prices to their previous levels. Douglass explains the upshot of JFK’s actions against the steel companies:

John and Robert Kennedy had become notorious in the ranks of big business. JFK’s strategy of withdrawing defense contracts and RFK’s aggressive investigating tactics toward men of power were seen as unforgivable sins by the corporate world. As a result of the president’s uncompromising stand against the steel industry – and implicitly any corporation that chose to defy his authority – a bitter gap opened up between Kennedy and big business, whose most powerful elements coincided with the MIC…

When Roger Blough handed U.S. Steel’s provocative press release to the president, he did so on behalf of not only U.S. steel but also these other financial giants… The president was acting too much like a president, rather than just another officeholder beholden to the powers that be… His unswerving response served to confirm the worst fears of corporate America… The steel crisis defined John and Robert Kennedy as Wall Street enemies…

JFK’s four refusals to invade Cuba

In a previous post I discussed JFK’s four refusals to let his military and CIA draw him into war with Cuba. So I won’t repeat that here. But to summarize:

Following the April 15-19, 1961, CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs by a Cuban Expeditionary Force, Kennedy’s military and CIA attempted to pressure him into committing to a full-scale invasion, in order to avoid the imminent defeat of the Cuban Expeditionary Force. Kennedy refused.

On March 16, 1962, Kennedy’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by their Chief, Lyman Lemnitzer, presented a plan called “Operation Northwoods” to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The plan involved a false flag terrorist operation that was meant to draw the United States into a war against Cuba. The idea was shot down. Kennedy told Lemnitzer that “there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.”

In his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis, Kennedy repeatedly resisted advice from his military advisors to escalate the situation by invading Cuba. On October 19th, 1962, Air Force Chief of Staff, General Curtis LeMay, contemptuously said of the President, “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.... I just don't see any other solution except direct military intervention right now.” But Kennedy instead decided upon a naval blockade, paired with intense back-channel diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis. On October 22, despite the urging of Senate leaders for air strikes, he addressed the American public to announce his resolve to implement the naval blockade only.

On March 19, 1963, the CIA-sponsored Cuban exile group Alpha 66 announced at a press conference that it had raided a Soviet “fortress” and ship in Cuba, causing a dozen casualties. Kennedy eventually had to undertake vigorous action in order to stop the continuing attacks, as described in a April 6, 1963 article in the New York Times, which stated that the U.S. government intended to ‘take every step necessary’ to halt the raids.


Refusal to go to war in Laos

As Kennedy took office in January 1961, he was confronted with advice from outgoing President Eisenhower and from his military that he should intervene militarily in Laos against Communist forces seeking control of the government. Kennedy preferred a non-military solution if possible – negotiating a coalition Communist and non-Communist government in Laos. He made that policy official at a March 23 news conference, stating that he supported:

strongly and unreservedly… the goal of a neutral and independent Laos, tied to no outside power or group of powers, threatening no one, and free from any domination.

His military was adamantly against that solution. Admiral Burke told him “We should go in to win, and that means bombing Hanoi, China, and maybe even using nuclear weapons.” Air Force General Curtis LeMay stated in front of a room full of national security advisors that “The military had been unable to back up the President’s statements.” And General Lemnitzer told him “If we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee victory.”

But Kennedy persisted in trying to devise a non-military solution. Douglass describes how that turned out:

On July 23, 1962, the United States joins thirteen other nations at Geneva in signing the “Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos.” CIA and Pentagon opponents regard Kennedy’s negotiation of the Laotian agreement as surrender to the Communists. They undermine it by supporting General Phoumi’s violations of the cease-fire.

Plans for withdrawal from Vietnam

Early in his presidency Kennedy encountered strong determination from his military to get more deeply involved in the Vietnam War by sending in combat troops. Kennedy repeated refused to do that, though in November 1961 he compromised by sending in support units and “advisors” – though some of them did participate in combat.

After that he repeatedly requested a plan from his military for withdrawal from Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers and partially wrote them, discussed the reason for JFK's desire to withdraw from Vietnam against the unanimous advice of his military, with JFK’s brother Bobby. Douglass relates the following conversation on this issue:

Robert Kennedy answered that his brother was absolutely determined never to send ground combat units to Vietnam, because if he did, the U.S. would be in the same spot as the French -- whites against Asians, in a war against nationalism and self-determination.

Ellsberg pressed the question: Was JFK willing to accept defeat rather than send troops?

RFK said that if the president reached the point where the only alternative to defeat was sending ground troops or withdrawing, he intended to withdraw. "We would have handled it like Laos," his brother said.

Douglass describes the eventual outcome of JFK’s withdrawal plans

On May 6, 1963, the Pacific Command finally presents President Kennedy’s long-sought plan for withdrawal from Vietnam. However, McNamara has to reject the military’s overextended time line. He orders that concrete plans be drawn up for withdrawing one thousand U.S. military personnel from South Vietnam by the end of 1963.

Several reliable sources explain that Kennedy’s intentions to withdraw from Vietnam were firm and would have been carried out had he lived much longer.


Aspiring to an independent Congo

Again, against the advice of his military, Kennedy aspired to an independent Congo. Douglass explains Kennedy’s intentions and the friction that caused with his military and CIA:

Kennedy and (Edmund) Gullion promoted (UN Secretary-General) Hammarskjold’s vision of a united, independent Congo, to the dismay of multinational corporations working ceaselessly to carve up the country and control its rich resources. After Kennedy’s death, the corporations would succeed in controlling the Congo with the complicity of local kingpins. While JFK was alive, a Kennedy-Hammarskjold-UN vision kept the Congo together and independent.

Seventeen years after JFK’s death, Gullion said, “Kennedy, I think, risked a great deal in backing this operation (of UN forces in the Congo)…” The risk came from within his own government. Kennedy rejected his State Department’s and Joint Chiefs’ proposals for “direct U.S. military intervention in the Congo in September 1961 and December 1962.”… His Congo policy was also being subverted by the CIA, which had been arming the Congo’s secessionist regime in Katanga in order to promote Belgian mining interests… Kennedy’s policy, carried out by Gullion, was to support the UN peacekeeping operation. The President often quoted the statement his UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson made to the Security Council, that the only way to keep the Cold War out of the Congo was to keep the UN in the Congo. But the CIA wanted the Cold War in the Congo.

Plans to end the Cold War

Douglass presents a great deal of evidence on Kennedy’s intentions to end the Cold War, accompanied by frequent communication with Nikita Khrushchev towards the attainment of that goal. Perhaps the best evidence of Kennedy’s intention is provided by his peace speech at American University on June 10th 1963 (which I discuss in more detail in this post), just a little more than four months before he died. He began:

… I have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived – yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war… I am talking about genuine peace – the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living – the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

He talked about how the presence of nuclear weapons meant that that we MUST make peace a priority:

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.

In marked contrast to the prevailing tough anti-Communist rhetoric of the day, Kennedy spoke of the need for Americans to examine their own attitudes:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament -- and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude – as individuals and as a Nation – for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward – by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace… Too many of us think it is impossible… But that is dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable – that mankind is doomed – that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…

Six weeks later, Kennedy announced to the American people the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. With an extensive public campaign and help from his Secretary of Defense… Kennedy prevailed upon the Senate to ratify the treaty. Kennedy then undertook secret negotiations with Fidel Castro in an attempt to come to an accommodation with him.


Implication for today’s World

Could the circumstances of JFK’s death have created a chilling effect on future U.S. presidents with otherwise independent or liberal tendencies? Could these considerations explain some of President Obama’s right turns? My tendency is to answer yes to both questions, though I have no way of knowing for sure.

Most important is the question of how to reduce the influence of the PTB on the world, our country, and our own lives. The key to that question lies in the fact that they are vastly outnumbered. Because they are vastly outnumbered, their success depends upon securing the allegiance and obedience of vast numbers of people. Because their violent and depraved methods and selfish goals are so out of synch with the good majority of Americans, the key to securing their allegiance and obedience is to create an alternate reality that people can believe in. That alternate reality hides much of the violence and depravity from our awareness, as it creates an elaborate system of rationalizations for what it cannot hide. Thus it is that we’re told that the purpose of our wars is to protect us against terrorists or to bring freedom and democracy to the poor uncivilized peoples who can’t carry on without our help.

That is why the PTB could not tolerate, for example, prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes, and why it gets apoplectic at the mention of releasing pictures that depict those war crimes. A thorough investigation of those crimes could go a long way towards destroying the foundation for belief in their alternate reality. It could force Americans to confront some very inconvenient and unpleasant truths. In short, it could undermine the whole basis for their power.

Let me be more specific about this. The power of the PTB in the United States depends above all else on maintaining the widespread belief that the United States is – as “super-patriots” are so fond of claiming – “the greatest force for good in the world”. What kind of person would be willing to volunteer to risk his life fighting in his country’s war if he didn’t have great confidence in the benevolence and motives of his country? Convicting the highest leaders of the U.S. government for war crimes would shatter that confidence to hell and would therefore go a long way towards undermining the power of the PTB. And that would radically change the fabric of American society.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Fear is a terrible thing. n/t

[Octafish]

55. Ignorance is worse.

The country has not been the same since the assassination of President Kennedy.
JFK stood for idealism -- the idea that we could build a better world by working together;
that the power of government should be used to make life better for ALL Americans, not just the rich and powerful;
that peaceful cooperation yields lasting friendships better than extorting resources through military might.

He also transformed his idealism into action, helping achieve what had been considered only months earlier to be impossible --
landing men on the moon and returning them safely to the earth.
If we could do that, We the People could do anything on earth -- like ending war, hunger, poverty, preventable disease.

Instead, we got the War Party. They're the ones spreading fear.

[mikelewis]

110. Cowardice is a terrible thing...

Fear just gets your blood pumping.

[anonymous171]

2. JFK was not a dove.

He was killed by the Federal Reserve because he tried to screw with them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110 .) The PTB only care about one thing: wealth. If you threaten their wealth, you die. It's that simple really.

[Time for change]

8. Do you think I was making up the stuff in the OP?

You don't think that Eisenhower's warning about the MIC concerned an issue that was highly related to wealth?

[DaLittle Kitty]

208. EXCELLENT! Likely The Truth!

[stopbush]

209. Two JFK CTists die and go to heaven where they meet their maker.

"So tell us, god," says the one, "who really killed JFK?"

"Oh, that old thing?" replies god. "It was Oswald. He acted entirely on his own. Didn't you ever read the Warren Commission Report when you were on Earth? It's all in there."

"Man," whispers the one stunned CTist to the other, "this thing goes much higher than we ever imagined!"

[jakeXT]

26. I have heard that, I haven't read enough on it and I'm too young to have been there

People claim that because his father was a "Nazi" the PTB thought his son would be one of their own.
They claim JFK was their boy and they gave him the election.

"You gotta swallow this one," says a Republican hack in Oliver Stone's Nixon, referring to the 1960 election, in which John F. Kennedy prevailed. "They stole it fair and square."
http://www.slate.com/id/91350 /


I don't know if it's true or not, but they say JFK ran on a hawkish platform and sometime he changed, I don't know why.

Pepper for example says he didn't like Robert Kennedy, when he was campaigning for him, but he also says he changed later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daIIDyaG648


I really don't know what changed his mind, maybe it came with time and good advice, I don't know.

"President Kennedy first began to have doubts about our military effort in Vietnam in 1961 when both General Douglas MacArthur and General Charles de Gaulle warned him that the Asian mainland was no place to be fighting a non-nuclear land war. There was no end to Asian manpower, MacArthur told the President, and even if we poured a million American infantry soldiers into that continent, we would still find ourselves outnumbered on every side. De Gaulle said the same thing in Paris that spring, pointing out that the French had shown us the hopelessness of trying to fight in that country."

...

There is no document or transcript of the talks between de Gaulle and JFK because their discussions were private, with only the translators present. But, as evidenced in the above excerpts, the reporters, aides and historians have passed on what JFK said they discussed.

It's an historical fact that France completely withdrew from Vietnam and it is also an historical fact that JFK was planning to completely withdraw the United States from Vietnam. It is also an historical fact that within days of JFK's assassination on November 22nd, 1963, his successor, Lyndon Johnson, reversed JFK's order to remove all American soldiers from Vietnam. This set the stage for American's entry, nine months later, into the 'Vietnam Fiasco' which resulted in the deaths (for Communist benefit) of thousands upon thousands of American soldiers, something that JFK, MacArthur and de Gaulle warned would happen.

..
http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerjfkdegaulle.shtml

[Time for change]

31. It is true that there were some elements of hawkishness in his campaign for the presidency

In particular, he warned of a "missile gap" between us and the Soviet Union, which it turns out didn't actually exist.

Anyhow, read his "peace speech" that he gave 4 months before his death (which I link to in the OP). It's very hard to believe that that came from a hawk.

And consider his repeated refusals to let his military push him into war. I don't believe that we've ever seen a U.S. president resist his military that much on that subject.

[droidamus2]

41. Seems to me

Maybe President Kennedy went from a more hawkish position to a more reasoned position because prior to gaining the presidency he had bought into the PTBs alternate reality and when he gained the power of the presidency and was able to get closer to the truth he realized it was all a bunch of self serving bullshit.

[Time for change]

77. That may have been part of it

But also, there was evidence prior to his becoming president that he was a lot less hawkish on a lot of issues than most of Congress. For example, he had doubts about our role in Vietnam that few other Americans had, while he was in Congress. The fact that he let his military talk him into sending at least advisors and support units there was a calculated compromise. He felt that he couldn't buck them on everything.

Also, part of it was pure politics. For example, though he intended a complete withdrawal from Vietnam, he also told his closest advisors that he would not attempt a complete withdrawal until after the 1964 election. That's because he believed that efforts in that direction prior to the election could cause him to lose, in which case we would have a real war hawk for president. Can't say that I blame him for that.

[rucognizant]

112. No he didn't run on a hawkish platform................

I wouldn't have voted for him! ( Nixon didn't seem too bad, after all he WAS a QUaker, & a flaming liberal compared to today's RW!)
I was just 5 years out from having spent a summer in Germany courtesy of the Quakers. ( non-violent),
I spent a week in the Hague, sitting in the square in front of the newly formed Peace Palace, ( UN headquarters)with an International group of teens, all of whom had endured WWII in some form. The United Nations ( doctrine largely written by ELeanor Roosevelt, as she was the only woman on the committee they let her do most of the work) was a WONDROUS IDEA THAT WOULD BRING EVERLASTING PEACE TO THE WORLD, Weary of major war! WHo knew these greedy evil deadheads PTB, were lurking in the shadows?
JFK's platform brought, HOPE, ASPIRATION, " we can reach the moon" idealism! In a way I haven't heard since! After Bobby was murdered, all bets were off..............and DON"T FORGET TED"S SMALL PLANE CRASH WHERE HE BROKE HIS BACK!He survived that, however he DIDN"T survive Chappaquidick, politically! I am firmly convinced that was rigged! ANd indead have gotten cofirmation from an eye witness.......2nd hand!
Back in those days the majority was LIBERAL! Don't believe the propaganda that old people are crotchity cranky conservatives.
Guess where that story came from! ............

[droidamus2]

151. Thanks for the info

I was only 6 at the time so wasn't up on what platform JFK ran on.

[stopbush]

171. JFK ran on the platform that there was a "missle gap" between the USA & the USSR.

That probably wasn't true, but it helped get him elected.

[anonymous171]

54. I agree. JFK was not a hawk.

He was a moderate.

[Time for change]

73. So what parts of the OP don't you believe?

[bigtree]

135. AH! the peace speech at AU

I recommend that to anyone who wants to understand what kind of president Kennedy would have been had he survived. That is probably the best American political speech by a president, ever. I've stood at the spot of the address, several times, and dreamed for hours of that peace Kennedy spoke of:

"Peace need not be impracticable - - and war need not be inevitable . . ."

nice post btw . . . k&r!

[JDPriestly]

107. And Halliburton got the contracts to pave the airstrips in Viet Nam.

Prior to the time that Johnson got them those contracts, they were not such an important company as I understand it. No bid contracts. That's how Halliburton, then the Brown & Root part of it, became so rich and powerful.

[Larry Ogg]

39. The Federal Reserve is not at the top of the pyramid,

Or let me put it this way; the PTB has a banking system that is used to enslave the world in debt, and their branch office is in the United States, it is called the “Federal Reserve”.

[NorthCarolina]

59. It seems likely to me that EO 11110 was what did JFK in nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

131. Probably was. nt.

[patrice]

3. The Big Lie: We are a free autonomous nation.

Cheney is under NO legal threat; WHAT is he doing in our face so much???

Think about it: Sen. Reid says Torture Investigations would interfere with "our" Legislative goals; what would he say if the opposite were true? What if the political pressure from a Torture Investigation put things on the table that would not be there otherwise? Q. What would they say about that? A. "Torture Investigation will interfere with Legislation."

Regarding the pictures that have not been released because they will enflame Muslims: Does anyone think the IRAQIS have forgotten what's in those pictures? Have told no one? Maybe OUR Troops are being killed MORE because the Iraqi people see no Justice for what they KNOW to be true.

The trans-national corporations who HIRED BushCo and Wars 'r' Us have made their wishes about all of this known to Our President. They HIRED Obama and let us play along, because they are hoping that he can control Us.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Barack Obama is not owned. The days of slavery have long been over!

If they wanted to Buy someone, they would have elected Hillary Clinton. Afterall, her husband was just there. Doh!

[midnight]

12. Slavery is alive and hidden.

Slave labour that shames America

Migrant workers chained beaten and forced into debt, exposing the human cost of producing cheap food

By Leonard Doyle in Immokalee, Floride


Wednesday, 19 December 2007



Three Florida fruit-pickers, held captive and brutalised by their employer for more than a year, finally broke free of their bonds by punching their way through the ventilator hatch of the van in which they were imprisoned. Once outside, they dashed for freedom.


Related articles
The exploited: 'You work so hard to end up earning hardly anything'

[paparush]

27. My Wife was directly involved in a case like this in NC.

She worked for an agency that provided services for the homeless. One day three men stagger into her office and tell a tale of being held prisoners on a farm in eastern, NC. Two years later, after the Dept of Labor and the FBI investigated, the farm owner was charged with what amounts to Slavery and sentenced to 3 years.

[TheWatcher]

25. .....

[proteus_lives]

66. Great Movie!

[Echo In Light]

30. Wrong. Corporate America decides who we "elect." Our elections are sham, and always have been.

[Larry Ogg]

43. I don’t know if I should just agree with you or say what I believe. For instance;

Yup… The voter fraud on Election Day is a one day event.
But what happens between Election Days is what really helps us decide, so the PTB’s corporately owned conservative biased hypnotic fraud and propaganda machine, aka the M$M, helps us decide what true reality is and what leaders are best able to protect us from the evil terrorist and other uncontrollable acts of GOD such as bank failures, wall street crashes, skyrocketing health care, bridge collapses, gays and lesbians, illegal aliens, homeless people, starving children, pirates, and Solar System Warming… Sorry if I left anyone or thing out, but isn’t that kind of what happens when we have pretend fair and free elections…

[bvar22]

47. Agree.

In this case, they sponsored TWO Corporate Approved candidates.

Must keep the illusion of Choice alive to keep the peasants passive.
Bread & Circuses.

[Echo In Light]

53. Divide and rule

[truedelphi]

5. Excellent debunking of the Big Lie that is underway. n/t

[flyarm]

17. Patrice..you hit the nail on the head! You are 100% correct! Think Pepsi

Pepsi was one of the top companies that Castro took over when he became the dictator in Cuba..Castro was "our " black opps guy to start with..

Pepsi was in on the black opps and our black opps attacks on Cuba..it wasn't just the casino folks.. ..and who was one of the big corps behind our new boss???????

may i suggest people read barry and the Boys..it is out of print until sometime this sumer..but it is must reading!

Daniel Hopsicker..Barry and the Boys..read it! if you haven't already!

[leftstreet]

18. Bravo!

Well said.

[rjwin]

22. Obama has a Master

and its not the truth or constitution...

[dflprincess]

6. If we have suspicions about the dangers of crossing the PTB

then surely anyone who has reached the point of running for president must know what goes on. This might explan some of Obama's right turns, but if it does, he knew he would be making those turns before he was elected and it does not excuse it.

[Time for change]

97. I believe that they do know

I'm not excusing Obama for his right turns. I've criticized his decisions in several other posts. But I don't want to judge him.

[keep_it_real]

7. "In every time line visited JFK was assassinated."

In a fictional story (of which I don't remember but I remember this line for the story) the character who was a time traveler said that in all the time lines he had visited JFK was always assassinated.

Which means to me that in real life he had po'ed so many powerful people on so many issues, trying to DO GOOD, that at a point in any time the evil deed was done.

[midnight]

9. You make a good point. Time to let the facts speak for themselves.

[undergroundpanther]

10. The fabric of society needs changing

And TPTB must be dug out of the shadows, if necessary by force, fully investigated by all,prosecuted, regardless of threats,politics and money. For ANYTHING to change for the better People need to develop inner consciences and an inner locus of control.TPTB MUST put on trial before this whole world be made to account for all the crimes they did and do,and everything names scams,criminal acts,torture you name it , it all must be revealed, to all,and these monsters need to be destroyed for being tyrants against not only America but humanity itself,The Earth itself and the future.
As long as TPTB are left to hide the evidence and these pigs left to fester, profit will trump humanity,war will be killing us all, generation after generation.
TPTB are half the problem the other is rampant narcissism and a personal unwillingness to question authority and society,and be responsible.Remember wall street and TPTB are terrified if people have time to introspect,tr 'loiter with each other, time to commiserate and get to know each other for solidarity of the masses is what TPTB fear most. This is why Americans work more hours and less vacation than other industrialized countries.And why prices are kept just so,to prevent enough security so a worker can have time to introspect or build a richer more varied life of their own outside of working.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/077.html

[villager]

13. "if necessary by force...."

That's the real elephant in the room, ain't it?

[uberblonde]

72. Yeah, I've been thinking about that lately.

How much is Obama ALLOWED to do?

[flyarm]

19. United we stand, divided we fall..they have deliberately split this nation..

they split us with the red and blue bullshit for a reason..they did it in this election..youth against the elders..they are doing it right here at Du..and all can see it..it is very plain to see.

We all need to sit with our families and neighbors and girlfriends and buddies and we need heart to heart talsk..like our folks used to do during Sunday dinners..( of which there is very little these days)..we need to sit during summer vacations and talk..

Of course the powers that be are scared shitless of that..but we have to do it..we have to educate those around us to what is going on.

United we stand..divided we fall..remember that ..reach out to those who are not as educated to so many facts we discuss here..people are busy..raising kids and working to barely make it through the days and weeks..many do not know where to get the info..reach out to them..start internet groups..but we must talk to those around us.

"they" want us divided.

take it back..and don't let the bully pulpit silence you..they are trying even here to silence us...don't let them.

[DemReadingDU]

35. As the economy falters, and slides into depression

There will come a new kind of division...us vs. them

us being the paupers, them being the elites


The filing of GM today for bankruptcy is another leg downward. Think of the ramifications. More factories closing, dealers closing, suppliers closing. Many more thousands (millions?) will be unemployed. What if unemployment runs out before new jobs are created? Then there will be more people with even less money and probably little if any savings nor insurance. So more people become homeless. How do homeless jobless people eat and shop and go to the doctor?

When companies go bankrupt, they don't care if you are Democrat or Republican. After some time, we will unite, to take back what was stolen from us by the elites. Probably won't happen in my lifetime though.

[Larry Ogg]

48. You have summarized the problem and solution very well flyarm,

no doubt that tons of factual evidence exist that substantiate the true intentions of the PTB. The real question is whether or not We the People can achieve the solution you suggest by letting go of our narcissistic egos, and then by uniting, learning and discussing the facts objectively. But the PTB has certainly placed enough obstacles in our way so as to prevent us from doing just that, they have ingrained false perceptions in the psyche of great multitudes; and yes I believe that the prospect of large groups discovering the truth about what they have done scares the hell out of them and they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening, but if we don’t at least try mankind might very well return to a state of monarchs, feudal lords and serfs or even worse, it may forfeit its future altogether. But if people believe that technology and the modernity of our times will prevent us from regressing to the horrific past from which ancestors came they believe such things at the peril of all…

[sarah553807]

70. The whole "they" thing is starting to sound a little bit

glen beckish

[tkmorris]

75. "It's a big club, and you ain't in it"

Since you seem fond of Carlin. There is most definitely a they, the only thing most people disagree on is who "they" are.

[madfloridian]

11. Thoughtful well documented post.

Recommended.

[tomreedtoon]

14. Ever hear of "Gabriel Over the White House"?

It's a genuine movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024044 /

In it, a President (possibly crazy or "inspired" by an auto accident) solves the problem of the man with the gun in his pocket: he summarily arrests and executes all gangsters and gang members. He creates jobs to end unemployment. He shows the world that warships (the main form of international force in those days, before Hitler) are obsolete because an airplane can bomb them.

Seems to me that there are people further down on the left that are hoping for just this kind of action from Obama. It sounds pretty good to them, as long as it's CEO's and bank officers that are rounded up and executed without trial - not Jews.

Of course, it's the same thing; fascism under a new name.

[patrice]

33. I know a lot of Lefties and not one of them wants what you say.

Anyone who wants to kill corporatists is not a real member of the Left. They are sociopaths who happened to assume the persona of the Left by chance.

What the Left wants is for there to be alternatives to the god-almighty, holy-christian, Rat Race. We want co-operative and collaborating alternatives that would allow individuals to develop not only economically, but also personally and socially in ways that meet their own unique needs and motivations. What the Left wants is for the future of this country NOT to be crushed to DEATH under the weight of UN-ENDING WAR. The Left wants something called America to recognize its responsibilities to ALL of its members. That doesn't mean that we want the State to hand everything to us, but that there be a basic set of agreements amongst ourselves as to what constitutes real value exchanged for real value, not this bullshit phony value called money. We want America to be what America wants to be, not just what the wealthy think it should be.

[Time for change]

99. I don't know of any DUer suggesting that we should

summarily arrest and execute Bush administration people who may have committed war crimes.

Everything I've seen from the left here on that subject wants them to be prosecuted for their crimes, not summarily executed without trial.

[JDPriestly]

109. I am one of the loudest voices for trials. I am not asking for

any particular sentence. I think it is important to have court decisions with regard to what kind of treatment our government must afford to prisoners and detainees. Criminals should be punished, but sentence mitigation would be acceptable to me so long as there is some punishment after conviction. Personally, I don't think the punishment is so important although the victims of the torture would probably disagree with me. I think the trials and the court opinions are extremely important. As a nation, we need the courts to tell future leaders what they can and cannot do.

[Time for change]

117. One of the most important reason for prosecuting the Bush administration criminals is to

let the American people know what happened. I'm not adamant about severe punishment, but for the kinds of crimes that the Bush administration committed, I think the punishment at least needs to be severe enough substantially reduce the likelihood of its happening again.

[roamer65]

15. The system is a wild beast.

Kennedy tried to control it and it turned on him.

[Sinistrous]

16. I am sure that President Obama got a similar visit from the PTB.

Such a visit would explain some of the hesitancy/backpedaling we have observed since January 20.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

116. Yep...

...that plus the fact that politics is compromise, you need to consider yourself lucky if you get HALF of what you originally asked for.

[flyarm]

20. Thank you Time for a Change..excellent essay and well thought out post! K&R

[snot]

21. k&r'd -- great post.

[jakeXT]

23. The PTB always wanted a weak president with no real powers, who can be controlled.

JFK himself said


“Now I know there are some people who say that this isn’t the business of the President of the United States, who believe that the President of the United States should be an honorary chairman of a great fraternal organization and confine himself to ceremonial functions. But that is not what the Constitution says. And I did not run for President of the United States to fulfill that Office in that way.”


...

I believe it is the business of the President of the United States to concern himself with the general welfare and the public interest. And if the people feel that it is not, then they should secure the services of a new President of the United States
http://thekennedys.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/a-few-words... /

Evidence of Revision (2 of 5):The "Why" of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ (at around 10 minutes 30 seconds)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=533572447926910...

[Imagevision]

24. Big business founded this country and big business will remain running it, apparently

the oil industry is considerably more powerful then... Detroit?

[Psychic Consortium]

28. This is exactly why Obama goes slowly, carefully, and circuitously.

He is up against a terrible power.
But he will prevail.

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. +1

[peace frog]

57. He *may* prevail

but there is no certainty he *will* prevail however slowly, carefully and circuitously he acts. As noted, he is up against a terrible power that does not hesitate to strike down an offending POTUS.

[Psychic Consortium]

67. Yes but he is going to be OK. nt

[peace frog]

88. Are you psychic or something?

Hope you're right about that.

[Psychic Consortium]

89. Yes. PC tends to be correct in their predictions.

Been predicting things about Obama since last summer.
Accurately.

[peace frog]

96. Well then, I hope PC is correct about this prediction

My faith would be completely destroyed if Obama suffered a fate similar to JFK's.

[Psychic Consortium]

104. There is no doubt at all.

He will remain safe.

PC last summer correctly predicted the outcome of the election,
safety, win with a mandate, etc. Also many other events
related to the campaign and presidency.

Many doubted PC at the time. But time has proven
the accuracy.

Do not doubt now.
Obama will remain safe and unharmed.

[peace frog]

127. Such serenity

to be so certain as you are. The only prediction I am comfortable making is: We shall see.

[Psychic Consortium]

128. Yes we shall. :) nt

[tkmorris]

76. You offer no facts or evidence of any kind

Your argument, made in that fashion, sounds more like faith than analysis. I would LOVE to believe that Obama both desires to, and will eventually succeed at, pushing back against these people. So far though I have no reason to think that is true. I withhold judgment, it's the best I can do.

[Psychic Consortium]

80. There is evidence if you look.

Why else would Cheney be squawking so loudly and frequently
at this late date, a man who never left his undisclosed location?
His power is being taken away and he knows it.....

Obama has taken on many in the financial and corporate world
and this will continue. Ins companies are next in line....

Most of Obama's work is behind the scenes and it is obvious why
this must be the case.

[stopbush]

132. Amazing what some people regard to be "evidence."

[Psychic Consortium]

155. Evidence stares us in the face everyday. Look carefully and you will see it. nt

[Raksha]

169. PC, I remember your prediction about Obama's win last summer,

and it was very comforting at a time of immense doubt and fear. And you were correct, and I give you credit for that.

Still, the way Obama has been backtracking on so many of his campaign promises in such a short time is absolutely terrifying. There are only two possibilities that I can see: Either he was a Trojan horse candidate all along or he's being threatened by the PTB. Every time I read DU I can see their muddy fingerprints in yet another of Obama's sudden mysterious reversals. They are becoming more visible, but is it because they are losing their power? I would like to think so, but Obama gives every appearance of having sold out completely. But then maybe that's exactly what he wants "them" to think, and in order for that to happen we have to think so too.

Re Why else would Cheney be squawking so loudly and frequently
at this late date, a man who never left his undisclosed location?
His power is being taken away and he knows it.....

Yes, there is that. It's hard to believe Cheney would crawl out of his hole and be in our faces 24/7 claiming "torture saved American lives" if he didn't have to. Especially when nobody believes him, and he provokes another insider into refuting him every time he opens his pie hole. Seems kind of self-destructive on the face of it.

[Psychic Consortium]

185. Doubt and fear is still the norm, but Obama will prevail.

PC knew with certainty the outcome of the election.
It is with the same certainty that PC sees success for Obama.

We still are recovering from many decades of evil and corrupt leadership. We cannot believe goodness and competence when we see it.

We also do not understand what Obama is up against, and how real power should be used.

This is seen: Obama swimming from shore to an island far out in the ocean. On the surface, the water looks calm and peaceful. Underneath the currents are fierce, the water is shark invested. OBama swims to and fro, back and forth, avoiding danger. He will get to the island but not in a straight line.

[conspirator]

82. Nope. He will be just another Bill Clinton

Lots of promises to attack the lobbies, but in the end the status quo wins.

[Psychic Consortium]

86. Obama will be one of the greatest American presidents.

He will do more for the US than any other president in many generations.

Give him some time and space to do the job the right way.
He is up against very powerful enemies here in the US.
He must do things right.

[Time for change]

118. I sure do hope you're right about him prevailing --

assuming that he prevails in the way that JFK didn't.

[Psychic Consortium]

129. Obama works a great deal behind the scenes....

that is his style. And it is the safest course of action as well.
He also goes slow to make sure his changes are long lasting
and not easily undone in the future.

Notice how his opponents go on self-destruct and can do nothing right.

Notice how his allies succeed greatly.

Notice how he will often obtain court, congressional, etc
buy in and approval of his plans.....

Notice how he will tackle a problem through the back door...
not have a head on battle, but solve the problem in a low key way.

This style may not satisfy those impatient and eager for a fight,
but the job will be done at the end of the day. Obama will keep his promises and move us into the 21st century.

[Time for change]

130. You may be right. However,

I have been disappointed by many of his decisions, including:

-- Maintaining 50 thousand "non-combat" troops in Iraq for an apparently indefinite period of time -- which seems to me to constitute an indefinite extension of the occupation.

-- Escalation of the Afghanistan War (I know, that was part of his campaign).

-- His several trillion dollar bailout of Wall St.

-- His continuation of withholding the right of habeas corpus from our prisoners

-- His lack of interest in prosecuting Bush administration crimes

-- His backtracking on the public option that he promised during the campaign for health care insurance.

All of these things are very disappointing to me. You are right that Obama was under great pressure to do these things. Maybe his only choice was to do them or to risk a fate similar to JFK's. Maybe he has some grand political strategy for giving in on some issues in order to raise his political capital, so that he can do what needs to be done during his second term and defeat the PTB. Maybe he's doing the best that can be done under the circumstances. But if surrendering to the PTB is the only alternative to risking JFK's fate, then I expect our president to do that latter. I know that sounds cold, but I think it comes with the responsibility of having 60 million people elect you to represent them.

[Psychic Consortium]

154. Comments

This is what is seen:

The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is far more dangerous than most people realize.
There is danger to the US in those areas. Obama will be as strategic and short term as possible. But he must fight for good reason.

He was held hostage and threatened by Wall Street. The economy is in much worse shape than known. Basically insolvent. Obama had no other choice. However he will regulate the banking industry and never be put in this situation again.

Justice will be served on the Bush crimes. It is not Obama's battle to fight alone.
The will must come from the American people.

Insurance companies are ruthless and dangerous. Obama makes headway there carefully.
But he will prevail in the end.

In many areas Obama waits to obtain collaboration from the courts and congress.
He is not so foolish as to walk the tightrope without a net.

He will not suffer JFK's fate, nor will he capitulate.

[Time for change]

164. Again, I sure do hope you're right, though I don't share your degree of optimism

[Echo In Light]

29. When one examines the US from the phony democracy angle, EVERYTHING then makes complete sense

...which is why those who resist acknowledging the obvious do so with such fervor: the most effective propaganda appeals to the emotions.

Thanks for posting

Recommended

[spooked911]

32. the nature of the ultimate PTB are discussed here

http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/

[snooper2]

188. wonder when you would show up in this thread

The "Anonymous Physicist" again

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. I still have the audacity to hope for a leader who will someday...

openly and forcefully oppose the PTB.

[Psychic Consortium]

37. You now have one. But he must be cautious and smart. nt

[Echo In Light]

42. Never happen within the current power structure. "Electable" means just that, plus much more

Double plus un-good, indeed

[Time for change]

44. Probably not, but

The current power structure can be changed. What it would take is enough people having a better understanding of what is going on. A president can be of great help in that regard, by explaining it to us -- as JFK did.

Of course, it's dangerous to do that.

[Echo In Light]

45. For starters, changing the current structure would require ending the National $ecurity State ruse

And since so much of that hinges on deeply seated propaganda within the public mind, reinforced by decades of fear based unreality, you'll never see it happen in this country.

It's not that people can't take such steps to help bring about the betterment of humanity, it's that due to 'perception management' you'd never find nearly enough support in this country for REAL change since the majority either doesn't understand or care one way or the other. I'm thinking of parting company w/DU, as I have before, but it may be interesting to come back in a few yrs and see all the same defenders of the status quo still making lame excuses for the lack of substantive change.

[omega minimo]

182. Perception Management

Time For Change

"Though most DUers – if not most Americans – seem to recognize their existence, because of their shadowy nature they are very difficult to talk about with much confidence."

"Clearly, an understanding of this issue is of great importance to our attempts to understand how the world operates. Yet, the shadowy nature of the PTB greatly hampers our attempts to understand it."

It's difficult to talk about because it's difficult to think about and easier not to. Add "perception management" and the high art it has become in our Orwellian times, the discussion/action is less likely.

Yet, that event and the subsequent, related ones, are etched in all our memories/hearts. JFK's assassination WAS perception management.

[Psychic Consortium]

68. This is a job best done behind the scenes......

Obama is taking away power as we speak from some of the
thugs running the rogue govt.

[Selatius]

78. I hope for it but am afraid of it at the same time. I don't want to see another Zapruder film.

Don't want to live to see a hero turned into a martyr. The 1960s were a deadly time for visionary leaders.

[DS1]

36. Oh great, another thread about to turn into a call for armed revolution

Freepers

[hedgehog]

38. I was in the fourth grade when JFK was shot, and in my naivete

I asked if he was going to be canonized. Years later, the stories of his private life emerged. along with somber assessment that he really hadn't done anything and that he'd started the VietNam War. Once again, new information is emerging and we are faced with what might have been, with what really was stolen from the world that day in Dallas. How many people in agony in the Congo today would be living a different life if JFK had live?

So, maybe that naive 4th grader was right. JFK was no more perfect than say, Oscar Schindler. But he may well have been the 20th century's most prominent martyr.

[Time for change]

100. I think you summed it up very well

[bagrman]

40. It's ammazing how long this has been going on, it's not a resent development,

Google Conversations with the Crow. There are about 60+ interviews with and old company guy before he dies.

[Raksha]

201. Thanks for the heads-up on "Conversations With the Crow."

I did Google it, and I'm reading one of the transcripts now. Very interesting reading to say the least!

[Greyhound]

46. Auto K&R.

I happy to see the play this has received.

But, you left off the punchline(?) of Bill's joke, "...the screen comes up and the lights go on, and they ask the new president "any questions?"

"What's my agenda?"

[BeFree]

65. Me too

Thanks again TFC.

It would be easy to just give up, but that would be no fun. Can only hope your fine writings convince more folks of the gravity of the PTB. That way, when we take them down we can have a really big, fun party.

[Time for change]

102. Thank you BeFree

All we can do is hope and keep on trying.

[Time for change]

101. I hadn't heard the punch line

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that room when the lights go on and the president asks his question -- whatever that might be.

[Greyhound]

125. I know I've seen it on Google video or maybe YouTube.

It from 1992 or 1993, I think, right after Clinton's election.

A variation is, "Just one, what's my agenda?"

[bvar22]

49. Sobering and Depressing.

My wife and I came to much the same conclusion during the '90s.
We had high hopes that Clinton would right the wrongs of Reagan & Bush.....but nothing happened.
We were troubled when the stolen election of 2000 was NOT opposed by the Democratic Party, but what could WE do?

When the Democratic Platform of 2004 was "Win the WAR" and "More Free Trade" we made a decision:
Just let them have it.


We started making plans.
We did extensive research, and found property in a very rural, still pristine part of the country with low property taxes, on-site abundant clean water, surrounded by National Forest, and a long growing season.
In 2006, we cashed out, sold everything, packed up, and left "the City". We moved to our new place, planted a BIG veggie garden, started raising chickens and honey bees, and planted a bunch of fruit trees.

Our taxable income is now almost poverty levels, but we eat and live well.
WE buy almost nothing NEW. What we can't make ourselves, we buy or barter 2nd Hand or Salvage directly from previous owners to avoid all taxes.
If they are going to Bailout Billionaires and expand WARS, they will do so without our help.

We are no longer "Good American Consumers".
Next year, we will consume even less.

Our interest has shifted from National Politics (rigged game) to local Humanitarian interests and Community service.

We realize we are fortunate to be able to do this.
We have no dependent children, are in good health (no Health Insurance), and have accumulated the skills necessary to live as we do.
We don't want to "Make War on the Rich".
We just want to be left alone.

We were hoping that the Democratic Party would be able to institute Single Payer because we are vulnerable there, but they are too beholding to the Health Insurance Industry to institute any REAL change. WE are still registered Democrats and active in the local Party, but that may soon change (as will my addiction to DU).

If some vehicle emerges to challenge the PTB, we will help, but I don't see that happening in our lifetime.

[Time for change]

103. My hat off to you and your wife

And best wishes.

[inna]

50. bravo!! rec #52

[pretzel4gore]

51. Cheer up! They (the pig) fukked itself...

hahaha. See, the game is only a game if there's a winner, and the problem is, what with 8 years of a gibbering 1/2 wit in the Whouse, running the country into the ground, and with $50 TRILLION missing from the economic till....plus doubts about everything the pig media has been selling for generations, meaning ANYTHING can be thought true (for example, it's widely known that the Fascist States of America nrever really sent men to the moon- they even joke about that on 'Simpsons' etc) then controlling the people needs to be done via brute force (democracy obviously is as dead as capitalism is gone!) and that means POLICE STATE which mean most of the creative element of the human race will be crushed along with the mobs....but the pig needs creativity to get planet outta apocalype type mess we're in, and chaos, and disaster, which doom humanity (maybe even life itself?) must follow; which might piss off dear God, who knows the truth, and the PIG is terrified, has to be, cuz he must HIDE THE TRUTH or else WE killem off, just like THEY killed off JFK, only we do it in openly, out in public, unlike them!
lol
go bush!

[Greyhound]

52. You've mixed up your livestock. The ''pig" is the corporations for whom the government

worked. The Pig is doing just fine and the future is very bright indeed, it's just the government (us) that is "fukked".

[bvar22]

58. The "Pig" is doing well indeed.

The "Democrats" just handed several $TRILLION dollars to the Wall Street "Pig", no strings attached.
And just wait and see what they are going to hand to the Health Insurance Industry Execs.

[Greyhound]

126. Absolutely, and because it will be a "Democrat" doing it, it will all be just fine.

It's so easy to win the game when you own both teams.