Obama is about as much an insider as a relative newcomer to Washington can be. Rather than use his Senatorial office to obstruct U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people (much less the Afghans), he ducks key votes and says nothing volatile on the Senate floor. During his presidential campaign he's even told an AIPAC dinner that we ought to seriously look into (widening U.S. and Israeli aggression in the region by) going to war against Iran.

I know many people posting here suspect Bush is going to declare his emergency powers late in his term (presumably triggered by yet another major false flag event), cancel the elections, and become dictator-for-life or some such thing. While that can hardly be ruled out, that's a wildly risky strategy, which Bush's bosses and handlers know. (It would too threaten to rouse the slumbering sheeple.)

I think the likelier scenario is to pull off another false flag event timed so that the new president -- probably Obama -- has an excuse to drop his limp pose as a war opponent and launch an expansion of imperial wars. It could happen during the interim period between the presidential election and the inauguration. Or it could be in the early months of the new presidential term, as happened with Little Bush.

Indeed, the timing of 9/11 -- about 8 months into Little Bush's presidency -- may have been carefully plotted at some level, to help set the new president on a course that would characterize the remainder of his term. It's not as though Bill Clinton wouldn't have been up for a 9/11-type event, but, late in his term, his reputation exhausted with the Kosovo business (which was instigated to weaken the Serbian nation, a traditional ally of the Russians, the supposed humanitarian need to protect the ethnically Albanian Kosovars being simply an elaborate cover story) and impeachment proceedings, a relatively untarnished fresh face was needed to get the 9/11 ball rolling and keep it rolling.

What I suspect the bad guys are scheming now is to bring in another fresh face -- better yet, one associated in the public's mind as not militarily bellicose -- to lead a new round of aggression. Moreover, the Democratic Establishment, which has cooperated with all these schemes under a Republican president, now expects its big turn at the trough to cash in on all the military-industrial, Zionist, and oil payoffs that come with invasions and occupations of Muslim nations.

While Ruppert said in his still very relevant book, "Crossing the Rubicon," the Empire doesn't care how it appears anymore, I have to give you props on your analysis.

"What I suspect the bad guys are scheming now is to bring in another fresh face -- better yet, one associated in the public's mind as not militarily bellicose -- to lead a new round of aggression. Moreover, the Democratic Establishment, which has cooperated with all these schemes under a Republican president, now expects its big turn at the trough to cash in on all the military-industrial, Zionist, and oil payoffs that come with invasions and occupations of Muslim nations."

The above is admitedly a more likely outcome, but I would question whether the tension at the top is as well-defined and highly tuned as you suggest? I've become convinced, through reading Tarpley's viewpoint on pg. 8 of this linked issue, "The Rock Creek Press", there are separate factions struggling for power--some more openly fascist than others. One faction might renege on another? I suggest the behind-the-scenes politics is that treacherous.

Again, I must admit the merits of your point of view, McFrandy, that it is a more likely outcome. I would also counter the psychopaths at the top like to strike out at those who oppose them--even if they are citizens in a U.S. city.! I submit it's plausible they'll follow a typical M.O. of coupling items on their agenda, i.e., bomb an internal foe in a false flag op and blame it, this time around, on Iran to further their Middle East domination project.

Also, you cannot forget all the fear-mongering of Cheney and Chertoff and more recently, Bush, their repeated fears of terrorist strikes one warning about a nuclear terrorist event in a major U.S. city.

This is the kind of discussion required this year. I believe, if we make them highly visible possibilities in public discourse, it actually helps deter these very actions by those who would perpetrate them. It's simply a case that the publc won't be fooled again and the perps harbor doubts they can get away with it. It's really that simple.

In the end, it may only defer these events but every effort must be made to stop them.

...don't believe them!

he doesn't have his own moles in the military and intelligence services to protect him ( I'm not taking bets on this, btw), then he will get the Kennedy (3 times), King, X and, more recently, Wellstone treatment.

For his family's sake I hope he loses to Sen. Clinton and lets the Clinton family get busted for treason.

Can we talk about something lighter now?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

It wouldn't surprise me. Bernanke did say that he would do whatever it takes to keep the banks open because it was the closing of the banks in the 1929 depression that inhibited the economy from recovering. That's my understanding of his position anyway - and it's possible I'm wrong.

I'm not sure we are capable of feeling teutonic shifts at this point. We've had so many. It has been my observation that all solutions they offer only make things worse because they are refusing to address the real problem. Globalization as a concept is a miserable failure. The 'free market' reforms (Structural Adjustment Programs) that they pushed on every country in the world has created a global economy that only works for about 200 multinational corporations - and perhaps 10,000 or so of the richest people in the world.

The Structural Adjustment Programs demanded that countries reorient their economies to be exporting economies, to deregulate all commercial activity and to privatize all government functions. What this has done is basically drained domestic economies of money and resources making it impossible for them to pay for imports. When the economies grind to a halt, the government collapses and people being to starve. We aren't there yet - but we're on the road.

You might be interested in a couple of audio clips I have of Alan Greenspan testifying to Congress:
http://www.channelingreality.com/The_Coup/alan_greedspan.htm

And here is a page with a clip of Treasury Secretary John Snow talking about the economy
http://www.channelingreality.com/The_Coup/Crimes_Against_Reality.htm

And the subject of this page should have been in 40 point type in all newspapers across the country but I'll bet you didn't even hear about it:
http://www.channelingreality.com/Economic/What_Are_We_Missing.htm

Really good presentation and content in all three articles you wrote. EWO keep it up.