4um: Obama's main advisor--New World Order promotor Brezinski

Are people bothering to dig slightly deeper into Obama's background and realize that Zbenew Brezinski is his main advisor?

The man practically created the Trilateral Commission, and works with the Council on Foreign Relations to erase our borders and create a " New World Order ". Just read articles in their journal Foreign Affairs, for confirmation. They are open about their ideals.

Globalism means combining with Mexico and Canada to create a giant economic zone called the North American Union. Hence, Obama's support of 20 million illegal aliens gaining citizenship.

The Dems keep funding Bush's Iraq war. THEY ARE HIS PARTNERS! Wake up. The only anti-war candidate is Ron Paul.

Obama was voted the most liberal Senator, to the left of Kennedy. Is this what people want? A big spender, and more big government???

Learn the truth about the New World Order. Go to jimmarrs.com, infowars.com, rense.com, newswithviews.com and start educating yourself. Subscribe to *Bilderberg and NWO Watch*

Brzezinski opposed Bush's war in Iraq from the start. I remember hearing him speak very critically of it back in 2003, when I still supported it. His most recent book, The Choice, is devastatingly critical of that war and of Bush's foreign policy in general, and advocates a peace policy of engagement with Iran, peacemaking in the Middle East and Kashmir, and a regional nuclear nonproliferation pact.

What do you think of the fact that Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission for David Rockefeller?

I don't like it, but Brzezinski's authorship of his recent book The Choice is much more current. I read it, and it seemed largely sensible to me. It certainly argues for peace in the Middle East, and opposes the Bush administration's insane bellicosity.

Have you noticed how the pro-Israel fanatics are trying to stir up opposition to Obama?

Brzezinski and Obama
Barack Obama has been criticized by pro-Israel forces (undoubtedly egged on by the Hillary team) for naming Zbignew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor, as one of his foreign policy gurus. Ezra Klein links to, and endorses, a post by one Matthew Duss, relying on a story from the Politico website, suggesting that the "Israel lobby," writ large, and Alan Dershowitz personally, are upset about Brzezinski because he wrote an essay last Summer defending Mearsheimer and Walt’s “Israel Lobby” essay.

Trust Obama on Israel

Jerusalem Post

02-04-2008

Headline: Trust Obama on Israel
Byline: MARTIN PERETZ
Edition; Daily
Section: Opinion
Page: 13

Monday, February 4, 2008 -- Florida, of course, was a different story, but back in Iowa there was no need for Barack Obama or any other candidate to worry about the Jewish vote. There are 7,000 Jews in the entire state, including 100 hassidim, who work a kosher meat-packing plant in Pottsville.

Yet speaking in Des Moines on December 18, Obama cut to the essence of the Middle East problem at a level of sophistication that ought to be a relief, if not a rebuke, to those who fret about his lack of foreign policy "experience." Obama raised three questions and answered them in a way that no other Democratic aspirant for the nomination has done.

First: Is Israel truly ready to make the concessions necessary to guarantee that a Palestinian state will be more than a "Potemkin village" - a facade without depth or substance?

"I'm confident," Obama said, "that Israel is ready and willing to make some of these concessions if they have the confidence that the Palestinians can enforce an agreement."

This is exactly right. And it is a sign that President Obama would not pressure only one side (Israel) because the other side (the Palestinians) are immune to American pressure.

On his way out the door in 2000, President Clinton actually had a map color- coding the Old City of Jerusalem: Israeli sovereignty on this street, Palestinian sovereignty on that, like the delirious maps drawn in London and Paris back in the early 20th century that burden the Middle East and Africa to this day. Clinton coerced Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, to accept his map and make other concessions. He got nothing out of the Palestinians.

Yet even the most moderate Palestinians now assume that future discussions will start where Clinton left off. It is good to know that Obama understands why that won't work.

THE SECOND question is whether any agreement negotiated with Palestinian leaders can be enforced on the Palestinian people. Most Israelis are ready to make a deal and abide by it. There is no such disposition among Palestinians. Hamas, the party that won the most recent Palestinian elections and that already rules in Gaza, explicitly rejects any deal with Israel.

So what do you do?

Obama's answer, and the right one: You deal with the official Palestinian leadership, which is willing to deal, but you pressure it to take action on other fronts that will bring the people back from Hamas. We "have to make sure that Abbas and Fayad and those that are controlling the West Bank still actually start delivering something tangible that is benefiting the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, that they are ridding [their party] Fatah of the corruption that has been endemic, and are put in a stronger position politically so Hamas is not dictating the terms of Palestinian negotiations but the moderates in the Palestinian camp are dictating what the Palestinian people are willing to go along with."

Third, is this an opportunity to watch democracy flower in the Middle East, as George W. Bush has dreamed? Well maybe, in 1,000 years or so. Meanwhile, Obama grasps that any accord will require strong leadership and even some "dictating" to the moderates. This is not callous. It is realistic. But only if the Palestinian leadership realizes that "now is the time for them to step out of the ideological blind alley that they've been in for so long."

The Israelis have stepped out of their own blind alley of small settlements and lonely outposts planted in densely populated Palestinian areas. Everyone knows how very much actual land Israel will give up so that Palestine can be Palestine. No one yet knows whether the Palestinians are ready to let Israel be Israel.

OBAMA'S POINTS, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by emails saying that Obama's middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it were true?), that he took the oath of office as a senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?).

All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that Obama has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.

Let's take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley advises Obama on the Middle East. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the Web, like the ads for Viagra.

Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in the New York Review of Books, is anti-Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro.

Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.

Turns out Rendell was correct..todays polls show Hillary leading Obummer easily in Pa.

Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, just released, shows Obama opening a 12-point lead over Hillary nationwide, 49-37: Daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Hillary has won California, New York, NJ, and disputably Michigan and Florida. If she takes Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, it will be hard to deny her the nomination. Am I wrong?

If she takes TX, OH, and PA, but only by small margins, Obama would still be ahead in numbers of pledged delegates nationwide.

Yes, but the symbolic and psychological impact of winning those states is huge. If Hillary takes all three in addition to the other biggies she has already won, I don't think she will be denied the nomination.

Well, speaking of psychological impact, even TX and OH are a long way off, in political terms, never mind PA, and I'm not sure Hillary's campaign could survive a big loss in WI in the near future.