See other History Articles
Title: US businessman: Russian communist told me in 1992 that America's first communist president would be Black man named Barack
Source:
http://www.trunews.com(originally)
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=246895&Disp=1#C1
Published: Nov 19, 2008
Author: Mr. Tom Fife
Post Date: 2009-02-21 18:43:37 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 221
Comments: 16
1. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0) Here is the entire article: US businessman: Russian communist told me in 1992 that America’s first communist president would be Black man named Barack The following testimony was supplied to Trunews: The First Time I Heard of “Barack” By Mr. Tom Fife, California businessman During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid-1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M. He had a wife named T.M. V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning. One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture was invited to V. & T.'s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions. As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in. The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this: "You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven't you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn't do it." (She was referring to Geraldine Ferraro.) The general response went something along the lines that you don't vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don't vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket. "Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon." The consensus we expressed was that we didn't think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not. "What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?" The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, "Well, you will; and he will be a Communist." It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know." "Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President." She became smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America." We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he'd be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead. She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air. She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. "Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet." At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn't understand what the point was and don't recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here. Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: "If I remember correctly, 'Barack' comes from the Arabic word for 'Blessing.' That seems to be an odd name for an American." She replied quickly, "Yes. It is 'African'", she insisted, "and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world." She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way. So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove? Well, it's definitely anecdotal. It doesn't prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed. Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star. Magician posted on 2008-11-19 21:15:43 ET Reply Trace
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Itistoolate (#0)
Whatever. George H.W. "Poppy" Bush tried his best to prop up and keep his favorite commie, Mikhail Gorbachev, at the helm and also moved heaven and earth to keep the USSR from breaking up, to no avail. I don't see any difference between the commies and the cappies at this point and that's the way the CFR/Trilats always planned it. Globalism is globalism, no matter what false left-right paradigm you fall for.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
right you are
At Freerepublic they think Obama "chose" Brzezinski when in reality Brzezinski 'groomed' him from birth. ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1996566/posts ) The Brzezinski/Obama Axis 28.Feb-2008 | Professor Paul Eidelberg Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 7:38:39 AM by Fred Nerks I. Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski? It was reported in The New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussein Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy. Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation. Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts. Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.” Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002 that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts. The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all. With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about “change” may be more serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime. That would fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire George Soros, a globalist committed to the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government. Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the existence of objective or transhistorical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly would be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Arab or Islamic terrorist state.) Brzezinski’s relativism makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He urns with the winds of power; he is nothing if not “politically correct.” Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships. Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam. II. Iran’s Vision: A World Without Israel and the United States With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran. The Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history, a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state. As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition. “That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.” Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.” Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of Islamic imperialism. Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran. Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of thought or political mentality—like that of countless other American academics—is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It might accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States. This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizing of Israel’s Third Commonwealth. Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski. The mere fact that they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish! But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries. The nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum. Terminate the nation-state and you are heading for world government. But a world government must also have a monopoly of power. Its agents must be everywhere, to make sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops weapons of mass destruction. A world government must have the equivalent of the KGB in every country. A world government would be the greatest tyranny in human history. Israel is the target of all those who oppose the nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites. Will Israel be the target of “change”—the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussein Obama?
I don't believe this for a nanosecond.
turtles have only one brain cell. Two cells are needed for the simplest form of thought. Bart Simpson's father has only 2 brain cells.
No, because Israel CONTROLS the Democratic Party and all of its significant figures even moreso than it does the GOP. Rahm Emanuel has a long history as a dual loyalist. He is O's chief of staff for a reason.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Sounds like Mrs. T is one of international ziomism's Illuminati and gives you an idea of the long-range planning of these connivers. Long before the last election's presidential candidates were nominated Organized Jewry's shills, having inside information, were saying that the next president would be someone no one expected.
Obama is a Spook freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=91613
And where was this Mr. Tom Fife, California businessman, before obamessiah was selected? Why is it that these kinds of articles always come out after the fact? I mean, here is Mr. Tom Fife, California businessman, that gets an article out there, now. Why now? Presumably Mr. Tom Fife, California businessman had just as much credibility BEFORE the selection as he has after the selection. Unless he is Barneys' dumber brother.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
where is everybody who knows anything about everything that happens? it is not just my job to find it, it is yours also.
I wasn't slamming you. I was slamming the article. What is keeping me or you from writing an article just like this one? Just our honesty. Now is he telling the truth, or is the writer a liar? Who knows. But I know enough to totally disregard articles that quote unnamed sources and are written by unknown (unknowable) people. Where is Mr Fife?
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
Because the assertions were too preposterous to be taken seriously and commie "rats" were making all sorts of claims. The scenario fits the no-doubt updated Protocols perfectly. It's second nature to dismiss such assertions as I did a half century ago when an Ukrainian neighbor guaranteed to me that Israel would one day get Canada into a war. At the time, being busy with work and attending university, I considered this too preposterous to even ask this "peasant" why he thought so. Today, with Canada in Afghanistan, making sure that country won't be used as a base for training insurgents to help Palestinians regain lands stolen by Israelis, I wish I had asked him how he knew; would have been wiser with his insight than with anything I got from the Ivory Towers.
Nothing unusual about that. Bush Sr., Putin, Sarkozy, probably most if not all Israeli scoundrels.
Listen Free MP3 (Download) rense.gsradio.net:8080/re...l/rense_T_Fife_031009.mp3
Here he is.
#2. To: Sam Houston (#1)
#3. To: Sam Houston (#1)
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
No place is better than Turtle Island.
#5. To: Turtle (#4)
#6. To: Itistoolate (#3)
Will Israel be the target of “change”—the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussein Obama?
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: Itistoolate (#0)
#9. To: Tatarewicz (#8)
#10. To: Itistoolate, All (#0)
#11. To: PSUSA (#10)
#12. To: Itistoolate (#11)
(Edited)
where is everybody who knows anything about everything that happens? it is not just my job to find it, it is yours also.
#13. To: PSUSA (#10)
Why is it that these kinds of articles always come out after the fact?
#14. To: Itistoolate (#9)
Obama is a Spook.
#15. To: Tatarewicz EVERY ONE (#14)
Tom Fife Interview With Jeff -
The First Time I Heard Of Barack
#16. To: PSUSA (#12)
Where is Mr Fife?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
