[BretLudwig]

What change?

by Chuck Baldwin

"Change you can believe in." This was Barack Obama's campaign slogan.
There is no doubt that the American people were fed up with George W. Bush
and his fellow Republicans. Who can blame them?

After campaigning for change back in 1999 (What political challenger
doesn't campaign for change?), President Bush and his fellow neocons
promptly set out to continue business as usual in Washington, D.C. Federal
spending and meddling exploded under the leadership of the GOP. In fact,
one has to go back to the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt to
match the increases in Big Government and Big Brother by Bush and Company.
Add to the out-of-control spending habits of the GOP an unnecessary war, a
near-Depression economy, and a burgeoning police state. It is no surprise
that the American people were ready for change. And Obama excelled in
delivering the message of change. So, what kind of change will Obama
actually deliver?

Will Obama remove U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably not. Oh,
he might reduce troops in Iraq, but if anyone believes that he will not
leave a significant U.S. presence in Iraq, they are living in a dream
world. Furthermore, many, if not most, of the troops from Iraq will most
likely find themselves in Afghanistan. Mark my words; Barack Obama has no
plans to remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Net result: no change.

What about America's economic woes? What changes will Barack Obama bring
tothe table? Hardly any. America will continue it's trademark deficit
spending; we will continue to send manufacturing jobs overseas; so-called
"free trade" deals will continue to advance; Big Business will continue to
receive government bailouts; the Federal Reserve will continue to call the
shots for America's financial decisions (and reap gargantuan profits in
the process); Congress will continue to be inept, irresponsible, and
clueless; there will be no attempt to return the United States to sound
money principles; and there will be no reduction in foreign aid. In a
nutshell, it will be business as usual in Washington, D.C., and New York
City.

Don't get me wrong: Barack Obama will doubtless throw out some bones to
his liberal supporters in much the same way that Republican presidents
throw out a bone or two to their conservative constituents. Watch for
Obama to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research. America's upper
income earners can expect some sort of tax increase. No doubt oil companies
will end up losing some tax exemptions. Watch for additional
environmentalist policies to be enacted. And, yes, there will be some sort
of "universal health care" proposal. But the Bush administration has
already given America a socialized financial system, so how can
Republicans complain about socialized medicine?

Obama might try to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine." Some suggest that
Obama might try to rid the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the armed
forces, but I doubt that he will take on this one. The political net gain
would not be worth the potential fallout.

Although he might want to, I doubt that Obama will actively promote
additional gun control (Democrats always lose when this happens). He may
push for a ban on "high capacity" magazines that hold over ten rounds, as
Bill Clinton did. If Obama does not go after guns directly, we can expect
some sort of attack on ammunition (which is already happening) that will
drive up the cost of ammo even more. Of course, some sort of gun
confiscation or martial law could materialize in the wake of another
"terrorist" attack. But a McCain administration would act no differently,
so, again, the net result is zero change. Remember, it was Republican
George W. Bush who expunged Posse Comitatus and deployed 20,000 army
troops on U.S. soil to be used for domestic law enforcement. If Obama
really wanted to bring about change, he would reverse Bush's draconian
decisions, would he not? Don't hold your breath.

We can also expect more harassment of gun owners and lawful gun dealers by
the BATFE. But this is no change at all. The current leadership at BATFE is
already about as hostile to gun owners and gun dealers as it can possibly
be. An Obama BATFE will be no worse. But neither will it be any better.
Net result: no change.

So, what will be the overall change to the direction of America? Answer:
there will be no change to the overall direction of the country. There
will be no change to the welfare state. There will be little change to the
warfare state. No change to NATO, except to expand it. Very little change,
if any, to foreign policy. No change to America's open sieves, otherwise
called national borders. And there will be absolutely no change to the
burgeoning New World Order that began in earnest under both Bushes and
Bill Clinton.

The NAFTA superhighway will have the support of the Obama administration.
The North American Community will proceed unimpeded by the Obama White
House. In all likelihood, the Amero (a common currency with Canada and
Mexico) will materialize during Obama's first term. But this would all
have happened had John McCain been elected. No change here.

One reason why it is so easy to predict a business-as-usual Obama
Presidency is the people that Obama has surrounded himself with. Former
New York Federal Reserve chairman Timothy Geithner* for Secretary of the
Treasury; former Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers* for National
Economic Council director; Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates* will
keep his job; Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel for Obama's Chief of
Staff; Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State; Arizona Governor Janet
Napolitano* for
Secretary of Homeland Security; former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle*
to head the Health and Human Services Department; former Assistant
Attorney General Eric Holder to be Attorney General; New Mexico Governor
Bill Richardson* as Secretary of Commerce; Susan Rice* for U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations; Paul Volcker* for the Economic Recovery Advisory
Board; James Steinberg* as Deputy Secretary of State; Mona Sutphen* for
Deputy White House Chief of Staff, and Louis Caldera* for Director of the
White House Military Office.

Does anyone see "change" with the above names? Every one of them is a
longtime political insider. And at least eleven of them (those with an
asterisk[*] behind their names, above) are members of the globalist
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In fact, six out of the eleven
cabinet-level positions in the Obama administration are CFR members.

The CFR has dominated both Democrat and Republican Presidential
administrations for decades. Presidents such as Dwight Eisenhower, Richard
Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have
all been members of the CFR. Vice Presidents such as Hubert Humphrey,
Nelson
Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, and Dick Cheney have been CFR members. And
over the last several decades, practically every secretary of defense,
secretary of the treasury, and most CIA directors have been CFR members.
And let's not forget that this year's Republican Presidential nominee,
John McCain, is a CFR member.

Do you now see why--no matter who is elected President of the United
States--nothing changes? Republican or Democrat, it does not matter: the
CFR and their collaborators remain in power. And as Sonny and Cher used to
sing, "The Beat Goes On."

There will be no real change in Washington, D.C., until the CFR and their
elitist cronies are thoroughly and universally removed from power. And the
only way this will happen is if we elect an Independent President of the
United States (someone who truly understands the New World Order and is
dedicated to defeating it), because the two major parties will never allow
someone opposed to the CFR to become their nominee. The only Republican
candidate for President in 2008 who demonstrated those credentials was Dr.
Ron Paul. And to a lesser degree, the only Democrat who even seemed to
vaguely understand this was Dennis Kucinich. Notice that both men were
thoroughly repudiated by their respective parties' leadership and all but
totally ignored by the national news media. (The CFR and their surrogates
also control the national news media. What a coincidence!)

So, while the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may have changed, there
will be no real change to the direction of these United States. Count on
it!"


http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6180

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Boon]

Wow. A white supremacist criticizes Obama's administration a full six
weeks before the Inauguration, and mindless follower Ludwig posts the
"news" to an audio group on the Internet. If there's a reason why we
are ****ed as a society, this it.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

Wow. A white supremacist criticizes Obama's administration a full six
weeks before the Inauguration, and mindless follower Ludwig posts the
"news" to an audio group on the Internet. If there's a reason why we
are ****ed as a society, this it.

Under Obama's administration, those who disagree with the President won't be
branded as traitors. And if we have to invade another country to ensure our
safety and prosperity, I'm pretty sure President Obama will tell us the
truth rather than lying about the reasons.

Damn minorities! Too ethical for their own good, don't you know.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Time for some mindless yap-yap-yapping.

Under Obama's administration, those who disagree with the President won't be
branded as traitors.

You really don't WOOFWOOFWOOF! expect the YAP-YAP-YAPPITY-YAPPITY-YAPYAPYAP!

Scooter, you seem agitated. Go chase a mailman.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Dec, 22:39, George M. Middius wrote:


Damn minorities! Too ethical for their own good, don't you know.

from yesterday's AP wire
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...VuuAAD94TL5GG1

LOL!!!
Surprise!!!
they are just like the rest of us.

[Boon]

On Dec 7, 9:07�pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 7 Dec, 22:39, George M. Middius wrote:



Damn minorities! Too ethical for their own good, don't you know.

from yesterday's AP �wirehttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhyxqwT9LfU2KxIMO9A...

LOL!!!
Surprise!!!
they are just like the rest of us.

Please, Art. Don't contribute to Ludwig threads unless you're
specifically going to point out what a doofus he is. Your single
legitimate comment will now prompt him to start 12,385 new OT threads.

Boon

[BretLudwig]

Vinylsnatch:

"Wow. A white supremacist criticizes Obama's administration a full six
weeks before the Inauguration, and mindless follower Ludwig posts the
"news" to an audio group on the Internet. If there's a reason why we
are ****ed as a society, this it."


Horse****. First, Baldwin isn't a white supremacist: he's a simple
fundangelical xtian, though at least an honest and consistent one, and I
have to respect him for that.

What people like you are too obtuse to comprehend is that "white
supremacists" are a surprisingly rare bunch. 90% of those who talk about
explicit whiteness as a positive thing are AT MOST white nationalists or
white separatists. Baldwin doesn't even go that far. he has no more to do
with Whiteness than Garrison Keillor (Robert Griffin's exemplar of
Whiteness) or Marilyn Monroe (my exemplar of White womanhood
physically-intellectually it would be Margaret Sanger).

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Boon]

On Dec 7, 9:44�pm, "BretLudwig" wrote:
Vinylsnatch:

"Wow. �A white supremacist criticizes Obama's administration a full six

weeks before the Inauguration, and mindless follower Ludwig posts the
"news" to an audio group on the Internet. �If there's a reason why we
are ****ed as a society, this it."

�Horse****. First, Baldwin isn't a white supremacist: he's a simple
fundangelical xtian, though at least an honest and consistent one, and I
have to respect him for that.

�What people like you are too obtuse to comprehend is that "white
supremacists" are a surprisingly rare bunch. 90% of those who talk about
explicit whiteness as a positive thing are AT MOST white nationalists or
white separatists. Baldwin doesn't even go that far. he has no more to do
with Whiteness than Garrison Keillor (Robert Griffin's exemplar of
Whiteness) or Marilyn Monroe (my exemplar of White womanhood
physically-intellectually it would be Margaret Sanger).

Wow, that was like watching a serial killer protest his innocence
while swinging a machete at the cops.

Boon

[BretLudwig]

Vinylsnatch:

"Wow, that was like watching a serial killer protest his innocence
while swinging a machete at the cops."

Boy can you be dumb sometimes.

Serial killers don't wave machetes at cops. Serial killers more often
hang out at the donut shops cops frequent. People who wave edged weapons
at cops are known as "deceased formerly insane people".

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Dec, 00:34, Boon wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:07 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 7 Dec, 22:39, George M. Middius wrote:

Damn minorities! Too ethical for their own good, don't you know.

from yesterday's AP wirehttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhyxqwT9LfU2KxIMO9A...

LOL!!!
Surprise!!!
they are just like the rest of us.

Please, Art. *Don't contribute to Ludwig threads unless you're
specifically going to point out what a doofus he is. *Your single
legitimate comment will now prompt him to start 12,385 new OT threads.

Boon

throw enough spaghetti on the wall and maybe one strrand will stick.

actually, I am doing society a favor, the more time I keep
him on line posting drivel, the less
time he has to spend roaming the street looking
for blacks, hispanics and gays to beat up on.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Dec, 01:19, "BretLudwig" wrote:


People who wave edged weapons
at cops are known as "deceased formerly insane people".


Hey, fellow posse members, I just thought of
a great Xmas present for the Kroo.

[Boon]

On Dec 7, 10:19�pm, "BretLudwig" wrote:
�Vinylsnatch:

"Wow, that was like watching a serial killer protest his innocence

while swinging a machete at the cops."

�Boy can you be dumb sometimes.

Nope. Stupid people are the ones who take everything literally.


�Serial killers don't wave machetes at cops. Serial killers more often
hang out at the donut shops cops frequent. People who wave edged weapons
at cops are known as "deceased formerly insane people".

I bet your tiny little apartment is a horror show.

Boon