Written by Jaron Pearlman   

Recently Barack Obama endorsed the idea of maintaining Internet Neutrality, creating a jolt of appreciation from concerned citizens. Pressure from the general public to preserve unbiased and clear Internet use seems to have worked…though sadly I am having a tough time believing it.

The FCC’s plan to regulate our Internet into ‘slow’ or ‘fast’ lanes with selective content disturbed and enraged countless Americans; but will Obama’s recent endorsement actually yield a change in this government’s policy or rhetoric?

It should be our growing concern here in the states that our voices are not being heard or manifested politically; in fact they have been muted a very long time. Hence we see the continuation of objectionable activities; such as the perpetual raising of the debt ‘limit’, continued wars overseas, government bailouts of private institutions, entire markets being sent to foreign nations, and the militarization of domestic forces.

One man or administration does not characterize these events. This has continued over literal decades, perhaps even dating back to the sordid origins of Washington’s privatization in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve Act by Woodrow Wilson (see my article Owner of the Free).

This evolution of a dark, American enigma has been progressing more and more overtly each year as media has become more diverse - from newspapers, to radio, to television, to HTML, to smartphones.

With the hope of increasing media transparency, I’ve chosen five Presidents (in succession) to illustrate a dismal state of affairs, and my distrust of our President’s words to protect Net Neutrality and free information (as well as other issues).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1980 several nation-shaping crises had come to a head.

The last remaining shreds of a standardized currency lay in the ashes of the Bretton Woods System (the final monetary straw being the Vietnam War), and no gold holdings would ever be redeemable by the US Treasury ever again.
Real wealth in effect (such as gold) could then be masked, exchanged, and hoarded with no accessible paper trail.

In 1979, both Iraq and Iran had paradigm shifting revolutions empowering both the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein. This meant that trade with the west was not assured, and oil would only potentially come at the price set by the new nationalist leaders.

Parts of the Caribbean, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Central American states were engulfed in internal power struggles- many of which possess(ed) large amounts of raw materials, natural gas, oil, valuable geography, and potential labor.

Also, the effects of the 1973 Yom Kippur War in Israel were still lingering. This war was an Arab response to lost territory in the Six Day War, and gave way to an oil embargo from the majority of Arab nations in the Middle East. The embargo itself wasn’t a result of Arab/Israeli warfare; rather it was a reaction to the USA arming Israel with nuclear weapons (under Nixon). The resulting lack of oil abroad heavily affected USA policy in the Middle East, even to this day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Ronald Reagan entered the oval office in 1981, his role in American history had already been written. His predecessor Jimmy Carter had begun the cycle he would build upon: a series of deregulations on major industries (including investment banks), social policies that ended up separating socio-economic classes more, and shady operations training/arming rebels in Afghanistan (and other Central Asian/Balkan nations).

In fact, Reagan’s campaign was funded largely by the same entities as Carter’s had been; notably organizations, lobbyists, PACs, and corporate ‘individuals’ that represented manufacturing, fuel, technological, media, and banking industries.

The only two major differences were that of the military industry and the Music Corporation of America (MCA); who represented actors, made records, laid the path for NBC/Vivendi, and was integral to the birth of big Telecom corporations.

Arms manufacturers like Boeing and Raytheon realized the weight of the situations accumulating in the Middle East. Carter’s policies had not been satisfactory to the arms behemoths, and in response they put all their funds into pro-Reagan pockets.

One man, for example, was an ex-CIA asset (and eventually a Guatemalan sugar industrialist) who was involved in the Bay of Pigs, Roberto Arzu. He provided Reagan with funding from rightist groups in Guatemala, as did other sources from Taiwan and Grenada.

MCA, on the other hand, was more interested in fostering what would be American entertainment (following Ted Turner’s CNN model). The development/control of mass news, more polarizing celebrity figures, and media used as distraction rather than societal commentary, all fell predictably under the actor-President Ronald Reagan.
This agenda fell right in line with Reagan’s vice George H.W. Bush (former director of the CIA), and Reagan’s CIA director William Casey (detailed in my article None of What You Hear, Half of What You See).

Reagan’s policies, both domestic and foreign, were very predicable if one were to follow the money trail.

Between the years of 1981 and 1989 Reagan presided over:
*A vastly accumulating American debt for ‘defense’ and major industry subsidies
*Massive tax cuts, coupled with continued inflation of the US dollar put many Americans in a higher tax bracket than was comparable to the worth of their money
*US sponsored genocides in Guatemala/El Salvador/Nicaragua/Grenada
*The illicit sales of weapons to Iran (including cyanide/sarin/mustard gas)
*The takeover of black (fabricated) propaganda as 24-hour news
*Irresponsible deregulations of investment banks
*The use of social funds to pay down the US Federal debt
AND
*The creation of ‘too big to fail’ businesses, by bailing out 747 businesses to the tune of 125 billion dollars. These Savings and Loans companies had been bankrupted by Reagan’s revisions to passive loss tax breaks and removal of loan restrictions. The only real loss (since the government subsidized the whole thing with taxpayer debt) is on the average American, whose children will inherit this atrocity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
George H.W. Bush had not only been Reagan’s vice and a Director of the CIA, but his family had a long history intertwined with oil production out of the Middle East, South/Central America, and Texas.
Prescott Bush (George HW’s father) was a Wall Street Executive banker and US Senator, who fueled American investments in the Nazi War machine as well as the Allies. The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company for example was an investment Prescott both financed and profited off of, while their labor increasingly consisted of concentration camp workers.

Reagan’s tenure had to end but the Presidents handlers were quite happy with how things had been going. Bush seemed like the perfect man to carry the torch- astute, secretive, and already savvy to the whims of the moneymen. Democratic rival, Michael Dukakis couldn’t keep up with Bush’s funding (which surely also had CIA run contributions) and lost by a significant number of votes.

The story continues very much the same-with further Wall Street/investment bank deregulations, furthered intrusions for Central/South America in Panama, more distortion of American media, and the beginning of Iraq’s destabilization for western acquisition.

Iraq had already been painted with a target following the Halabja gassing of the Kurds in 1988, though it was not reported in the west that it was quite possibly Iran that did the gassing; using US obtained nerve agents. Both Iraqi and Iranian forces had converged on the Kurdish area, and the story was intentionally skewed towards antagonizing Iraq with little exploration of other possibilities.
The problem with identifying the perpetrator is that not only did Reagan arm the Iranians, he had armed Iraq as well. The rationale was that whichever side won would police the region at the beck and call of Washington.

Iraq was under deep (and intentional) scrutiny under Bush’s administration, so when news hit that neighboring Sunni-State/Western ally, Kuwait, had been invaded and annexed by Saddam, the Gulf War began with no second thoughts.
There was certainly no public discussion regarding Kuwait slant drilling Iraqi oil from under Saddam’s borders; a process I might add that takes considerable amounts of time, technology, and money that only a handful of industrialists possessed (including the Bushes and Halliburton).
The Iraqi government actually contacted Washington ambassador April Glaspie regarding this prior to Kuwait’s annexation. Her reply indicated that DC didn’t care.

Bush’s continuation of Central/South American economic conquest evolved as well. In a move finalized by Clinton (whom we will get to), HW Bush set in motion the precedent of attempting to fast-track free trade agreements, which ultimately harm all nations involved. In these treaties, tariffs are removed, markets are moved overseas, quality control becomes non-existent, domestic goods don’t retain value, large companies have international rights placed above national sovereignties, and nations that create consumer goods are forced into abject poverty.

In Bush’s case, specifically with free trade, he meant to pave the way for ethanol exports from south of the border. By moving large companies into small, resource rich nations (post US-sponsored coups), their economic policies could be dominated and exploited. Rather than have the people of any such nation grow corn for themselves, they were to ship the vast majority overseas. This type of phenomenon caused a deficit of necessities in many countries.

This was however EXTREMELY profitable for the multinational corporations that drafted these legislations Bush championed, called NAFTA.

Thus we see the legacy of George Herbert Walker Bush, a simple continuation of Reagan.

*Increased national debt due to more questionable wartime spending
*The further adoption of large companies as policy makers (deregulations, free trade).
*The furthered manipulation of mass media to justify foreign policy
*The increased debasement of the US dollar due to irresponsible fiscal policy
*The introduction of neo-liberal economics in a globalized world, which are used to subjugate and strip the rights from individual nations (economic colonialism).
*The (once again) illicit sales of arms to foreign combatants, none of which being particularly fond of America
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what many are thinking. Both of these men are republicans, what about democratic presidents?

An incredibly unpopular President, HW Bush only served one term leaving his office to democrat Bill Clinton.

First of all Clinton made no effort for proper public or congressional review of NAFTA, and signed it into law in 1994. Despite this agreement being a hallmark of his political opponent HW Bush, Clinton’s acceptance of this treaty reassured his financiers of the government’s continuing support – the banks, multinational food companies, the mining/fuel industries, and the newly budding tech industry that would boom in the late 90’s. All of these benefited from cancerous free trade agreements.
The Clintons were especially fond of wealthy families with ties to many industries; like the natural gas/finance industry/real estate moguls of the Jackson Stephens family (who helped create stores such as Wal-Mart), the Rubins of Goldman Sachs, and food/petroleum/internet moguls like Ronald Burkle.

Shortly thereafter in 1995, The US under President Clinton helped to form the World Trade Organization. The WTO was meant to further liberalize world trade, again to the detriment of national sovereignties and the benefit of multinational business.
After its formation, Clinton began championing of China’s entry into the agreement - an eventual deathblow to American manufacturing of all types (which we shall return to). His advertisement that it would help the American economy was deeply false, a reality that anyone with basic economic understanding could see.

Domestically, the Affordable Housing Act and Community Reinvestment Act revisions, under Clinton, paved the way for the housing bubble during Bush’s term, by allowing unreasonably low loans to any and all (regardless of income or collateral).
The same administration also removed the Glass-Steagall Act, a depression era regulation that separated commercial and investment banks.

Matters were not better on the purely fiscal front either. Newly re-appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a man tied to many interests - including General Foods, JP Morgan, ABC, Mobil, AIG, and several investment banks. He still promoted deregulation of industry of course, as he had under HW Bush.

Clinton served as a pacifier for a nation that was sick of the same downward spiral. Though he seemingly reduced the national debt, he actually played the same card as Reagan but by slight-of-hand.

In his act to reconcile US debt, Clinton once again ‘borrowed’ from Social Security. This made the US deficit lessen (amount owed yearly as percentage of GDP) but did nothing for the rising national debt. By exchanging funds meant for American social needs for bonds that are supposedly redeemable by the US treasury, Clinton only hid the fact that the gross federal debt continued to rise throughout his presidency from $4.3 to $5.6 trillion dollars, annually.

Social Security, though part of the government, is a separate institution from the treasury. When money is loaned out of it, interest is expected on that loan. Therefore, paying a debt with a loan that accrues interest is not a sound fiscal policy.
Also (ironically), the money owed in interest to ‘publicly owned’ Social Security is added to the taxpayer owed national debt, so in all literal senses this practice puts us in debt to ourselves.
In addition to this, the loss of GDP towards (and into) the 2000s was a direct result of free trade set in motion in the 90s, and didn’t help the out of control US economy either.

Lastly, Clinton had the same attitude towards foreign policy. Besides less than accurate bombings of Somalian and Bosnian villages, Clinton also had limited campaigns in Afghanistan and Sudan.
Now, publicly released intel surmises that there were no chemical weapons being made in these last two places as advertised prior to the bombings, just some pharmaceutical factories.

Clinton also helped NATO in dividing up Yugoslavia, using (likely CIA created) Albanian separatists as a license to move in and bomb the region into smaller, more manageable bits.

Iraq was still on Washington’s list as well, and Billy was no exemption from bombing it.
Operation Desert Fox was a four day bombing campaign, but Clinton’s real war on Iraq was once again more hidden than his republican predecessors.
The US concocted sanctions placed on Iraq were completely inhumane. With Iran to one side, NATO member Turkey above, enemies Kuwait and the Saudis below, there were hardly any feasible trade routes into Iraq (with the exception of Ba’athist Syria). Foods, medicines, clean water, and basic staples of life were withheld internationally, causing severe famine and sickness.
Eventually UN resolutions offered much needed imports for oil (and oil only, not for purposes of humanitarian aid) and were declined by the Iraqi government, who realistically saw this as threats and extortion.
Between 1991 and 1998 it is estimated that around 200,000 children alone died as a result of US lead sanctions on Iraq.

Clinton’s presidency was similar to those who came before him.

*Continued catering to big business interests
*Debt accruing fiscal policy
*Destabilization of autonomous nations
*Closer US direction of NATO
*The overt use of inhumane economic warfare in Iraq
*The sale of US markets for future production abroad
*The intentional bust of the tech market, spurred by Alan Greenspan’s hike of interest rates 6 times between 1999 and 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The next president, George W. Bush, was all too clear about who filled his families pockets. Much like his father, George W had not only the same financiers he had the same cabinet. Figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and others were destined to make their appearance once more.

Again, in a move set in motion by Bush’s ‘opposition’, George W allowed China into the WTO in 2001. Despite it being a Clinton platform (as NAFTA was originally a Bush platform) the second Bush very quickly expanded more toxic free trade.
Once China was allowed in, all things bought at Wal-Mart (a Clinton family staple, remember?) were made in China. Plastics, American automotives, papers, furniture, and metal goods were all also made in China. Even American flags started to be made in China. Bush then began promoting ANOTHER free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The combination of both NAFTA and the WTO usurped the American economy, while the housing market finally began to over inflate.

Mind you, though this was brought on by decades of deregulations on investment banks and mortgage companies, the real issue lies in how the situation was dealt with.

Banks were being allowed to finance homes at absurdly low interest rates and with no qualifications; such that one could buy a house having no proof that they could pay off the loan.
Part of the stipulation was the use of an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) that changed the mortgage rate based on the value of surrounding homes and the housing market.
As the market grew and grew, the mortgage rates went up for people who didn’t have the money for their homes to begin with - but the banks had already paid for the contracting and construction of the homes.
They did this with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, through fractional reserve banking, derivatives, and the channeling of real wealth out of the American fiat. Once the reality set in that these debts wouldn’t be paid, many financial institutions started trying to sell ‘debt packages’ to their bank members.
This meant that an investor in these packages would pay off a portion of someone else’s loan (for housing, school, cars, etc) for supposed interest later. Of course this interest never would exist, and ended up expanding the mighty web of debt worldwide.

Soon the inevitable happened and banks had to admit they had none of their members money, the inflation of the housing market made house payments more impossible for people who couldn’t afford their homes to begin with, all the money in the housing market was removed in favor of safer investments, and the home-flippers/investors in the debt market lost all of their assets. This economic crash affected the entire globe, totally stopping large-scale world trade for several minutes.

The Bush administration didn’t just turn a blind eye to this crime. They encouraged it. The real crime of all the bubble bursts isn’t necessarily that deregulation allowed big businesses to act irresponsibly; it’s the complicit nature of the US government.
As the banks failed due to their own poor policies, the US government stepped in and bailed out the banks, adding their tab to US taxpayer debt and allowing them to stay in business.
This was the work of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the banking interests of the Bush family, adding $700 billion to the US deficit.

As a free market proponent, I would like to point out this is the opposite of any semblance of freedom. Businesses, if allowed to make their own bad policies, should also be allowed to fail. The government’s job is to help soften the blow to their citizens, NOT to allow bad polices, then cover for them. This is indicative of a controlled or dominated market, not a free one.

In addition to this, Bushonomics included a hike in military spending, sending defense expenditures from $350 billion in 2001 to a whopping $530 billion in 2008 (not including war expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Obviously this was in response to the 911 attacks, still a subject of much warranted controversy.

Bush’s wars were equally as sketchy as those of his predecessors. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban (who the US helped rise to power via Carter/Reagan) had banned poppy farming, the plant that creates opiates that are widely consumed in the west. This happened in 2000, yielding less than ten thousand hectares that year. By 2001 US troops and NATO invaded, spiking poppy growth back to almost two hundred thousand hectares by 2007.
As for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, none were found. The only weapons found that violated international law were (again ironically) American and European crafted/imported, for use in the Iraq-Iran war. Some of these chemical weapons were buried and some had leaks, which did end up harming some of our own American soldiers.
Obviously this wasn’t reported during or after the war; just like it wasn’t reported that in 2000, Iraq, along with other oil giants like Venezuela, were going to switch from only selling in US dollars to selling in euros. As the value of the euro encroached upon the dollar, and the dollar continued to inflate at a higher rate, some powerful people got very nervous. If the value of oil is set by a currency that has an eventual larger value than the dollar, then a power shift would occur at the highest level (unless the moguls at the top have time to adapt on their own terms).

Iraq’s decimation was meant to preserve an empire and lay claim to an intensely valuable economic territory. It would be ‘rebuilt’ by Dick Cheney’s Halliburton. With allies in Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Jordan and occupiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, only Syria and Iran would remain somewhat autonomous.

Along with this, the Bush administration brought the government’s war on Americans into the light. What had been covert prior to 2001 was now obvious and legal. The patriot act, spying, heightened DHS budgets, acts that began to obviously militarize domestic forces, and indoctrinating xenophobia became part of the American reality.

George W. Bush was his fathers son.

*Protection of business interests over citizens
*Illegal and misled wars at the detriment of all Americans and soldiers
*A beyond irresponsible fiscal policy
*Encroachments on basic American freedoms
*Largest military buildup since Reagan
*Possible attacks on American citizens
*The loss of the remaining industrial/manufacturing markets in America

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly we come to a man whom many considered Bush’s opposite.
While in the senate, Barack Obama said many things that America wanted to hear. He said things like ‘adding to the national deficit is irresponsible’ or ‘we need to spend less on war and more on our own infrastructure’.
As a candidate he seemed (to many) as though he would help put the nation back on track fiscally, domestically, and overseas.

Under the radar however, Obama had his 2008 campaign funded by Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, JP Morgan, CitiGroup, Time Warner, GE, the US Dept of Justice, Morgan Stanley, several pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, military industrial companies, telecom companies… you get the idea. Many of these mentioned didn’t even pick sides- they funded both Obama and McCain (particularly the banks).

One could guess his policies from this.

As a first measure Obama finished bailing out the remaining institutions Bush hadn’t gotten to. This accounted for yet another $500 billion of future taxpayer money- to bail out large banks, labor unions, insurance companies, car companies, and their investors.
He kept key figures that were responsible for letting the crash happen in Washington, such as Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke.

He championed fake socialized healthcare that was drafted by corporations, as if they had the objectivity to practice socialism (see my article Rights and Privileges to Health). Over a seventy-five year period-lets say one lifetime-this phony socialism will add another $62 trillion to the national debt according to the Government Accountability Office (that’s a laughable name), even if the USA somehow got back into surplus.

The overall US expenditure hasn’t improved either; in fact it has gone up. While Obama’s deficit may have decreased (again-amount owed yearly as percentage of GDP) the national debt has risen steadily reaching annually now into the trillions.
Coupled with Obama’s championing of the neo-liberal TPP that Bush began dialogue regarding, there may not even be a realistic GDP in the future. I imagine its hard paying off 17 trillion with the service industry only.

Part of this continual rise still has to do with the corrupt relationship between the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. Even after Ben Bernanke left as chairman and Summers left the Treasury, Obama replaced them with ideological clones.
Gene Sperling took over the Treasury, a beneficiary of Goldman Sachs and advisor for the 2008-09 bailouts- while Janet Yellen took over the Fed.
Janet has been in the Federal Reserve System her whole career in various ways, and is a Keynesian economist.
Her view is that unemployment and inflation have an inverse relationship. In other words if inflation raises it stimulates the economy, resolving unemployment. Her plan to save a sabotaged GDP/American workforce is to essentially lessen the worth of our money and expect industry to come back.
Ron Paul likens this thinking to monetary morphine - it’s a quick fix that makes the failing economy feel a little better, but is addictive and destructive.
Programs like quantitative easing fuel inflation, trying to solve a problem that was created intentionally.

Obama’s promises about foreign policy change are also in shambles. During his two terms so far US troops/Private Security groups have formally been engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, West Africa, Columbia (for Venezuela), Ukraine, and Libya, with drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Pakistan.

Running down the list, Iraq and Afghanistan are familiar. As for West Africa, many serious events have been taking place. Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Ivory Coast, and Nigeria all have much to offer in oils exports, metals, and diamonds.

As illustrated in my article ‘Keep Your Enemies Closer’, there is a practice where crises are caused intentionally to spur international intervention. In the case of the west, the recent weapon of choice since the Cold War has been Sunni insurgencies. In classic stay-behind mission fashion (like Operation Gladio) these groups are trained, armed, and recruited by intelligence groups and private security companies.
First we see a push for military intervention against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and the American people say no. Next we hear of a deadly Ebola outbreak, which for some reason needs American military personnel. And under Obama they are sent there.

Venezuela has had ambitions to throw off the yoke of western control of their oil for some time. US troops have always been deployed nearby in Columbia and elsewhere, to fight the ‘war on drugs’. By causing divisive situations like this in Central/South America, and being aloof to the recent coup in Honduras, Obama endoreses the same strategy as his formers: Keep the southern hemisphere divided and prevent trade with Eastern nations like China or Iran.

As for Libya, Gaddaffi had actually been running the richest nation in Africa. His policies were pan African and he proposed a unified African currency (like the Euro but standardized) called the Dinar. He also sought to create a unified African military similar to other pacts like NATO. His attempts to remove Africa from international peonage spurred the destruction of his nation, from a president who said he opposed war.

The drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Pakistan are intensely inaccurate (only 3-10% being combatant targets) and likely create more terrorists than they destroy. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) bill that allows this is supposedly questioned by Obama, but he doesn’t hesitate to use it OR actually repeal it.

Syria, like Iraq, was Ba’athist meaning pan Arabic. It was not a Sunni or Shia dominated state. This included Christians, Jews, Druzes, Palestinians, and more.
Obama’s handlers wanted a war with Syria for its prime real estate and resources (while saying it was to remove Bashar-al-Assad), but again the American people said no.
Not long after this, Barry’s arming of ‘moderate forces’ went predictably awry and the powers that be got their war with Syria via ISIS.

As for the Ukraine- Obama and his boys aren’t far off either. The Euromaidan protests were hijacked by nationalist neo-nazis who were trained by the CIA, MI6, and Blackwater. They illegally overthrew the pro-Russian Ukrainian government to prep Ukraine for NATO/EU assimilation.
Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, is already set up to run the first pro EU energy firm out of Ukraine called Burisma. Much like the Middle East where jihadists are used for coups, Svoboda and the Azov Battalion were used in the Ukraine.

Domestically, Obama’s government is reflecting the sentiment of the people. Police are now becoming military formally, the extent of government spying was PARTIALLY revealed by Edward Snowden (limited hangout?), the Supreme Court relinquished all holds on corporate campaign donations, censorship is an increasing possibility in our media/internet, acts like NDAA permit permanent citizen detention, and the US dollar is being challenged by rival economies since its handlers have proven themselves incompetent.

Barack Hussein Obama, for all of his sweet words, has given us the same as everyone else.

*Perpetually rising debt
*Perpetual corporately biased policies
*Perpetual wars for masked reasons
*Perpetual funding of our enemies
*Protection of business interests over citizens
*A tightening grip on domestic policies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my original point regarding net neutrality Obama’s debate with Tom Wheeler, the FCC, and big Telecom is all just a show. Some of Barack’s key contributors are/were companies like Verizon and Comcast, who are the ones trying to kill net neutrality. Tom Wheeler was a big telecom lobbyist before his appointment (by Obama) to chairman of the FCC.

Those of us outraged by the assault on free media may THINK there is some debate going on here, but it is simply yet another pacifier to make us believe there is discussion.

This is deeper than any one man or woman. The central problem here isn’t party or political affiliation.

We all want fewer deaths of our friends and families overseas. We all want better use of our taxes and wages. We all want bad businesses to be held accountable for their crimes. We all want to see industry return to America. We all want to keep information free and open. We all want to see a better paradigm made by new technologies that are embraced, not repressed.

These words given to us by our leaders are those of many false prophets, people who seek to deceive you and enslave you.

Perhaps Major General Smedley Butler only delayed the corporate coup on America in 1933 - and if it is not a story you’re familiar with I suggest you take the time to read it.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot