By Brother Nathanael Kapner
AN ELITE RULING CLASS FINANCED BY ZIONIST INTERNATIONAL BANKERS was established by David Rockefeller & Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. This elite ruling class is known as The Trilateral Commission.
Rockefeller’s impetus for establishing the Commission came about after he had read a book entitled Between Two Ages written by Zbigniew Brzezinski of Columbia University.
In his book Brzezinski proposed an alliance between North America, Western Europe, and Japan which became the basis of The Trilateral Commission. Soon after his rendezvous with Rockefeller, Brzezinski developed the idea of a Pax Americana vis-à-vis the international financiers:
— “America is compelled to accommodate itself to the emerging international context. This means that the US government has a mission to guarantee and protect the various arrangements that have been contrived by private business” — Here.
In other words, it was necessary for the international upper class to band together to ensure that political leaders were brought to power who would protect the Zionist bankers’ global financial interests.
A WEAK MAN IN OBAMA THEY CAN CONTROL
“ANY DOUBTS THAT OBAMA IS A PUPPETof Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission ended when Brzezinski appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on March 21 2008 to campaign for Obama,” wrote Rense.com political analyst Webster Tarpley Here.
In his book “Obama A Postmodern Coup” Tarpley says that Brzezinski is seeking a global showdown with Russia and China - a far more dangerous venture than the Neocon/Bush Iraq fiasco.
Tarpley observes that the Neocon/Bush era is over & is now replaced by the Brzezinski-Trilateral-Rockefeller phase of aggression. Tarpley’s most recent remarks are quite revealing:
— “Obama’s first task as President will be to drive the Chinese out of Africa thus depriving them of oil and raw materials. Pakistan and other Chinese allies will be targeted for destruction. When Obama says bomb Pakistan and send more troops into Afghanistan he is expressing the Brzezinski strategy.
“Brzezinski will advise Obama to break up both Russia and China reducing both to petty states which would give Washington another century of world domination” — Here.
Of significant note is that thus far Obama has ‘raised’ $340 million for his campaign compared to McCain’s $132 million. Would it be a surprise to anyone that a good portion of Obama’s campaign money is coming from the Zionist bankers that Obama is now tied to? I trow not…
For More See: “Obama’s Turn To Woo The Jews” Click Here
And: “3 Goals Of The New World Order Jews” Click Here
CLICK: Brother Nathanael…Street Evangelist!
Posts
2 comments:
Senator Obama is turning out to be a real disappointment and a very dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:
Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.
Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).
Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.
The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:
On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.
On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.
Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid ... the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.
A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”
In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.
The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?
Lol... What happens when the world find out that Pakistan, and all the so called 'terrorist' where created, supported, and trained by the US?
Or that the same people in control in the higher levels of the Government financed Hitler and the Nazi regime, not the mention many of the corporations today.
If the US starts attacking its own creation, and then make it appear like that creation is attacking the country, then its all over, for that type of psy op I dont think the American public can handle at this point, and will lead to ww3.
Of course, the US has said that when they do attack Iran, if they fight back then the Nuclear option is used.
Either way, we are facing a major reflection time as to what we will do shortly.
Post a Comment