Zbigniew Brzezinski now BO's cabinet

Clinton, Obama, JFK, and the next terrorist attack
When I first laid eyes on Barack Obama, giving the keynote nomination speech introducing John Kerry, I was excited to see such an articulate spokesman for the rest of us, the non-billionaires. I rode my bicycle to hear him speak at nearby Jefferson High School and liked what I saw: a handsome, caring, articulate, obviously electable Black man inspiring a multiracial crowd, which had been drawn to an African American neighborhood.
HOWEVER
I recently learned that Obama has taken on Zbigniew Brzezinski as his chief foreign policy advisor. Obama could not have taken on a more brazen spokesman for the super rich if he had hired Henry Kissinger, or even David Rockefeller himself! Brzezinski was the architect of the current situation in the middle east. Brzezinski brags of his role in destroying the socialist government in Afghanistan, by secretly arming and training the Taliban to take power; by secretly recruiting, arming and training Osama Bin Laden; he virtually invented armed Islamic extremism. Brzezinski is the most prominent of Rockefeller servants, not merely a member, but a founder and director of the Rockefeller's Tri-Lateral commission, where the world's elite meet to plot, plan, and conspire against democratic movements and ideals on worldwide basis. Until recently, full pages on Obama's website bragged about the relationship between Obama and Brzezinski. Most of these pages have been recently scrubbed from the website, but this information is still widely available on the web.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
Obama has also brought on board two individuals, Anthony Lake and Richard Clarke, who I consider war criminals for their roles in enabling the genocide of 800,000 Africans in Rwanda. Lake's activities led directly to the deaths of 4 million more in Congo. (Details below)
THE NEXT 9-11 ATTACK
If there is any important difference between the candidates, it rests on which of them will say “yes”, and which will say “no” when they are told that the latest “terrorist” attack is justification for bombing Iran.
The Oklahoma City Bombing was supposed to be a false flag operation:
http://www.jaynadavis.com/fn.html
http://www.jaynadavis.com/wsj.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-1678779-details/Iraqis+linked+to+Oklahoma+atrocity+/article.do;jsessionid=qzSmHgwpvLv0q2r5yLQQbXNnKfWB2snL50j2xYnf1ZnjWcn7SGnz!398065288!-1407319225!7001!-1
Evidence was planted, for the purpose of showing that this was an Iraqi attack; that there were Iraqi agents on the scene; that Iraq was behind the bombing. Now stop a moment.
Why didn’t Clinton act on this information and attack Iraq? There can be no doubt that Clinton was confronted with this planted evidence, and asked to approve an invasion. And he refused. Instead of killing a million people in Iraq, he nailed Tim McVeigh. Clinton recognized this as a false flag and refused to act upon it. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Given Obama’s hiring of Brzeziski, it appears that, far from resisting the next false flag attack, that Obama would be involved in planning it.
The Clintons are corrupt. Of course. We have an openly corrupt political system. To have a prayer of being elected to national office, candidates must secure donations of hundreds of million of dollars; they get this money from people who have millions of dollars, and who don't give their money without strings attached. The Clintons have played this game well. But there are levels of corruption. One thief steels a house and a vacation from the taxpayer. Another murders thousands of their own citizens, and uses the murder to start a war against uninvolved parties. There’s a difference. If Clinton’s failure to act on the OKC false flag operation doesn’t prove anything, try this one on for size.
CLINTON AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE
The Federal Reserve is a private organization of the largest banks that controls the money supply of the US. Well OK. Someone has to control the money supply, I suppose. But when the US government runs a deficit, instead of just printing the money, the government borrows the money, at interest, from the Federal Reserve Banks. It is the biggest easy money rip off in the history of the world. And Ron Paul, to his credit, has railed against it. It has been suggested that JFK was murdered, in part, because of moves he made to reform the Federal Reserve. But instead of talking about it, Bill Clinton balanced the budget!!! I don’t understand why no one takes in what that means. Clinton denied these thieves the single biggest source of easy money. Because there was no debt, the Federal Reserve thieves couldn’t loan the money to the government. Because there was, in fact, a surplus. Furthermore, Clinton proposed to use the surplus to pay off the existing debt. He was threatening to take away all of the hundreds of billions in interest these men collect on US debt. And he accomplished all this by taxing the billionaires!!! I don’t know why he doesn’t brag about it. I don’t know why YOU don’t acknowledge and give him credit for it. I just plain don’t get it. Newt Gingrich was forced out of politics for his role in it. And Clinton has been scourged by all the press for Monica Lewinski etc. ever since.
More on Obama
Now I’m not saying Obama is a secret member of Skull and Bones, an operative of the Rockefellers, who’s job is to sucker in voters longing for an inspiring leader. But I am saying that he certainly looks like a Rockefeller sockpuppet. Let’s look, for example, at his rise to fame. Obama was nobody before John Kerry “made” him by allowing Obama to give the keynote speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, introducing Kerry. Kerry, along with George Bush Jr. & Sr., was a member of the CIA dominated Skull and Bones. Kerry was the ranking member of the Senate Committee that investigated George Bush Sr.’s role in the crack trade. While Gary Webb won a Pulitzer prize for uncovering Bush‘s role in the crack cocaine epidemic, Kerry’s committee came up empty handed. On election night 2004, Kerry quietly accepted defeat, although Robert Kennedy Jr. says the evidence of voter fraud was and is overwhelming:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print
When a journalism student in Florida asked Kerry whether his Skull and Bones membership was connected to his concession, despite the evidence of voter fraud, Kerry had him dragged out and electrocuted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-PcS-s9WtQ
So Kerry’s early sponsorship of Obama is not encouraging. Also discouraging for the idealistic observer was Obama’s attempt to unseat Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther and the one of the most consistently honest and progressive voices in the congress. Obama lost that race. But then the Republican senator from Illinois was suddenly persuaded that he was through with politics, after one term. Obama was able to win the Democratic nomination for this senate seat; and the winner of the republican nomination was suddenly persuaded that he no longer wanted a political career; and an out of state right wing Black man, Alan Keyes, was brought in as a Republican candidate who was absolutely guaranteed to loose. These may all be coincidences, but they are troublingly consistent with the notion that Obama is a fraud, who’s career has been orchestrated, by Republicans and shady Democrats.
False Flag in JFK’s Murder
When JFK was murdered, the plot included the creation of a carefully constructed pile of evidence that Oswald was a Cuban agent. The evidence included film of Oswald passing out pro-Castro leaflets. Oswald claimed to be a member of the Fair Play for Cuba committee. This was a real organization, genuinely subversive, radical, and filled with dedicated individual American communists; and Oswald was passing out their material. That was real. It happened. Of course, recently declassified CIA documents reveal the long suspected fact that Oswald was a CIA operative. But the photographs of Oswald passing out leaflets were not photoshopped; and they were surrounded by other false material: CIA reports that he traveled to Mexico, and visited the Cuban embassy, for example. Johnson was confronted with this evidence and asked to invade Cuba. But he resisted. He let the killers loose on Vietnam, but he wouldn’t give them Cuba. And he demanded and got the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, and the War on Poverty in exchange. There is a tape of a phone conversation, available on the web, between John Connally and LBJ. Connally was demonstrably involved in JFK’s murder. And he called Johnson and said, “Oswald was a Cuban agent.” Johnson told Connally straight out that his story of Oswald as Cuban agent was a lie. To me, this is the most powerful evidence there is that Johnson was NOT involved in the assassination. He knew he had to go along with Vietnam or die. And he went along. What choice did he have? But he went along at the price of passing important Civil Rights legislation. And he refused to accept the phony evidence of Cuban involvement in the assassination.
More Lessons from JFK
Kennedy was corrupt. Of course. And his early policies in Vietnam killed many innocent people.
But he refused to commit troops to Vietnam; in September of ‘63, he announced that he was going to begin withdrawing the US “advisors“, and he paid for it with his life in November. Earlier, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he opposed his general’s advice to launch an invasion. The Russians had fully operative nuclear weapons in Cuba and were authorized to use them to repel an invasion. In opposing his generals, JFK saved us, and the world, from nuclear holocaust; but he paid for it with his own life. What people don’t know is that Kennedy said “No” to the initial invasion of Cuba, by the CIA, at the Bay of Pigs. The fiction, in every book in print, save one, is that Kennedy approved the invasion, but refused to provide air cover, so that the invasion failed. Afterward, Kennedy launched an investigation, a board of inquiry, consisting of his brother Bobby, and General Maxwell Taylor who he pulled out of retirement. JFK wanted Taylor because he outranked every soldier on the planet. They called in all the participants, from cabinet members to CIA officers in the field. The transcripts are printed in a book called “Operation Zapata”. They show that Kennedy was asked to approve the Bay of Pigs invasion and said, clearly, “Hell NO!” The CIA went ahead with the invasion anyway. JFK fired the top 3 leaders of the CIA for insubordination, but publicly, he took the entire blame. He never publicly told what had actually happened, although he was vilified by many good people who were outraged by the attack on Cuba, which included bombing raids on housing projects that killed many civilians, including children.
ANTHONY LAKE, RICHARD CLARKE, BILL CLINTON, AND RWANDA
In 1994, the US stood idly by for over 100 days while 800,000 civilians were hacked to death with machetes. Lake and Clarke have claimed they "didn't know about the extent of the killings," or that "it just wasn't on our radar." The facts show that these statements are lies. Most astonishing has been the release of a Defense Department document showing that Henry Kissinger was being briefed by the Defense Department head of African Affairs a mere 5 days into the killing. In this briefing the Pentagon was able to accurately predict the extent of the killing, that the UN would withdraw, and that the US Army would strenuously oppose any action. The US military not only knew what was happening, they knew what was going to happen. But why were they talking to Kissinger??
Anthony Lake and Richard Clarke not only lied, in claiming ignorance of the atrocities taking place in Rwanda, they not only stood idly by, but they actively worked to block any attempts to reduce the killing. As UN peacekeepers in Rwanda were begging for reinforcements, Lake and Clarke not only blocked the requested helped, they tried to force the UN to remove all their forces. Their names are at the top of the NSA documents discussing the importance of getting the UN to let the slaughter run it’s course. The evidence suggests that they did all this behind Clinton’s back. Ridiculous? After observing that Anthony Lake was Kissinger’s protégé, the answer is no.
Clinton flew to Rwanda, looked the survivors in the face, and apologized for not having acted to stop the killing there. Privately, in his office, he threw a copy of the New Yorker magazine at his new National Security Advisor, and asked why he had not been informed of the killing in Rwanda described in those pages. The Atlantic Monthly, telling this story, calls Clinton a liar, for claiming that he didn’t know. But why would he tell such a lie? In private? To his most secure advisor? And then publicly take the blame? Anthony Lake was Clinton’s National Security advisor at the time of the genocide. By the time Clinton the slaughter in The New Yorker magazine, Clarke was gone.
Final Notes
Imagine what would have happened to JFK if it had been pouring rain in Dallas, if the top were put on the limousine, and the killers got scared to try again. JFK would have had his Monica Lewinsky. If the Christian Coalition and Fox News had been around, people would have hated him the way they’ve been trained to hate the Clintons.
There is plenty out there on Brzezinski. Just do a google search using the words: Tarpley, Obama, and Brzezinski. Tarpley rates Hillary Clintons advisors as “80% insane”; he rated Brzezinski as 125% insane. I think it’s an important difference.

There is NOTHING out there on Anthony Lake and Richard Clarke, so I’ll include my own research:
Obama Chooses War Criminal as Chief Foreign Policy Advisor

… Lake and Richard Clarke arranged for the US representatives at the UN to lead a mainly successful effort to pull all the UN peacekeepers out, to the shock, disbelief and horror of US State Department personnel in Rwanda and Washington. And Lake and Clarke worked throughout the killing to prevent the UN from re-enforcing the desperate remaining UN peacekeepers.
Lake has claimed that he was uninvolved in these efforts, but NSC records show that Clarke kept Lake, an Africa expert, fully informed of the proceedings. These NSC records are a major blow to Lake’s credibility.2
Lake and others have pointed to the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia 6 months earlier that killed 19 Americans, saying that the US was unwilling to take any risks. However, there were many critical actions the US could have taken at virtually no risk. Prudence Bushnell, deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, acting entirely independently of Lake and Clarke, called Augustin Bizimungu, the Rwandan military chief of staff and a key organizer of the killing. “I am calling to tell you President Clinton is going to hold you accountable for the killings,” she said. Though Bushnell that knew she was bluffing, the threat reverberated down to the grass roots tribal meetings in Rwanda. People were watching to see if it was true. The head of UN peacekeeping efforts on the ground in Rwanda, and a witness to much of the slaughter, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, begged the US to send fighter jets to buzz the rooftops in the capital, Kigali, to make this bluff credible. But, though intimidated at first, the killers saw the UN withdrawing troops, under pressure from the US; and they saw that those few troops remaining were ill-supplied and ill equipped, despite Dallaire’s howling cries for troops, supplies, and equipment to stop the bloodbath.
The most significant, perhaps, of US inactions is in regard to Rwanda’s only radio station. Rwanda was a very backward country at the time, with poor roads, and little telephone service. The one radio station, RTLM, was of critical importance to the killers. Harvard Professor Samantha Power says the radio station broadcast names, addresses, and even license-plate numbers of persons to be killed. “Killers often carried a machete in one hand and a transistor radio in the other.” The UN’s general Dallaire, begged the US to put the station out of commission, as something that could be done with maximum effect and no risk. Lake and Clarke refused, even, to jam the radio station, which continued to broadcast for a month after the killers had been driven from the capital.
What is also clear is Lake’s astonishing willingness to lie about events and his role in them. Indeed, if a lie told by Lake is evidence that Clinton is telling the truth, then the quantity and severity of Lake’s lies weigh very heavily in favor of a finding that Clinton is to be believed on the question of his lack of knowledge regarding the killings in Rwanda. For example:
Despite his scandalous failure to take risk-free critical actions against the radio station, Lake told a PBS interviewer that, in fact, the US began broadcasting, over the radio, in Rwanda, the names of the leaders of the genocide, together with President Clinton’s threat to hold them responsible3.
Certainly, substituting the killers’ radio signal with such a message could have drastically reduced the number of innocent people killed. Lake’s telling of this story shows his inventiveness and creativity at dreaming up possible effective actions he could have taken. But, it didn’t happen.
Lake also told the PBS interviewer that the US took steps to protect the civilians under UN protection at Amohoro Stadium. The opposite was true. To the astonishment of the frantic UN peacekeepers at Amohoro, Lake and company had the US mission to the UN introduce a resolution to remove all UN peacekeepers from Rwanda. They succeeded for the most part. The great majority of peacekeepers, and all the best equipped and trained peacekeepers, were removed.
Lake told PBS that the Non-Governmental Organizations, the so-called NGO’s were against taking action. But Samantha Power says, “By the end of the second week informed nongovernmental groups had already begun to call on the Administration to use the term ‘genocide’”. In internal discussions, Lake’s subordinates discussed the need to avoid using the term “genocide” because, if the US were to acknowledge that a genocide was taking place, they would be required, under the UN Conventions on Genocide, to take action. So in fact, by urging the US to use the term “genocide”, Human Rights Watch and others were urging the US to action. Lake’s statement is a powerful misrepresentation.
In this same PBS interview, Clarke makes other astonishingly self-incriminating statements. After the genocide was over, the killers fled, and were sheltered as “refugees” in camps on the edge of Rwanda, where they reorganized, rearmed, and trained to continue the killing. The Goma camp was one of the most notorious. Lake says, “I took over, which is unusual for a national security adviser, the management of the Goma relief operation …” Lake offers this information as proof of his concern for the victims. But the UN’s General Dallaire has characterized Lake’s personal handiwork thusly:
The refugees were organized by village, commune and prefecture and placed under the same genocidaire leaders who had led the killings in Rwanda. Remy Gatete, the prect of Kibungo, established control of the whole camp, threatening and, if required, killing anyone who testified to journalists or human rights activists about what the genocidaires had done in Rwanda. He also executed anyone who tried to go home. In addition, he began siphoning off humanitarian aid to support his thugs in the camp. The aid agencies … reinforced the abuse.4
Lake does not tells us the specific nature of his personal supervision of the developing catastrophe that was brewing at the Goma camp. But that he would offer his involvement at Goma in his own defense is rather startling, and certainly seems far more likely to incriminate, than exonerate, him in the eyes of the knowledgeable observer. By all accounts, Lake’s work organizing the Goma camp led directly to the furtherance and extension of the conflict, that went on to claim 4 million lives in Congo.
Again, in this same PBS interview, Lake claims that he contacted the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s chief intelligence arm, to learn the latest most accurate information on events in Rwanda. He says that Defense Intelligence Agency told him that they didn’t know “who was killing who”. This may be the most astonishing lie of all. Lake is an expert on Africa and African affairs. He would hardly have needed Pentagon intelligence to tell him who was killing who. In any case, by the time he asked, the story, that the Hutu regime was slaughtering its Tutsi citizens, was all over the New York Times and Post5. However, the plot gets thicker and sicker. It was mentioned at the beginning of this article that Lake is a Kissinger protégé. A Pentagon memo has surfaced, under the freedom of information act, showing that a mere 5 days after the crisis in Rwanda first began, Henry Kissinger met with the head of the Pentagon’s Africa department, Under Secretary Frank Wisner, who predicted that if the peace process fails, “a massive bloodbath (hundreds of thousands of deaths) will ensue”; the “UN will likely withdraw all forces”; and the US will not get involved.” This document is available on the web at: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/rw041194.pdf
This memo shows that the Pentagon was much more than “well informed“. They had a sufficient knowledge base as to be able to accurately predict the future. It is astonishing that they were able to make such accurate predictions, a mere 5 days into an event that took over 90 days. Certainly the memo indicates that Lake is lying about the Pentagon’s ignorance. Most chillingly, this memo indicates that Lake’s “former” mentor, the greatest living war criminal, with warrants outstanding for his arrest for his crimes against the people of Chile, was actively involved in events in Rwanda. Kissinger’s passion for secrecy should, however, alert us to the likelihood that evidence of Kissinger’s current relationship with Lake will not be easy to find.
Again, in this same PBS interview, Lake offers, as a defense of his inaction, that “the phones weren’t ringing” about the killing. It‘s hard to tell what, exactly, this means. The personnel at the State department were astonishingly well informed, and certainly screaming about the events. Human Rights Watch, as mentioned, was calling with eye-witness information about killings. The New York Times and other papers were covering the story. But beyond the apparent falsehood of Lake’s statement is its suggestion that unless several people clamor simultaneously, Lake cannot perceive that genocide is bad. He not only needs to know about it, but, apparently lacking a soul, he needs to know that other people care. Presumably “Soullessness” is not on Barack Obama’s list of qualifications for chief foreign policy advisor.
Finally, just to be thorough, Lake boasted to PBS that he used the word “genocide” in late June of ‘04, even though he “wasn’t supposed to,” insinuating that he spoke out boldly and bravely ahead of the curve (though after the genocide). However, according to Samantha Power, Warren Christopher had OK’d the use of the word on May 21st.
John Hankey, the author of this article, is a public school teacher, a researcher, and documentary film maker in Los Angeles.xjhankeyx [at] yahoo.com
End Notes
1) Samantha Power in the Atlantic Monthly writes that Clinton asked his National Security Advisor why he was not informed of the genocide:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide
This is not unprecedented.
2) Ironically, Lake himself is the source for the presence and content of these memos, in his PBS interview (see note #3)
3) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/interviews/lake.html
4) Romeo Dallaire’s book, Shake Hands With the Devil, page 336
5) “On April 10 a New York Times front-page article quoted the Red Cross claim that "tens of thousands" were dead, 8,000 in Kigali alone, and that corpses were "in the houses, in the streets, everywhere." The Post the same day led its front-page story with a description of "a pile of corpses six feet high" outside the main hospital. On April 14 The New York Times reported the shooting and hacking to death of nearly 1,200 men, women, and children in the church where they had sought refuge. On April 19 Human Rights Watch, which had excellent sources on the ground in Rwanda, estimated the number of dead at 100,000 and called for use of the term "genocide." The 100,000 figure (which proved to be a gross underestimate) was picked up immediately by the Western media, endorsed by the Red Cross, and featured on the front page of The Washington Post. On April 24 the Post reported how "the heads and limbs of victims were sorted and piled neatly, a bone-chilling order in the midst of chaos that harked back to the Holocaust." From Samantha Power in the Atlantic Monthly, Bystanders to Genocide
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide