OBAMA, McCAIN: TWEEDLEDUM(B) TWEEDLEDUM(BER

Original Link: http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis134.htm

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

Senator Obama is definitely proving that he stands for “change.” He has “changed” his position on campaign financing, the D.C. gun ban, etc.

When he was young, Obama, no doubt protested American relations with right-wing Central American dictators who oppressed their people. But as a presidential candidate today, he has hypocritically “changed” and hasn’t threatened to cut off relations with Communist Chinese dictators who oppress their people.

I predict Obama will also “change” his 16-month timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. It’s logistically not possible to get all American troops and their equipment out of Iraq in 16 months. For example, much of the equipment will have to be sealifted from a single port in Kuwait, where it will first have to be cleaned after a long journey from encampments all over Iraq. Someone should inform Obama of this.

The man is staggeringly ignorant about Afghanistan as well. In a July 20, 2008 interview, CBS reporter Lara Logan asked Obama about Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leadership still being free in Pakistan. Obama replied, “If we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan.”

What!!?? To take one’s “eye off the ball,” one first has to have one’s “eye on the ball.” Does he think we had our eye on Osama and the Taliban leaders but then started fighting somebody else in Afghanistan while Osama and the Taliban leaders quickly slipped across the border? By “off the ball” Obama can’t mean the invasion of Iraq because that didn’t occur until the Spring of 2003, long after Osama and the Taliban leaders went to Pakistan!

When listening to Obama and McCain, one gets the feeling of listening to characters from the works of Lewis Carroll, perhaps Tweedledum(b) and Tweedledum(ber). In THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, Tweedledum is a character symbolic of a politician not really different from his opponent (Tweedledee). In the same Carroll book, Humpty Dumpty is an egg symbolic of a head of state who thinks he can’t fall, but he does and can’t be put back together again. Today, this symbolizes the precarious economic situation of the U.S.

Humpty Dumpty also symbolizes the dominance of moral relativism in the U.S. today, as he says a word “means just what I choose it to mean.” This is like Obama when he has “changed” his position on an issue. He replies that he hasn’t “changed,” but rather has merely “revised” his position more precisely to reflect what he meant all along.

Obama is also like the ALICE IN WONDERLAND Cheshire Cat, all smile and little substance. He forgot we have 50 states (he said “57”!). McCain mistakenly said Iraq was on the border of Afghanistan, and he also had to be reminded by Sen. Joe Lieberman that Iran was supporting Iraqi Shiite insurgents rather than Al Qaeda in Iraq.

When Terry Moran of ABC’s Nightline on July 21 asked Obama if he had it to do over, would he support the surge in Iraq since it seemed to have worked, Obama said “no.” He said the reason for less violence in Iraq was just because the surge occurred at a “confluence” of events including the Sunnis becoming tired of Al Qaeda in their midst. This is like being at the ALICE IN WONDERLAND tea party where they are nonsensically celebrating an “unbirthday.” Couldn’t it be that the surge provided Sunnis with security from Shiite militia attacks, thereby allowing the Sunnis to feel they no longer needed Al Qaeda support defending themselves?

Katy Couric of CBS then pursued this issue with Obama, who explained that although the surge may have reduced violence in Iraq, he still wouldn’t have supported it because he had a better plan for dealing with terrorists. In other words, if Obama was a U.S. Senator during WWII, and our military commanders needed authorization for a strategy that certainly would hurt the Nazis, Obama would not vote for authorization of the demonstrably effective strategy if he felt he had a better strategy, and thus the strategy that he acknowledged would have hurt the Nazis wouldn’t be implemented! This type of thinking means one should oppose any proposed solution to any problem, no matter how successful the solution would be, just because one feels he has a better solution.

Like I said, the Power Elite sees to it that our choice is between Tweedledum(b) and Tweedledum(ber), because such incompetent leaders more easily can be controlled and manipulated to further the Power Elite’s goal of a World Socialist Government. In Obama’s speech in Berlin on July 24 he refers to “one world” (remember David Rockefeller’s reference to his “one world” conspiracy in his MEMOIRS) and to himself as a “citizen of the world.” He seems to be running for president of the World Socialist Government to come!

And if the American people choose the Power Elite candidate Obama over Power Elite candidate McCain, we will begin to see a “new feudal order” controlled by elitists as described in Arthur S. Miller’s DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP: THE EMERGENT CONSTITUTION OF CONTROL (1981). In this book, Miller reveals: “Dictatorship will come – is coming – but with the acquiescence of the people, who subconsciously probably want it. The Grand Inquisitor likely was correct: people want material plenty and mysticism, not perfect freedom. Freedom is an intolerable burden…. The ideologist for this development is B.F. Skinner. The goal is ‘predictable’ man – a person who conceives of freedom in Hegelian terms. Americans are moving into a Skinnerian world, one in which they ‘will no longer know, or care, whether they are being served or controlled, treated or punished, or whether they are volunteers or conscripts. The distinctions will have vanished’ [Peter Schrag, MIND CONTROL (1978)].”

You may think this can’t happen here, but remember we’re living in Alice’s “wonderland.” In case you doubt this, consider the recent federal tax rebate. Congress said people on Social Security get a $300 rebate from the federal government if the government already sent them over $3000 in Social Security payments. However, a self-employed person gets NO rebate even though paying the IRS hundreds of dollars if their adjusted income after expenses was under $3000! We (including Congress) truly are in “wonderland.”

And in case you need another example, on July 26 an ABC affiliate announced it would air at 11 PM on July 30 an already completed special investigative report uncovering a flaw in automobiles that could be fatal and how you can detect it. I couldn’t believe it, and called them asking why they would delay for 4 days telling people about a fatal flaw they could detect. People could die unnecessarily during the interim! Only in “wonderland.”

Another “change” that’s being forced on us is the conversion next February 17 from analog to digital TV. It’s another government “unfunded mandate” that will hit everyone, especially the poor. A new digital TV costs $600-800 and a government coupon for a converter box only helps afford the cheap kinds that have serious problems.

Many people won’t be able to install the boxes without help. Boxes will fail during emergencies like hurricanes. They can’t switch channels automatically if you want to program your VCR to tape programs on different channels. Your TV screen will have a black strip across the top and bottom because broadcasts will be in 16 by 9 image ratio rather than the current 4 by 3.

There are hundreds of serious problems with this government mandate, yet the government is determined to force this upon us rather than wait until the problems are solved. If this were a prospectus for a new business, no one would invest in it.

So why are they doing this now? Perhaps there is a Power Elite globalist agenda here for which this timetable is critical! When I asked someone knowledgeable about digital TV regarding this, he said it will help harmonize the U.S. with other nations in a “global” communications network. He also said digital will allow things more easily to be “embedded” in TV broadcasts.

This would be similar to the 1981 movie Agency, in which subliminal TV messages were used to manipulate the public. In the movie, Robert Mitchum said he worked for “an elite of power… who understand the value of manipulating public opinion…. The public wants to be led. It needs to be led. We have long term plans.”