Oct 18, 2011

Obama’s Great African Military Safari

By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
October 18, 2011

In 2008, Barack Obama made history as the first black President in the United States of America. Three years later, he has made history again, this time as the first US President to establish a permanent US military presence on the African continent.
Obama announced late last week, “I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”
Safari USA: African-American are shocked to discover that Obama is the first President to break-in Africa
It is ironic that America’s first black President would be the one to establish a permanent US military beach head in Africa, but one only has to read the numerous strategic briefings available from U.S. AFRICOM to reveal a long-range Anglo-American agenda for the Dark Continent.
When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007 under President George W. Bush, 49 different countries signed on to the US military imperial charter for Africa. AFICOM is a colonial subsidary of Neoconservative pièce de résistance known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In sporting terms, you could say that Bush Jr kicked the ball down the field in 2007, but it is Barack Obama who has carried the ball over the goal line in 2011.
Last Friday, Obama extended his bold new military safari tour of Africa, ordering the deployment of 100 special forces US troops to the central Africa country of Uganda, allegedly to support local forces in battling the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Formed in 1987, they have been engaged in an armed rebellion against the ruling Ugandan government.
Interestingly, LRA’s leader is the infamous Joseph Kony, who also has all the makings of a bin-Ladenesque comic book villain. Should that conflict escalate, tales of Kony will provide a ready, out-of-the-box meal for a US mainstream media machine who are forever gagging for a new world public enemy number one.
Uganda looks to have brokered an initial deal here as a US local partner in Africa, a relationship which was formalized following Uganda’s key role (allegedly) in battling Muslim extremists in Somalia. Whatever Uganda’s actual role was, their rewards have been substantial. Obama recently sent them around $45 million in military equipment, and this will certainly be topped up annually if Uganda continues to host US troops there.
From an AFRICOM standpoint, this latest deal with Uganda is a major step forward in militarily colonizing the continent. What Obama did not highlight in his announcement last week is that a small force is already present in Uganda, and that the new attachment of US special forces who are arriving shortly will be dispatched to perform various ops in the surrounding South Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Add to this an extensive laundry list of US State Department and ‘national security’ objectives, and you have a fully baked recipe for a permanent US military presence in Africa.
To achieve this, the US will also require numerous black ops, backed by a large supporting cast of CIA field workers, agents, US military administrators and paid contractors. This will enable the US, with all the elements necessary for the overthrow of any African  country south of the Sahara desert.
If recent events in North Africa are any indication, the US will often back and support a military dictatorship, rather than allow for a country’s own self-determination. Egypt is the best example of this. After all the fanfare surround the Arab Spring, few have bothered to pay attention to who and what actually replaced Egypt’s overthrown regime there. Now Egypt’s ‘temporary’ military government does not want to relinguish the reins of power.
Interestingly, only one country refused to sign on to AFRICOM’s neocolonial charter. That country was Libya.
If you have any doubts as to what a country can expect if it falls foul of the America’s AFRICOM dictates, look no further than Libya and its leader Moummar Qaddafi. Following UN’s flimsy resolution 1973, Libya was pulverized by a full-blown NATO military air assault. Following the destruction of most of its cities and their infrastructures, Libya is currently in the process of being carved by selected US and European corporations. It’s doubtful that Libya will ever see half the stability or prosperity it had achieved under Qaddafi.
Libya was a hot run, and a subsequent Beta test on the part of NATO and AFRICOM. First on AFRICOM’s menu is UN sanctions, then arming a local faction and fomenting civil unrest, then regime change, followed by the privatization and auctioning off of any valuable state assets to US and European companies, and eventually – a long, hard session of neoliberal IMF economic shock therapy.
Note that the US military or NATO will always be on call if local rebels need their revolution advanced down field. If this process cannot be initiated via the UN, the US will also be very well-placed to run a clandestine operation anywhere on the continent.
In Uganda’s case, it may work as a reverse of NATO’s Libyan-style intervention, whereby US troops will crush, not assist Ugandan rebels rising up against a corrupt and despotic government.
On the very long-range end of the agenda will be to unify Africa into an EU-type superstate, the African Union, and with a single African currency. For Wall Street and the City of London, this is a relatively untapped opportunity to plunder, and then re-plunder a number of otherwise emerging growth economies.
Proponents of AFRICOM seem confident, and with good reason. The US has always been successful at achieving a high level of destabilization in any country it interacts with militarily. This special brand of “engineered chaos” then needs to be managed by a strong military presence in the region.
Globalist elites and transnational corporations could not be more thrilled- hundreds of no-bid contracts, opening up new markets, new monopolies, and extremely cheap labor for globalist industries… in Africa.
In terms of the global geopolitical chessboard, AFRICOM’s most significant objective for America and Europe will be to confront, minimize, sabotage, and where possible- completely destroy China’s economic interests in Africa. Evicting the Chinese from their hundreds of economic interests and political partnerships in Africa amounts to a new Cold War between the Anglo-American Empire and China.
Unfortunately for Africa, USA Inc has become one giant corporation, and certainly behaves like one. Its current CEO, Barack Obama, has one of the hardest hitting velvet gloves in history. He has already demonstrated that he can, and will, bomb a nation into compliance with the globalist plan to completely re-colonize and re-corporatize Africa.
The process will take time, and will no doubt cost many billions of dollars, and thousands of innocent lives will be lost at the hands of CIA-sponsored civil and guerrilla wars. One AFRICOM study believes that China would eventually send its troops to Africa, to defend its economic interests there. The study warns:
“Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering number.”
AFRICOM, in its own words,  is almost expecting a  military confrontation with China over its interests in Africa, and with the new US practice of ‘pre-emptive foreign policy’, it serves as an almost perfect storm for a new not-so-cold war there.
China will not just react, as the US might do, if its interests and investment have been threatened in Africa. This is partly because unlike USA Inc, China is still a functioning nation state and Chinese leaders are not being constantly pressured by its corporations to act over-aggressively to protect Chinese interests.
In the twilight days of every US administration, an American President is defined by his all-important legacy.
Whether Obama becomes either a one term or two term President- after it’s all said and done, he will be remembered as Kenya’s only begotten son, who sold out Africans to his globalist overlords- the man who eventually broke the back of Africa.
Ironic, as we still remember how much hope some people had of him, way back then.

[Insanity] Most Americans Support Obama's Jobs Plan, Believe It Will Fail

A new CNN/ORC Poll shows a record number of Americans believe it is more likely that President Barack Obama's policies will fail — but a large majority still support his jobs plan.

Nearly 60 percent of Americans doubt Obama's policies will succeed — the highest margin since Obama took office, the poll found.

But Americans are supportive of every aspect of Obama's American Jobs Act, from extending the payroll tax cut to raising taxes on those making more than $1 million a year.

Why a Revolutionary Spirit is Targeting “Wall Street Greed”

10/17/11 Paris, France – The debt-slave rebellion! Get ready; it’s coming…the uprising of the popolo minuto…the revolt of the masses…the Jacquerie!
Bloomberg reports:
The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that began last month in Lower Manhattan migrated uptown on Oct. 15, as about 6,000 people gathered in Times Square during what organizers called a “global day of action against Wall Street greed.” There were 92 arrests, according to the New York City Police Department. More than 100 people were injured in Rome, where as many as 200,000 amassed, the Corriere della Sera newspaper reported.
Chicago police arrested about 175 protesters in Grant Park around 1 a.m. local time yesterday after they refused to disperse, the Chicago Tribune reported. Eight were arrested in London a day earlier after demonstrators were barred from entering Paternoster Square, home to the London Stock Exchange. Six were charged, the Metropolitan Police said in a statement.
London protestors were camped out for a third day in front of St. Paul’s Cathedral near the financial district. Banners attached to the tents included signs reading “People Before Profit” and “The People are Too Big to Fail,” while protesters made speeches from the steps of the cathedral using megaphones.
Protesters and local politicians had gathered 300,000 signatures, flooded the city’s 311 information line and drew more than 3,000 people to the park to oppose the cleanup, according to Patrick Bruner, an Occupy Wall Street spokesman.
“The world will rise up as one and say, ‘We have had enough,’” Bruner said in an e-mail. A news release from the organization said there were demonstrations in 1,500 cities worldwide, including 100 in the U.S.
We read reports on the worldwide demonstrations in The Washington Post, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. Nowhere was there the slightest hint at the real problem. Nobody’s interested in the real problem.
There are two aspects to humans, said the ancient Greeks. There is the “appetite” — which is the rational mind figuring out how to get what it wants. And there is the “spirit” — concerned with intangible things, like honor, status, religion and so forth.
It may be the appetite that builds wealth…but it’s the spirit that fuels revolutions. People have an innate sense of what’s right and what’s wrong…what’s fair and what’s not fair. When they feel they are being cheated…they join the revolution.
The press talks about how the rich got richer. Here’s The Washington Post:
From 1973 through 1985, as Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, documented in 2009, American banks never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. By the mid-2000s, that figure rose to 41 percent. As with profits, so with pay: For more than three decades, from 1948 to 1982, pay levels in finance ranged from 99 to 108 percent of the average of private-sector pay. By 2007 they had reached 181 percent.
But why? How?
“Wall Street greed” is the reply given by both the protestors and the press. But wait. Wall Street was just as greedy back when it made 10% of corporate profits. Wall Street is always greedy. So is everyone else.
But it wasn’t Wall Street’s greed that tilted the world’s playing field in the direction of the rich. Nope. It was the feds. You’ve heard our explanation before. We’ll give it again…below…and at where this popular revolt might lead.
But first, let’s look at the news…
Friday, the Dow rose 166 points. Stock market investors are ahead for the year. And look at this: oil is trading at $87 a barrel. And gold is moving up too. Is the correction in the gold market over? Looks like it.
How about stocks and oil? Are they going back up? Looks like it.
But who knows? According to our way of looking at things, they all should be going down. We’re in a period of de-leveraging, which is on the verge of tipping into a worldwide depression. This is not the time for oil, gold and stocks to be going up.
But Mr. Market doesn’t listen to us. He doesn’t care what we think. He has plans of his own!
Want to know how the rich got richer? Want to know how Wall Street made so much money?
We didn’t think so.
But we’ll tell you anyway. The post-1971 US dollar-based monetary system permitted an explosion of credit, which naturally favored the credit industry directly, and the entire financial asset-holding investoriat, indirectly. At the expense of the middle and lower classes. In other words, the expansion of credit, caused by a flexible, expandable money regime, set the whole economy ablaze. The middle and lower classes went deeply into debt to buy things. The “rich” — or at least those who owned stocks and bonds — got richer, as consumer spending lit up the business world, and particularly the financial industry itself. Profits from the financial industry were only about 10% of the total profits on Wall Street in 1970. By the time the credit bubble blew up in 2007 they had grown to 40%.
Wages for working stiffs were flat for 40 years. But earnings on Wall Street soared. In 1970, the typical salary in the financial industry was about the same as for equivalent positions in the rest of the economy. But, by the 21st century, Wall Street salaries were nearly twice as high.
People who complain about “greedy” executives and rich people miss the point. People — rich and poor — are always greedy. But they don’t always have a monetary system that encourages debt and favors investors over working people. This money system was created in 1971 by the Nixon Administration, which probably didn’t know what it was doing…and it was later perfected by subsequent Federal Reserve chairmen.
In addition to stretching the gap between rich and poor, the non-gold monetary system had one other notable consequence. It undermined the working classes’ ability to compete in the modern world. This it did by moving more and more production to the emerging markets. In pre-1971 days, nations had to settle up on their trade balances. That is, when one nation sold more to a neighboring nation than it spent with it, the nation in surplus ended up with an excess of the neighbor’s currency. This surplus currency was then presented to the deficit country. The accounts were settled by transferring gold — the monetary system’s reserve at the time — from the deficit country to the surplus country.
As the gold left, it had a chilling effect on the deficit nation’s economy — either because investors caused interest rates to rise or because the central bank pushed them up. This resulted in slower economic growth and less spending, thereby correcting the outflow of funds to the neighbor.
It was precisely this self-correcting mechanism that the feds were determined to stop when the Nixon Administration “closed the gold window” at the Treasury department in August of 1971. The US had spent too much on the Vietnam War. French banks, which were still very active in Vietnam, tended to be the recipients of the money…which flowed to the Bank of France. The French, anticipating a problem with the dollar, wanted to exchange dollars for gold. This was the proximate cause of the Nixon Administration’s reaction — an actual default on its financial obligations. It was also the cause of the subsequent run up of the price of gold…which was followed by a bust in gold…and thereafter, a huge boom, in which ordinary Americans were lured into debt and coaxed towards poverty.
The rich got richer; the poor got poorer. The middle classes got poorer too. Between 1975 and 1992, the wealth of the richest 1% rose from 22% of total national household wealth to 42%. Why? Were the richest more productive? Had they become smarter? Of course not…the playing field had been tilted in their direction!
The “ciompi” revolted in the 14th century. They were wool carders in Florence…the “popolo minuto” — the little people — without power or money. They rose up in June 1378, attacked government buildings and by July they were in control of the government.
But then, other trade groups got jealous. In August, the butchers attacked them at the Piazza della Signoria. After that, the power of the ciompi declined…until things were back to normal.
This was just one of many uprisings of the lower orders in Europe. In France, a peasant named Jacques led a revolt against the authorities in the 14th century. That was just the beginning of a long list of uprisings — Jacqueries — that didn’t end until the 18th century.
One of the most wrongheaded ideas of the entire 20th century came from Francis Fukayama, who asked — apparently in earnest — if we had reached “The End of History?” He thought modern democracy and modern capitalism had reached such a point of perfection, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that no improvement was possible. History had come to an end.
Jacqueries — he believed — were no longer necessary. Because modern democracy adapted naturally to the challenges it met. If the people had a grievance, all they had to do was to put in a call to their elected representatives. The politicians would discuss the matter and come to a solution, right?
Ha, ha, ha….Fukayama misunderstood everything. Democracy. Capitalism. History. Politics. Everything. As an institution matures, little by little it shifts from serving its original purpose to serving the ends of those who control it. It becomes rigid — digging in its heels and resisting any change that would diminish the power and wealth of the controlling groups. The longer the institution remains unchanged, the more parasitic and arthritic it becomes. It drains resources away from honest production and redirects them towards favored groups of leeches.
Then…history returns. Then cometh the revolution.

Bill Bonner,
for The Daily Reckoning