Honestly, Mitt Romney was not the first choice as GOP presidential nominee for many voters. They preferred a handful of candidates to Romney. Despite Ron Paul’s many brilliant positions on fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, smaller less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and protecting American sovereignty, due to absolutely irreconcilable differences with him on matters of foreign policy, he was not among that handful of candidates.
The forces against America, be they global governance, environmental extremism, communism or islamo-fascism are interwoven and inter-linked on large scale international fashion in a world made much smaller by modern technology. These forces are unrelenting. For the sake of deterrence, America must be ready, willing and equipped to fight them on each and every battlefield. A return to an eighteenth or nineteenth century foreign policy would not foster that necessary capacity. Sad to say, “progressive” Woodrow Wilson destroyed that era of American foreign policy when he entered the USA into WWI.
That being said, the defeat of barack obama remains of paramount importance.
obama and his ideologically driven co-conspirators have spent a century erecting a bureaucratic shadow government (within the EPA, the DOE, the DOI and other departments) and big government dependency programs considered by too many Americans as “entitlements”, not to mention the now obscene number of illegal “czars”. These “czars” and bureaucrats answer to the Executive Branch, not to voters. Congress has not lifted a finger to stop the erection of this illegal shadow government. Rather, over the years they have voted for it. Thanks to this shadow government, Congress is quickly becoming irrelevant. If obama is re-elected, he will not hesitate to bypass what he clearly sees as Congressional “obstruction” by exploiting that shadow government to fully implement plans to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”.
obama MUST be removed as Chief Executive. The survival of America is at stake.obama and his Occupy sympathetic “progressive” Democratic allies are hostile to America. In order to demonstrate 100% allegiance to America and not to Occupy, vote for the GOP candidate. Since his victory in the Texas Primary ensures he will have enough delegates to win the GOP nomination, vote for Romney. Every American is urged to demonstrate their commitment to removing obama by contributing to the inevitability of his defeat by voting for Romney.
Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. Do not pledge allegiance to any politician.
While many Americans are cutting back on household budgets to put $4.00 a gallon gasoline in their vehicles to get back and forth to work, a couple of Obama-appointed government employees have been caught jet-setting to Paris and Tokyo recently. Just like Obama claiming that his current taxpayer-funded reelection campaign blitz and fundraisers are “policy speeches,” when the news about these lavish jet-setters taxpayer-funded trips to Tokyo and Paris reaches the American public, they can expect numerous phony excuses as to why they are supposedly on “official business.” Rob Bluey, of Hot Air.com outed these two taxpayer-abusing, elitist jet-setters as follows:
While many Americans were filling up their tanks with $4 gasoline this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was enjoying Major League Baseball’s opening game on a taxpayer-funded trip to Tokyo. Taxpayers were also footing the bill for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to spend a few days in Paris.
Chu was outed by The Washington Gaurdian’s John Soloman when he discovered a picture sent by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s official taxpayer-funded twitter account of a baseball game in Tokyo Japan. Meanwhile, Lisa Jackson, she of this EPA-fame, was in Paris France, to “meet with environmental leaders from more than 40 nations to discuss the Agency’s international efforts on urban sustainability.” Global government, when coupled with so-called urban sustainability and climate change fear-mongering propaganda, are basic anti-capitalistic stealth forms of Socialism, which is dependent on the Marxist principles of wealth redistribution through the overthrowing of established governments to enact social justice fraud.
Lisa Jackson, the lifelong global warming political activist fits right in with the urban sustainability pimps of Europe, which by the way, is in the middle of the worst economic crisis in modern history. All of these anti-capitalist mandates coming out of these types of U/N European Socialistic programs are dependent on one thing for survival: The blatant theft of American wealth to be “redistributed” to the less productive societies of the world through dishonest fear-mongering from globalists and environmental terrorists posing as green-earth saviors. Thus the Obama administration uses taxpayer dollars to fund Jackson’s lavish Paris gig… to further undermine American sovereignty and take away her freedom that has made American freedom the envy of the world for centuries.
Do Americans really want four more years of watching Obama-appointees fly around the world to promote the injection of these types of freedom-robbing European Socialism here in America? When Americans go to the polls in November they have a simple choice: Either vote for American freedom and prosperity through voting for proven conservativepoliticians, or vote for Obama and the Democrat’s poverty-inducing European Socialism-style insolvency. The choice is that simple.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has reached out to Europe in what is being mischaracterized across America as just another European bailout. Bernanke realizes the U.S. Congress would never allow the Federal Reserve to put the U.S. Economy at further risk by directly bailing out the European Socialists, in which we are already exposed to the tune of owning 20% of the IMF debt-fund, which is basically bankrupt. The EU announced that they would be increasing the cash flow to prevent several countries from going insolvent a short while back, in hinting that China and Japan would agree to buy up more European debt. The only problem there, is that China refused to buy into that scheme without seeing solid austerity measures put into place, which the EU refused, or was incapable of doing. Simply put, Europe was a very bad credit risk, and China turned them down which was very embarrassing to the EU grand banking manipulators, who had already announced more cash was on the way.
Understanding Bernanke’s Loan-Sharking Scheme
Bernanke then decided to play the role of loan-shark king, in lowering interest rates for dollar swap lines to the ECB (European Central Bank) along with cooperation from four other major central banks (Canada, England, Japan, and Switzerland). Bernanke is attaching the European debt crisis exposure to the banking systems of the other 4 country’s mentioned above in a move to cloud the fact that he is lending more money ( and collecting lower interest rates) to the European Socialists Union, which should actually have been declared bankrupt over a year ago. Does anyone believe for one minute that Canada, Japan, Switzerland, and England are going to put their economies at risk by buying into the debt-disaster of the EU, the IMF, the ECB and the EFSF? Of course not. The EFSF, or the European Financial Stability Fund ( boy is that an oxymoron if ever there was one) has yet to explain just what their role will play in all of this.
Yet globalists paint this scheme in a rosy hue by declaring that the European Central Bank, which has been reluctant to intervene to stop the growing crisis on its own continent, was joined in the decision by the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the central banks of Canada, Japan and Switzerland. Central banks will make it cheaper for commercial banks in their countries to borrow dollars, the dominant currency of trade. Just what effects will this have on the value of the U.S. dollar, long-term? But while it should ease borrowing for banks, it does little to solve the underlying problem of mountains of government debt in Europe, leaving markets still waiting for a permanent fix. What is that term Obama and Congress love to toss at the American public so often today? That’s right, they use the “We can’t continue to kick the can down the road” analogy constantly, yet this is exactly what the EU and Bernanke are condoning with this latest move. Where do Germany and France stand on all of this?
The stock markets rallied upon Bernanke’s announcement of the Fed lowering its dollar-swap interest rate, and China’s easing of it’s monetary policy for the first time in several years by reducing bank reserve requirements by 50 basis points. This may be the first of several Chinese easing moves, and it certainly added to the stock surge. Again, take note that China is not willing to buy into the EU debt-disaster, but instead slightly lowers their bank reserve mandates. Also missing from this equation are the two biggest economic elephants in the middle of the EU, France and Germany. Simply put, after Deutshe Bank of Germany received massive bailout funds from the IMF, EFSF, and the ECB schemes that prevented them from suffering massive losses due to the previous buying of EU debt , and they now refuse to take the risks to provide any funding to bailout Greece, Italy or anyone else in the EU, including the newly exposed and problematic French debt-crisis.
The bottom line here is that this is all just another batch of phony solutions to a rapidly-expanding European debt-crisis that was created by the Euro-Zone Globalists, and which is heavily rooted in anti-capitalistic, utopian Socialism and the ever-present denial of the realities of their irresponsible actions. Nothing has been solved here, much to the dismay of Ben Bernanke, who actually believes that this latest loan-sharking scheme will fool Congress into somehow thinking that Bernanke waved his magic wand and thus prevented the European insolvency that China now sees as inevitable. ( as is proven in their refusal to further buy into the European Socialists massive debt problem nightmare) Are we to believe that the ECB can just write a trillion dollar check to further prop up the EU’s fast-growing number of bankrupt countries? On top of that, how can the IMF expect to be allowed to borrow another $800 billion from the ECB to give those same bankrupt countries even more money? The bottom line is that they can’t, simply because the money just isn’t there, especially with Germany and France now refusing to participate in any further bailouts without the creation of a New EU treaty. Merkel and Sarkozy have made Europe into a Communist collective that was built on the Socialistic catch-phrase of denying protectionism, or the rights of European countries to control their own economies through implementing sound fiscal policies. Now they want out of the communist collectivism that they have created to protect their own countries from falling off of the debt-cliff that Italy, Greece, Spain, and other EU infected countries are now on the edge of. For the proof of Merkel and Sarkozy’s stealth demand for German and French “protectionism” from the European debt-crisis they helped to create, check out this article neatly titled, EU Planning a New Treaty. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first, we practice to deceive. Sir Walter Scott, 1771 – 1832.
Zbigniew Brzezinski could be called the Maurice Strong of Foreign Policy. While Strong used the UN and Global Organizations to advocate the need to redistribute wealth in the name of Global Warming/Climate Change, Brzezinski seeks to redistribute power to global organizations, or Global Governance. In all my reports I try to stick to mainstream or credible sources and focus on using the subjects own words to define them, and this one is no exception.
As Discover The Networks did not have a bio on him I had to get another source.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland, on March 28, 1928. After obtaining his B.A. and M.A. degrees from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, he came to the United States in 1953. He was awarded the Ph.D. at Harvard the same year and remained there, first as a research fellow at the Russian Research Center and then as assistant professor of government, until 1960. He became a naturalized American citizen in 1958.
In 1960 Brzezinski moved to Columbia where he continued his rapid climb up the academic ladder. He was promoted to full professor in 1962 and directed the Research Institute in Communist Affairs (later the Research Institute on International Change) from 1962 to 1977. From 1966 to 1968 he had gained valuable experience as a member of the Department of State’s Policy Planning Council during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Identified as a Democrat and a rival of , Brzezinski saw little action during Richard Nixon’s presidency. In 1973 he became director of the and had the to recruit a young and generally unknown governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter. For Brzezinski, the early contact with Carter brought handsome rewards.
Carter declared his candidacy for president in 1974, and Brzezinski quickly approached him with an offer of advice. Of the potential candidates, Henry Jackson of Washington had views on foreign policy that appealed to Brzezinski more than those of Carter, but Jackson did not look like a winner. To most other Democratic presidential aspirants, Brzezinski’s reputation as a “hard-liner” was . By 1975 Brzezinski emerged as Carter’s principal adviser on foreign policy issues.
National Security Adviser
Brzezinski was openly eager to be appointed assistant to the president for national security affairs and when President-elect Carter offered him the position in December 1976. He had not wanted to be secretary of state, confident that he would be more effective in the White House, at the president’s side. From the he was about the president’s idealism and the absence of other appointees likely to give Carter the “realistic and hard-nosed” advice needed in world affairs.
Carter had campaigned against the Ford administration’s “Lone Ranger” diplomacy, the activities of Henry Kissinger. He intended to have a more balanced organization reporting to the president, who would decide policy questions. A triumvirate composed of the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the national security adviser, such as had existed in the Kennedy years, seemed ideal. , Harold Brown, and Brzezinski would do the job.
Brzezinski agreed with Carter’s ideas on organizational structure, but never doubted that his presence in the White House and his daily briefing of the president gave him the upper hand. He moved quickly to assert himself, and neither nor Brown was equal to the challenge. What balance existed – and it was considerable – was provided, as it had to be, by Carter.
Brzezinski’s differences with Vance were often as well, especially on policy toward what was then the Soviet Union. Although Vance had few illusions about the Soviet leadership, he believed that improvement of Soviet-American relations was both necessary and possible. Further arms limitation agreements and cooperation in crisis areas such as the Middle East were essential to avoid nuclear war. He was not willing to progress toward a sounder Soviet-American detente by disregarding Soviet interests in the Middle East or fears of Chinese-American rapprochement. Brzezinski shared Vance’s conception of the Soviet Union and the United States as permanent competitors, but perceived little hope for significant improvement in the relationship. The United States had to be firm, seek every advantage it could garner at Soviet expense, and play on Soviet fears by “playing the China card.” Although Carter initially leaned toward Vance’s view, by the end of 1978 Brzezinski appeared to have prevailed. The handling of the decision to normalize relations with China marked the ascendency of Brzezinski and the increasing alienation of the secretary of state from the policies of the administration.
Another arena in which Brzezinski succeeded in establishing his was in the public presentation of Carter administration policy. Initially, all concerned had agreed that other than the president, the secretary of state would be the sole spokesman on foreign policy. Brzezinski quickly concluded, however, that Vance was not adequate to the task and took it upon himself. The result, given the policy differences that emerged between Vance and Brzezinski, was increased public confusion about America’s course and a decline in confidence in the president’s ability to keep his team running in tandem.
Hostage Crisis in Iran
Although disagreement over the handling of the hostage crisis in Iran finally drove Vance from the administration, Brzezinski had been unhappy with the original course Vance had plotted and Carter had approved during the last days of the Shah’s rule. Brzezinski was a advocate of a foreign policy that stressed concern for human rights, but when he perceived a need to choose between enhancing human rights or projecting American power, power came first. As the Shah’s regime disintegrated in late 1978, Brzezinski wanted the United States to urge the Shah to act aggressively, to use force against his opponents, to carry out a military coup. Carter refused, sharing the within the administration, generally for the means the Shah had already undertaken. After the Shah’s , the return of Khomeini, and the of the American hostages, a desperate president accepted a rescue plan that Brzezinski supported and Vance opposed. Vance resigned. The plan failed.
Brzezinski saw Iran as Carter’s “only” fatal error. Probably more than any other single issue, the prolongation of the hostage crisis cost Carter the election of 1980 (to Ronald Reagan) and resulted in Brzezinski’s return to private life in 1981. Of the accomplishments of the Carter administration, Brzezinski was proudest of its success in the Middle East (the Camp David accords), the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China, the Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, the commitment to majority rule in Africa, the identification of American policy with the human rights issue, and the plan to strengthen the military and strategic position of the United States by building the MX missile.
Adviser, Author, and Observer
Brzezinski remained a prominent during the Reagan administration. During this time he conceived and advocated a form of detente which he called “Mutual Strategic Security.” This proposal involved both space-based Strategically Deployed Interballistic missiles (SDI) and ground-based systems to be maintained by the United States. The United States, in turn, would limit its nuclear arsenal to a level well below “first-strike” capability. His conservative politics were notoriously in with right-wing Republican views, with regard to virtually every aspect of foreign affairs. His highly academic approach to foreign policy led some to see him as and . In his various writings he occasionally criticized other politicians for petty idiosyncrasies.
After leaving government service, Brzezinski, still a young man, wrote a memoir, joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, served as a consultant to Dean, Witter, Reynolds, Inc., and waited for another opportunity to exercise power.
Brzezinski was widely interviewed in 1989 with respect to the Solidarity movement which arose in Poland, as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He expressed guarded optimism for the success of the Solidarity movement in his native Poland, and he avowed support for the demise of Communism. He further advocated some degree of laissez-faire policy by the United States in dealing with Eastern Europe at such a fragile moment in history. He published his thoughts on these matters in a book, The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century. Brzezinski then took a into the 21st century, based on a retrospective of the past 100 years, in his publication, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century.
Throughout his career Brzezinski has utilized his aggressive to foster his policies, keeping him in the as a respected political advisor and critic. He has established himself as a deep thinker, as well as a philosopher through his many writings. His published opinions range from cold war politics to human rights to genetic engineering. His ideas are at once and moralistic, especially with respect to the culture of the United States. In a 1993 interview he stated that the “self-indulgent, , consumption-oriented society cannot project a moral onto the world … Our moral consciousness has been corrupted by … the equal we assign to all values as if they were competing products on the supermarket shelf.”
Here is in 1989 discussing the TriLateral Commission
And here in 2007 again
The Washington Post posted that Zbigniew Brzezinski backed Obama’s Presidential Campaign
Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The former national security adviser announced on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” that he is supporting the junior senator from Illinois for president.
Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,” said Brzezinski, who keeps an office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.”
Brzezinski, who had a relatively hawkish reputation in the Carter administration but has been an outspoken critic of President Bush and the Iraq war, rejected the notion that Obama’s Senate colleague Hillary Clinton is more experienced in foreign affairs. “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president,” he said. “Clinton’s foreign policy approach is “very conventional,” he added. “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.”
He also defended Obama’s position in his recent foreign policy tiff with Clinton, in which she called him “naive” for saying he would be willing to meet with the leaders of U.S. antagonists such as Iran and Venezuela. “What’s the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians?” Brzezinski said. “What it in effect means,” he said, is “that you only talk to people who agree with you.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski became a campaign issue for Obama when he called Brzezinski, “One of our most outstanding thinkers.”
WASHINGTON — Senator Obama is standing by one of his top foreign policy advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, despite concerns that aligning with the former aide to President Carter will undermine Mr. Obama’s support with the pro-Israel community.
Mr. Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser in the Carter administration, introduced Mr. Obama before a major policy speech on Iraq yesterday in Iowa, where the Illinois senator praised his work on the Camp David Accords and called him “one of our most outstanding thinkers.”
Mr. Obama’s embrace of Mr. Brzezinski has angered some supporters of Israel put off by Mr. Brzezinski’s criticism of the Jewish state in recent years and his praise for the authors of a book that condemns the influence of the “Israel lobby.” Mr. Obama’s campaign has disavowed the book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
A Harvard law professor and supporter of Senator Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, said Tuesday that Mr. Obama had “made a terrible mistake” by aligning with Mr. Brzezinski.
A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Jennifer Psaki, yesterday pointed to the fact that Messrs. Brzezinski and Obama both opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, unlike Mrs. Clinton, and she suggested the Clinton camp was trying to smear Mr. Brzezinski.
Given Mr. Brzezinski’s opposition to the war, she said, “It’s not terribly surprising that those who embraced the war would try to discredit him now.” Ms. Psaki added: “Barack Obama has a strong record in support of a secure Israel and he will continue to foster a strong U.S.-Israel relationship when he is in the White House.”
The Clinton campaign declined comment.
This audio from 2008 shows how much he believes in Global Governance, “The distribution of Global Power” and that the ends justify the means, “Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.”
The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.
“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”
The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.
Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign in August 2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama’s foreign policy cred. The Washington Post reported: “Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski.”
For the September Issue of Foreign Affairs he wrote an article titled: An agenda for NATO, Toward a Global Security Web:
NATO’s 60th anniversary, celebrated in April with pomp and circumstance by the leaders of nearly 30 allied states, generated little public interest. NATO’s historical role was treated as a bore. In the opinion-shaping media, there were frequent derisive dismissals and even calls for the termination of the alliance as a dysfunctional geostrategic irrelevance. Russian spokespeople mocked it as a Cold War relic.
Even France’s decision to return to full participation in NATO’s integrated military structures — after more than 40 years of abstention — aroused relatively little positive commentary. Yet France’s actions spoke louder than words. A state with a proud sense of its universal vocation sensed something about NATO — not the NATO of the Cold War but the NATO of the twenty-first century — that made it rejoin the world’s most important military alliance at a time of far-reaching changes in the world’s security dynamics. France’s action underlined NATO’s vital political role as a regional alliance with growing global potential.
In assessing NATO’s evolving role, one has to take into account the historical fact that in the course of its 60 years the alliance has institutionalized three truly monumental transformations in world affairs: first, the end of the centuries-long “civil war” within the West for transoceanic and European supremacy; second, the United States’ post-World War II commitment to the defense of Europe against Soviet domination (resulting from either a political upheaval or even World War III); and third, the peaceful termination of the Cold War, which ended the geopolitical division of Europe and created the preconditions for a larger democratic European Union.
This article generated alot of buzz so the magazine conducted this interview with Brzezinski
Within it he discusses Nato governing and acting on decisions, not through Unanimious Consent, but through majority vote. He also talks about kicking out Members of the UN for bad performance, that he is against Israel acting on Iran, and Afganistan.
Here is in a CNN interview praising Obama’s Foreign Policy to the Middle East
Here he is addressing the Council On Foreign Relations
He discusses that people are “Politically awakened” and the difficulties that presents, and Global Governance.
However, lately his tune on Obama has changed a little.
January 2010 he wrote an article on Obama’s Foreign Policy for Foreign Affairs:
From Hope to Audacity, Appraising Obama’s Foreign Policy
The foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama can be assessed most usefully in two parts: first, his goals and decision-making system and, second, his policies and their implementation. Although one can speak with some confidence about the former, the latter is still an unfolding process.
To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States’ view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well. In less than a year, he has comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy with respect to several centrally important geopolitical issues:
• Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
• the United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
• the United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
• the counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
• the United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
• the United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
• in coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
• improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities; and
• a truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.
Here he is still praising Obama for his efforts into Global Governance but critices him basically, for not implementing them (fast enough?).
In July of 2010 Zbigniew Brzezinki brought back the word that doomed Jimmy carter to describe Obama. From NewsBusters:
Can you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue? It’s Pres. Obama & Co. reacting to Zbigniew Brzezinki pinning on Barack Obama the word that doomed Jimmy Carter: “malaise.”
On Morning Joe, Carter’s former national security adviser said there “is a sense of pervasive malaise” in America. What’s worse, suggested Zbig, Pres. Obama hasn’t been able to figure out how to deal with the malaise. Ruh-roh!
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think we’re now going through a phase in which there is a sense of pervasive malaise, which affects different groups in society in different ways. So people are dissatisfied; they’re slightly worried; they don’t see a good certain future for themselves or for the country, but in their own narrow sphere. There’s no grand mobilizing idea. And I have a sense that Obama, who started so well, and who really captivated people—he captivated me!—has not been able yet to generate some sort of organizing idea for an age which combines a malaise that’s pervasive and percolating, and complexity.. . .
PAT BUCHANAN: We need a new paradigm!
BREZINSKI: And the President hasn’t articulated it.
BUCHANAN: No he hasn’t.
BREZINSKI: There goes any further invitation to the White House!
Brzezinski clearly understood the personal implications of his downer of a diagnosis: “there goes any further invitation to the White House!” The panel all enjoyed a good chuckle, but could anything be much worse for PBO than to be seen as the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter?
So, is Zbigniew Brzezinski working for the Obama Administration? No, however he does hold influence through the organizations of which he is a member, but nothing direct.
He and Obama have similar goals and policies on Israel and Global Governance. What you can see is that Brzezinski backed Obama before, during the campaign and after, but now openly criticizes him, not for what his policies are, but because he hasn’t implemented them yet. And those policies are the ones where the USA would give up soverignty to Global bodies, like the UN.