I have a great faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to carry me through whatever evil comes my way.  To me, voting isn’t a question of voting for the one who is less dangerous than the other.  My vote is based on what I believe God would have me do, on the standards set by Him and recorded in the Holy Bible.  I will vote based on who I believe to be in compliance with God’s Word and the Constitution of the United States of America, a document written by men who took much of the content from biblical principles and guidelines.

Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama claims to be a Christian man, a Mormon.  I don’t care which church he is affiliated with, that is not my concern.  My concerns about Mitty go so much deeper.  How can a man who proclaims to be a Christian support abortion on demand?  God’s Word says that he “knew us before we were even in the womb”.  Does that not accentuate the idea of life at conception to a Christian?  I understand that there are cases that can be made for abortion in instances of rape, but that is not where Mitty stands on the issue.  How can a “conservative Christian” support the joke of the “gay rights” issue?  I don’t agree that homosexuals should be hung from the nearest tree but I don’t believe they should be given special rights not afforded to the rest of us either, and neither does God’s Word.  How can a man who claims to believe in the Constitution not believe in the rights of We the People to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment?  How can a conservative candidate support Obamacare, a travesty that Mitty actually authored and has supported for several years?

God’s Word tells us to stand strong on biblical principles and to live our lives by His core values.  People who will vote for Mitty out of fear of Obama are neither putting their faith in God, nor their trust in His “divine providence”. 

Voting out of fear brought Adolph Hitler to power in Germany.  People feared another stint with the Weimar Republic and voted in a guy who promised to “fundamentally transform” Germany.  We are facing the same situation today.  People fear what Obama will do in a second term, rightfully so, but are not looking at the other choice realistically.  The mantra is “anyone but Obama, as long as it is Mitty”, and discounting any other option.

I will not vote for Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama in November.  I WILL NOT COMPLY with the party-line “vote for our guy because he isn’t quite as dangerous as the other guy” mentality.  You see, I find Mitty to be just as dangerous as Obama in many respects.  In addition to the items listed earlier, Mitty also has been bought and paid for by George Soros and the New World Order cabal.  In case you haven’t heard, Soros has publicly endorsed Mitty as the best candidate for the Republican Party.  That is enough on its own merit to stop me from voting for him, but isn’t the only reason I stand on.  I hear people make a big deal out of the Olympics and how Mitty “saved” the event.  What people are surprised to learn when I mention it is that Mitty “saved” the Olympics with $450 million federal tax dollars given to him by George W. Bush.  This same money was denied to Mitty’s predecessor.  I find that rather curious.  If the money was insignificant to the treasury but vital to the Olympics, why wasn’t the money given to the first guy, and who did this money actually go to?  And when you go look at how he balanced the state budget without tax increases you will find a substantial “federal tax donation” to the state treasury.

I will cast my vote for a man who I believe will actually stand up to the New World Order globalists and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and We the People, against all enemies foreign and domestic. I want a President I can believe will do what is right, not just “hope” he will do what is right.

Voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping for a better candidate next time is not the answer.  I heard that, and bought into it, many years ago.  I voted for Bob Dole, one of the worst candidates that has ever run for the office of President of the United States, but he was “better than the alternative and we could get a better candidate the next time around”.  It worked once because we wound up with Ronald Reagan but hasn’t worked out so well since then.  I bought it again four years ago when I voted for the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket.  I actually voted for Sarah Palin, hoping they would win and McCain would die of a heart attack the next day and leave Palin as the President.  I think that much of John McCain, and I remember how Mitty ran second to McCain in 2008.  Four years ago Mitty was less conservative than John McCain but now he is miraculously the most conservative candidate available?  Naw, I’m not buying the same 3 legged horse again.

My vote will be cast for John Albert Dummett (www.johndummett.us), as a write-in candidate if necessary.  Wasting my vote?  Voting for Obama?  Insuring Obama gets a second term?  NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!  I am exercising the discernment given to me by God and casting my vote for the man who will follow God’s Word and the Constitution rather than voting out of fear of another Obama term.  I will vote for a man who will put what is best for the nation ahead of what is best for his cronies and the New World Order globalist cabal that so many of the Washington “elite” cater to.

I also hear the “he can’t win” line from people I talk to, and undoubtedly will hear the same from many who read this article.  Can’t win?  Why can’t he win?  He “can’t win” because of all of the people in America who would rather vote for evil out of fear of the other evil running.  Mitty the Poo doesn’t really have any support from conservative voters, and certainly not TEA Party people.  If everyone who will vote for Mitty out of the fear of another four years of Obama would vote for John Dummett it would be a slam dunk win for conservative values, for God’s values, and for We the People.  More importantly, it would be a victory for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. 

We can never regain our freedom by voting for the lesser of two evils.  We the People can only win if we have the courage of our founding fathers.  I wonder how many people said George Washington could never beat the British, armed with the strongest army and the strongest navy in the world at the time.  I wonder how many people cheered Neville Chamberlain when he came back from Europe with a paper signed by Adolph Hitler that guaranteed “peace in our time”, a peace “guaranteed” by selling Czechoslovakia to Hitler?  I wonder how many people were joyous of the pact signed between Hitler and Stalin that prevented Germany from invading Russia in World War II.  Oh, wait a minute; don’t I remember reading that something went wrong there?

Signing contracts, including voting, with evil out of fear of a greater evil is not in the best interests of anyone, particularly the future of our nation.  Our Republic is gone and nearly to the point of no return.  We now live under a dictatorial oligarchy and are in danger of finding ourselves living under a tyranny akin to that of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, and many other repressive governments.

 If you don’t have the courage to stand up for freedom now when will you find that courage?   Will you stand and fight when they come for your bible, your guns, your food, or your home?  Will you fight when they come to round your family up to be sent to the FEMA camps, also authorized under a Republican president and Congress?  Or will you simply pack your one allowed suitcase and trod off to the slaughterhouse like the Jews did in Nazi Germany?  Those willing to bow to tyranny out of fear now will not be willing to stand up for freedom when things get much worse.  The Secret Service has already tried to intimidate Ted Nugent into submission over his remarks at the NRA convention a few weeks ago. 

John Dummett (www.johndummett.us ) has received visits from the FBI, found his e-mail suddenly and mysteriously shut down, his computers hacked, and is receiving death threats.  This is only the beginning.  Those who believe things will be better under Mitty need to look at the last “conservative”/moderate president we elected.  This “conservative”/moderate, along with a Republican Congress, and in addition to the FEMA camps, gave us the “Patriot” Act, Homeland Security, and the TSA.  The last conservative/moderate Republican president did more to destroy our freedom than Bill Clinton.  That “conservative”/moderate was George W. Bush.

Now is not the time to compromise with evil.  Now is the time to stand up for freedom and vote for a man who is offering us a truly conservative platform.  People who say I am wasting my vote or voting for Obama are wrong.  Those voting out of fear of another Obama term are the ones wasting their votes.  I am voting from a positive position, voting for a man I believe will follow through with what he promises and give us a presidency we can once again be proud of.  I am voting for freedom now, not the hope that “someday” we will have an acceptable Republican candidate who will truly stand up for the values of God and our founding fathers.

Today, more than ever, we need a staunch conservative voice in the White House.  We need more staunch conservative voices in Congress.  John McCain, Orin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the others who routinely ignore the Constitution in favor of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are not leaders.  They are only interested in currying favor with despots to keep their seat in the back of Obama’s tyranny bus.  All of the dictatorships I listed earlier have their parliaments or congresses but they are only rubber stamps of a dictator, men and women who will do whatever they have to do to keep their seats of power, wealth, and prestige.

We can no longer afford to vote out of fear.  Our nation is teetering on the brink of outright dictatorship and appeasing despots never works out well for the pawns in the appeasement.  We the People must show the courage of our founding fathers and those who have sacrificed their lives to preserve our freedom over the last 236 years.  Voting for Mitty the Poo is appeasement, trying to curry favor with New World Order globalists who have nothing more than their own power.  Voting for John Albert Dummett is a vote for freedom now and in the future.

Bob Russell

April 23, 2012

Claremore, Oklahoma

The EU plutocracy started coming apart at the seems back in September of this year, as Germany’s top Judge, Andreas Vosskuhle, head of the constitutional court, said politicians do not have the legal authority to sign away the birthright of the German people without their explicit consent. It is quite refreshing to finally see a top judge demand that politicians decease in creating unconstitutional laws without the express approval of the citizenry. The Judge went on to further explain that if Merkel and company in the EU plutocracy want to continue to grant powers over the German people to the EU, they must do so by calling a referendum and change the constitution. This certainly derails the mini New World European Order plans of taking from the citizenry to continue to support the EU plutocracy.

The main problem seems to be the fact that Merkel and company want to constantly transfer funds and manipulate bailouts in secrecy, as Carsten Schneider the finance spokesman for the Social Democrats of Germany demanded that Chancellor Angela Merkel and finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble clarify their “true intentions ” before the (bailout) vote on Thursday. [We have no wonder how Schneider would feel about Nancy Pelosi's statement of “We have to pass the bill to see what's in it,” which she made when she was the third highest politician in America, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.]  As we can see from this article from Reuters, the EU debt crisis pain will undoubtedly be felt in America, as well as around the globe. The EU debt crisis has already claimed  the heads of the Greek and Italian governments with more to come in the following weeks, as the truth about the implications of just what the EU plutocracy has done in the past few years comes to light.

It would also appear as if the Germans are well aware of Barack Obama’s part in all of this, as we see this little snippet, also from Carsten Schneider, of the German Social Democrats: “A new multi-trillion programme is being cooked up in Washington and Brussels, while the wool is being pulled over the eyes of Bundestag and German public. This is unacceptable,” he said. The New World Order that billionaire manipulator, George Soros so fondly speaks about could very well be on it’s way to being blown into oblivion if the EU collapses as many are predicting today. As Mike Shedlock so aptly put it,”the German court has already killed eurobonds. Now, if the top judge’s call stands, leveraged EFSF just bit the dust as well. Clearly the German court has had enough of Chancellor Angela Merkel, her cronies, and all the politicians who want to rob German taxpayers for their own agenda.” It then comes as no mere coincidence that when the EU bailouts started they always coincided with the unscheduled meetings between Merkel and Obama.

Germany and America both have explicit constitutional mandates limiting the power of those elected into government for the sole purpose of protecting the citizenry from being ruled by a tyrannical plutocracy. Barack Obama and Angela Merkel have trampled both of their country’s constitutions at very dangerous levels, while taking advantage of the ever-increasing world financial crisis where we see the widening gap between the middle class citizens and the elitists running the plutocracy become a source of massive civil unrest. Germany’s top Judge took a stand against Merkel and the EU’s unconstitutional usurpation of power from the people’s Democracy of Germany. Does America have such a courageous judge, one that will stand up for our constitutional laws and protect the citizenry from the tyrannical rule of the Liberal Plutocracy Barack Obama and company have been building for three straight years now? If so, what will it take for you to make a stand, civil unrest, chaos and blood in the streets? By then it will simply be too late. The plutocracy will simply declare marshal law, and the citizenry will be left with the choice between fighting for their freedom from a dictatorship or flight from their beloved America.
2012 can’t get here fast enough!

• an end to national sovereignty
• abolition of private property
• elevation of nature over humanity
• and much more socialist bologna that just .. makes .. me … sick

And here’s a video that lays it out.

Recently, Glenn Beck explained his theory on the major realignment of world powers recently, and just who will rule in the near future. The four main “players” are:

1 -George Soros and his media and financial empire.

2 – Russia – They are expanding their influence with Iran, Turkey, Venezuela and even their longtime arch-enemy, China. Military rebuilding, Nuclear sales . Building oil and gas pipelines to Europe. What happened to Europe’s green energy plans? The fact is, they need oil and gas, and Russia will sell it to them.

3 – China – Over a billion people to feed, and they are buying up major amounts of gold and rare minerals in possible anticipation of the crashing of the U.S. dollar.  Technology advancements.

4 – Islam- OIL

Will Glenn Beck be proven correct again here? Watch in the following FoxNews video how George Soros states that, “China has to be brought into the New World Order.” Video courtesy of FoxNews.com

[js]<script src=”http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=958033286001&amp;w=466&amp;h=263″ type=”text/javascript”></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[/js]

Click HERE to listen to the streaming audio or right click on it to save it for later or your MP3/iToy.

In considering the Presidents decision to attack Libya, several Democrats  questioned the process Obama used in a Saturday conference call.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Source: Politico

With the ultra-left well-represented on the call, this was a call between the Dem-ist of the Dems and one would not have expected to hear requests for the impeachment of President Obama. As the Politico article makes clear, the reason for their anger is not the disregard of the Constitution – they got side-stepped and aren’t happy about it.

“They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.”

One-World government is happening and the Democrats in Congress can’t believe they would be unnecessary in the New World Order. Did they not understand the implications of decades of cow-towing to the U.N.? Have they only just now understood the vision of their great President? Have they finally grasped the fact that their Liberal Utopian fantasy would first require them to become useless and all governing power ceded to the U.N.?

Hillary certainly has no qualms with it. Congress is in the way of her and Bill’s dream of a “new world order” and the U.N. is the gateway.

Mrs. Clinton has been trying to get the United States to abide by the U.N. Small Arms treaty as a way to disarm our populace and Bill was Mr. U.N., global governance, new world order ..

The U.N. is just one more global body for Obama to bow to and Congress is finally seeing that perhaps it is not the best course of action for them – but as far as Congressional Democrats are concerned, the affect on the country is irrelevant.

Sources:

As Discover The Networks did not have a bio on him I had to get another source.

Here is his Bio according to Answers.com

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

Washinton Post:  August 2007

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.”

From New York’s  The Sun: September 2007

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.”

Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Here in 2008 on MSNBC his arrogance is on full display.

In September of 2009 he stated that the US should shoot down any Israeli planes that fly over Iraq in a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

From ABC:

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.”

Brzezinski was never an official campaign adviser, but Republicans jumped on the endorsement to push the meme that Obama wouldn’t be a friend to Israel, as Brzezinski’s views of Israel attracted criticism from some quarters in the American Jewish community.

“Brzezinski is not an adviser to the campaign,” former Ambassador Dennis Ross, then a senior adviser on Middle East affairs to the Obama campaign, said at the time. “There is a lot of disinformation that is being pushed, but he is not an adviser to the campaign. Brzezinski came out and supported Obama early because of the war in Iraq. A year or so ago they talked a couple of times. That’s the extent of it, and Sen. Obama has made it clear that on other Middle Eastern issues, Brzezinski is not who he looks to. They don’t have the same views.”

Brzezinski plays no role in the Obama administration; the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brzezinski’s comments come within the same week that the White House distanced itself from comments made by former President Carter, who said he thinks “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.”

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0

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!

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdZu2G8z8z

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.