Barack Obama Confronts The Deep State by John Kusumi

I don't mind using three words -- "the deep state" in a sentence; it would be fearful cowards like the Associated Press who cannot use those three words in a sentence. Yet I would allow that the deep state is difficult to write about. It is a shadowy and ill-defined thing, subject to much speculation and conjecture. To avoid stepping off the deep end into conspiracy theories, we must stick to information that is solid, rather than sketchy.

On Election Night 2008, commentator Tom Morris, the host of Capitol Hill Blues, appeared on the Real News and said,

"[Barack Obama]'s going to be up against--the intelligence apparatus of the country is going to be very resistant to change. Now, we may all, around this table, know that Guantanamo Bay and torturing people and eliminating habeas corpus and all the things that have been done over the last eight years are wrong. But, he's still going to have to deal with an entrenched national security apparatus. And, they're backed by the economic hit men, if you will, who have a completely different agenda no matter who is in the White House. And he's going to have to have people around him who can help undo that resistance, and that's not going to be easy."

We should thank Tom Morris for the example of how a mainstream commentator could talk about the deep state in a mature, adult way. It is not necessary to espouse conspiracy theories to talk about that which is known and solid about the deep state and about some cases which may (or may not) be incidents with deep state involvement.

The deep state may include many components, but those of the public sector include the CIA, the FBI, and as mentioned by Morris, the national security apparatus and the economic hit men. Some private interests may also be components of the deep state, but those are of less concern to any official, such as Barack Obama, who is charged with managing the public sector. (Private interests are private interests; they simply are not the public sector, which should be insulated from undue external influences. For the most part, private interests are simply not a federal issue.)

A series of famous cases are sometimes pinned to the deep state. To evaluate the merits of the accusations is beyond the scope of this article. But, the list of cases includes (and is not limited to) the following:

1963: JFK's assassination

1993: World Trade Center bombing, the first time

1995: Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building

1999: Plane crash of JFK Jr.

2001: September 11 attacks

2001: Anthrax attacks

2002: Plane crash of Senator Paul Wellstone

The plane crashes are not conclusively crimes, but the other incidents certainly are in fact crimes. Official stories about these incidents are self-aquitting, but eyebrows can be raised even if one accepts the official stories. In 1963, the "sole culprit" had to get past the U.S. Secret Service. In 1993, the FBI had an informant and a chance to substitute a harmless substance in place of the explosives. In 1995 the target was a federal building. In 2001, the 9/11 attacks had to get past U.S. air defenses, NORAD, and the military. The 2001 attacks with anthrax used a military-grade, weaponized strain of anthrax that could only come from the U.S. military in the first place. In all these cases there clearly was a federal component, but as mentioned the official stories are self-acquitting.

(In the plane crashes, there is a federal component because only federal authorities investigate air travel. Those cases are taken out of the hands of city and state investigators. The federal government can 'safely' murder anyone this way, because only the federal government investigates the aftermath.)

All of these cases ought to be reopened for re-investigation. It seems that the deep state pushes everyone's buttons, and these incidents drove world events. Indirect effects of the 9/11 attacks included two wars, the PATRIOT Act, secret military tribunals and the Military Commissions Act, an oil pipeline in the Middle East, and enormous profit for defense contractors, including no-bid contracts for cronies of the Bush administration.

Quite a few people are dead or injured by way of the cases above. These include innocent bystanders far away from the scene of the crimes. In Oxford Connecticut, 94-year-old Ottilie Lundgren was killed by anthrax. In the latest official story, the late Bruce Edwards Ivins is the sole culprit of the anthrax attacks. It seems too convenient that they pin it on a dead man, who cannot speak in his own defense. Some in Congress have called for further hearings about the case.

I believe that the deep state presents the acid test for Barack Obama's promises of change. Matters of war and peace have been affected by these events, which may be cases of the deep state pushing buttons and influencing society. To turn a blind eye is to risk spinning our wheels and having history repeat itself, with deadly consequences. If the cases above continue to be viewed with eyes that see no evil, then at a deep level there is no change, and Obama's promises appear to be empty rhetoric.

Making Excuses for Obama The mythology of good intentions

By Justin Raimondo

Every time I write about Barack Obama I get a lot of letters, and the most typical goes something like this:

Dear Justin,

I read your column regularly, and generally agree with what you have to say, but I think you've got Barack Obama all wrong. Yes, I know, he went before AIPAC and kowtowed; he pledged to do "anything – and I mean anything" to stop Iran's nuclear program. He acts "tough" and says he's going to invade Pakistan; he gets in Russia's face. But that's all a show: you see, he has to do this stuff or else he won't get elected. Once he's safely in office, he'll do the right thing.


John Q. Reader

This is an amalgam, but true to the spirit of the many pro-Obama missives I've received. They express a sentiment that is very widespread, so much so that it doesn't seem to matter, much, what Obama says he's going to do, because, in any case, his fans and supporters will simply insist on projecting their own hopes, desires, and views onto him. This, by the way, is a feature of most all successful populist insurgent candidates: they are blank slates merely waiting to be written on by anxious voters, who know only that they are sick of what is, and pine for what ought to be.


Obama lied – people died! How long before we see that slogan emblazoned on a placard at a rather sparsely-attended antiwar rally?

But of course he didn't lie, and isn't lying now. He's telling us he wants to confront Russia and Iran. He's telling us he wants to increase a military budget already larger than the total military expenditures of all other nations combined. He says he won't hesitate to invade Pakistan – and, presumably, any nation anywhere – if we have some reason to believe Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are in the vicinity. I think he's telling the truth – and I challenge the Obamaoids, especially the ones who claim to be sick of eight years of constant warfare, to prove otherwise. If Obama is indeed giving us the real story, and if he actually implements his foreign policy proposals, we are in a world of trouble.

Joe Biden rightly said that, within six months of his election, Obama would be "tested." This was generally taken to mean tested by America's enemies – al-Qaeda, the Iranians, possibly the Russkies – but I took it in quite a different way.

Yes, he will be tested, and has been repeatedly tested – by the War Party. So far, he's passed with flying colors. For evidence of this, just look at all that money he's raised from some of the biggest players in the game of Empire. The high-rollers aren't placing their bets on Obama for nothing. You don't spend $45 million on a single infomercial if you're financing your campaign with small contributions. I've written about Obama's bigtime Wall Street backers at length, here.

In any case, I hardly think Obama is going to abolish the very Empire that polices the world on behalf of his Wall Street backers. Nor did I ever expect him to, even when I was more favorably inclined to his candidacy. Back in those halcyon days, afflicted as I was by an irrational exuberance due to rising antiwar sentiment, I did expect he wouldn't get us into any fresh wars, even if he didn't quite wind up the ones we're already fighting.

Fox's fake indignation at Nader

From :

A Fox News host and his panel angrily proclaimed that Ralph Nader’s career was finished after the Independent Party candidate dared to criticize Barack Obama’s record of toadying up to corporate interests, as top liberal websites applauded Fox News for their aggressive defense of the president elect.

The corporate media’s frightening obsession with maintaining Obama’s messianic complex now apparently extends to the so-called “right-wing” Fox News, who have eagerly picked up the baton and are right behind the mindless fervor of Obamamania - acting in lock step with the establishment left.

In the interview with Nader aired last night, Fox host Shepard Smith feigned phony righteousness in his reaction to Nader’s assertion that Obama could prove to be an “Uncle Tom” for the corporations rather than an “Uncle Sam” for the people.

Smith’s fake indignation, including a theatrical long pause before moronically remarking “really….Ralph Nader….what was that?” looked about as genuine as a three dollar bill but was deliciously hilarious in its irony.


Nader stood up to Smith’s smear tactics and said he would not be bullied, which left the host open-mouthed.

One of Smith’s panel, with similar phony indignation, commented, “That was the end of his career right there, that’s it, there’s no way that anybody gonna take him seriously after that, it’s just so offensive.”

What’s even more gut-wrenching is that the establishment liberal left website, Crooks and Liars, applauded Fox News for taking Nader to task, writing “Good on Shepard Smith”.

That’s right - the fatuously hypocritical liberal left, after eight years of railing against Fox News for its Bush worship, is now applauding Fox News for its smears against Nader because Nader had the temerity not to immediately bow down and worship the new messiah.

I guess it’s all just a dose of the new “change” that we’ve been told to expect - Fox News and the establishment left in alliance smearing people as racists for criticizing our new great leader - Barack “The Messiah” Obama - and pointing him out for what he is - a corporate shill and a servant of the elite.

clip is very telling

thanks for this comment stewball. Abundant evidence here, that we really have only one party, directed by the deep shadow govt, who puts forward both major party candidates, one of whom they have already decided is going to win.

It was obvious that McCain's job was to be the loser when they put Palin on the ticket -- she was there to distract from the Wall St. bailout and make sure McCain lost.

To Nader's credit, he never lost his cool, his professionalism or his message. Thank you Ralph Nader for fighting the good fight!

Just a preview of the inverse race card

that will be played over and over again when the new president is challenged on just about anything.

Who will challenge Sen. Obama, an "African-American", when he cracks down on civil rights, or at least refuses to roll back the unconstitutional "laws" already on the books?

Will Obama's State Department still employ Blackwater?

Will Obama close the Guantanamo Bay gulag?

Will he move to roll back any or all of the USA PATRIOT Act?

Someone needs to ask the president-elect what his position is on S.1959 (HR1955), the thought crime bill, which is presently in a sub-committee he sits on.

The truth shall set us free, but only if we demand that our brothers, sisters and leaders face it.

Love is the only way forward, all other paths lead in a downward spiral.