To restore the mission of the US Presidency—without which the United States cannot survive—President Obama must be forced out of office, and all vestiges of the Bush family must be removed. After the experience of eight years of Bush-Cheney, following the earlier 12 years of George H.W. Bush, occupying the posts of Vice President and President, it is an abomination beyond belief that yet another Bush name has reappeared, as a potential Republican Party presidential candidate.
Until such time as Obama is removed from office, and the other legacies of the Bush name are removed, the US presidency will be crippled. Only after such a cleansing can the mission of the Presidency be restored. The Bush family disease did not start with George W. Bush or even with George H.W. Bush. It began with Prescott Bush and his Nazi collusion before and during World War II. That Nazi collusion persists to this day, within the Obama presidency, in the form of former Dick Cheney national security aide Victoria Nuland, who is the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and oligarchs.
The Bush problem was persistent in the Reagan Administration, when Bush was chosen as Vice President. His influence became all-the-more dominant over time, following the attempted assassination of President Reagan, early in his first year in office.
It is this Bush disease, and the shadow of this disease that hangs all over the Obama White House, that is on the edge of causing a war against Russia and in the Persian Gulf.
The deeper truth that cannot be ignored is that the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. The US and Western Europe are bankrupt, and the surrounding areas are mush, as the result of that reality.
The United States is facing an existential decision: Either a qualified US President is elected, after the early ouster of President Obama from office by constitutional means, or the only hope for US survival is to cut some kind of a deal with Russia and China, both to avoid war, and to enter into the Eurasian BRICS process.
All of Hillary Clinton’s problems stem from the fact that she made a bad choice, accepting Obama’s poison pill offer to join the administration as Secretary of State. Had she stayed in the US Senate, with the backing of 16 million Democratic voters, she would have retained her independence, deepened her experience, and avoided the trap that she was drawn into by associating with the Obama Administration.
Fortunately, we now have a pre-candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination—Martin O’Malley—who is doing the right thing, putting policy above personality, and setting the basis for the United States to enter the new global paradigm, being set in place by the BRICS, the AIIB and the growing array of nations entering into that new “win-win” arrangement. This is the rejection of geopolitics of war. This is the proper basis for creating a new US government and putting the United States back on the course of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
To restore a genuine American presidency, the Obama-Bush League must be removed, before they start yet another insane war. The recent actions of Bibi Netanyahu have opened the gates for the Republican yahoos to start a new war in the Persian Gulf.
So, the time has come to get rid of Obama. He should be forced to resign tomorrow. The cheerful effect, of such an action, would both guarantee war prevention, and set the basis for restoring the historic mission of the US Presidency, as envisioned by Franklin and Hamilton, and enshrined in our Federal Constitution.
As heads of state and businessmen from around the world join Asian leaders for the start of China’s four-day Baoao Forum for Asia, dedicated this year to “Asia’s New Future: Toward a Community of Common Destiny,” China’s official media extended once again China’s invitation to the United States to forget geopolitics, and join other nations in the common struggle to improve humanity’s condition.
Top on the agenda of the Baoao Forum, which Chinese President Xi Jinping will address, are the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. According to a report by Xinhua last week, the Chinese government is to unveil here a detailed prospectus of the hundreds of major regional infrastructure projects envisioned in this “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Heads of State from 16 nations, including Armenia, Austria, Indonesia, Nepal, Netherlands, Sri Lanka, Uganda, and Zambia, will be there.
Why is the United States not present?
China’s CCTV turned to Peking University professor Zha Daojiong to make the case today that the AIIB should not be viewed as a “a Beijing-vs-Washington issue.”
Professor Zha wrote that “the level of public fury emanating out of Washington in recent weeks is a puzzle…. To view ongoing developments associated with AIIB as a manifestation of soft power competition between Beijing and Washington is overbearing. After all, no country has money to burn.”
Nonetheless, “China would be ill-advised to regard Washington’s disapproval of its allies joining AIIB as an affront. As a traditional Chinese saying goes: ‘Listen to both sides and you will be enlightened; heed only one side and you will be benighted.’ If the US is concerned about AIIB having an impact on its soft power, it could serve its own interests better by keeping an open mind about the project. It should also look at possibilities of collaboration on specific investment projects in the future.”
So, too, Xinhua news agency featured an interview with John Farnell, senior advisor of Brussels’ EU-Asia Center, under the headline, “U.S. Urged to Weigh Its Role in China-Proposed AIIB,” in which Farnell argues that “the AIIB would provide a complement to what has already existed. ‘This is not a question of winners and losers, it is rather one of parallel efforts to achieve a common goal.'”
As Xinhua news agency emphasized in another editorial comment posted yesterday: “The “Belt and Road” initiatives are a product of inclusive cooperation, not a tool of geopolitics… The ‘Belt and Road are original Chinese concepts aimed at improved cooperation with Asia, Europe and Africa and building a community of common interests.”
The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) will hold their first BRICS Parliamentary Forum in Moscow in early July; BRICS experts will meet in late April to establish unified criteria to be employed by the BRICS Development Bank in evaluating and rating loans, projects, and countries; and a network of 25 institutes in the BRICS countries are already working on developing common methodologies for combatting money-laundering.
In the same vein as the latter, China’s anti-corruption chief, Wang Quishan, met with his Russian counterpart, Oleg Plokhoi, in Beijing on March 25, resolving to deepen coordination between these two BRICS giants in fighting corruption.
HSBC and other “too-big-to-fail” bank criminals, beware!
The article announcing the BRICS Parliamentary Forum, written by Russia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom and former Deputy Foreign Minister, Alexander Yakovenko, and posted Thursday by Russia Today, captures the new thinking, rejecting geopolitics, which underlies the new BRICS dynamic, as opposed to the “hyper-liberalism” which still dominates the West. He wrote:
“BRICS member-states possess their common denominator of values that differs significantly from the Euro-Atlantic one, which over the last decades has largely mutated towards hyper-liberalism. The forum could provide a framework for discussion of possible ways of resolution of regional conflicts and reforming the existing international institutions, for example, the IMF. According to Russian parliamentarian Alexey Pushkov, practice shows that discussion of these questions on traditional European platforms leads nowhere. The majority, guided by Euro-Atlantic discipline, would block any draft resolutions containing assessments that differ from these narrow-minded attitudes, stuck in the Cold War past…”