Exit, Hope and Change

Guest Post by Jim Kunstler

Yes, that was a gag.

By now, anyone in this country still of sound mind knows that Barack Obama presided through eight years of remarkable continuity — of changeless conditions that left a great many hopeless. As the days of his tenure dwindle, what do we make of the departing 44th president?

He played the role with cool-headed decorum, but that raises the question: was he just playing a role? From the get-go, he made himself hostage to some of the most sinister puppeteers of the Deep State: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner on the money side, and the Beltway Neocon war party infestation on the foreign affairs side. I’m convinced that the top dogs of both these gangs worked Obama over woodshed-style sometime after the 2008 election and told him to stick with the program, or else.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

What was the program? On the money side, it was to float the banks and the whole groaning daisy chain of their dependents in shadow finance, real estate, and insurance, at all costs. Hence, the extension of Bush Two’s bailout policy with the trillion-dollar “shovel-ready” stimulus, the rescue of the car-makers, and a much greater and surreptitious multi-trillion dollar hand-off from the Federal Reserve to backstop the European banks with counter-party obligations to US banks.

In April of 2009, Obama’s new SEC appointees, strong-armed by bank lobbyists, pushed the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) into suspending their crucial Rule 157, which had required publically-held companies to report their asset holdings based on standard market-based valuation procedures — called “mark-to-market.” After that, companies like Too-Big-Too-Fail banks could just make shit up. This opened the door to the pervasive accounting fraud that allowed the financial sector to pretend it was healthy for the eight years that followed. The net effect of their criminal fakery was to only make the financial sector artificially larger, more dangerously fragile, and more prone to cataclysmic collapse.

Another feature of life on the money-side of the Obama presidency was that nobody paid a personal price for financial misconduct. This established the basic ethos of Obama-era finance: anything goes, and nothing matters. All the regulators looked the other way most of the time. And when forced to act by egregious behavior, they made deals that let banking executives off-the-hook while their companies shelled out fines that amounted to the mere cost of doing business. It happened again and again. The poster boy for this kind of “policy” — or just plain racketeering — was Jon Corzine, the head of the commodities brokerage MF Global, whose company looted “segregated” customer accounts to the tune of nearly a billion dollars in the fall of 2011. Corzine was never prosecuted and remains at large to this day.

Another signal failure in the money realm was Obama’s response to the 2010 Citizen United Supreme Court decision, which declared that the alleged legal “personhood” of corporations entitled them to exercise “free speech” by giving as much money as they wanted to political candidates for election. Big business no longer had to just rent congressmen and senators, they could buy them outright with cash.

A conservative Supreme Court made the call, but Obama could have acted forcefully in the face of it. The former constitutional law professor-turned-politician could have marshaled a response in his Democratic Party-controlled congress to draft legislation, or a constitutional amendment, that would properly redefine the personhood of corporations. It should be obvious, for instance, that corporations, unlike human citizens, do not have duties, obligations, and responsibilities to the public interest; by legal charter they have only to answer to their shareholders and boards of directors. How does this confer the kind of political free speech “rights” that the court allowed them to claim? And how did the Obama and his allies in the legislative branch roll over to allow this disgraceful affront to the constitution to stand? And how is that almost nobody in the mainstream press or academic law even pressed these issues? Thanks to all of them, we’ve set up the primary means for establishing a fascist Deep State: the official marriage of corporate money and politics. Anything goes and nothing matters.

Finally, in foreign affairs, there is Obama’s mystifying campaign against the Russian Federation. The US had an agreement with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union that we would not expand NATO if they gave us a quantity of nuclear material that was in danger of falling into questionable hands in the disorder that followed the collapse. Russia complied. What did we do? We expanded NATO to include most of the former eastern European countries (except the remnants of Yugoslavia), and then under Obama, NATO began holding war games on Russia’s border. For what reason? The fictitious notion that Russia wanted to “take back” these nations — as if they needed to adopt a host of dependents that had only recently bankrupted the Soviet state. Any reasonable analysis would call these war games naked aggression by the West.

Then there was the 2014 US State Department-sponsored coup against Ukraine’s elected government and the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych. Why? Because his government wanted to join the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union instead of an association with European Union. We didn’t like that and we decided to oppose it by subverting the Ukrainian government. In the violence and disorder that ensued, Russia took back the Crimea — which had been gifted to the former Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic (a province of Soviet Russia) one drunken night by the Ukraine-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. What did we expect after turning Ukraine into another failed state? The Crimean peninsula had been part of Russia for longer than the US had been a country. Its only warm water naval ports were located there. They held a referendum and the Crimean people voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia. So, President Obama decided to punish Russia with economic sanctions.

Then there was Syria, a battleground between the different branches of Islam, their sponsors (Iran and Saudi Arabia), and their proxies, (Hezbollah and the various Salafist jihad armies). The US “solution” was to sponsor the downfall of the legitimate Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad. We apparently still favored foreign relations based on creating failed states — after our experience in Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and Ukraine. President Obama completely muffed his initial attempt at intervention — the “line-in-the-sand” moment — and then decided to send arms and money to the various Salafist jihadi groups fighting Assad, claiming that our bad guys were “moderates.” Meanwhile, Russia stepped in to prop up Assad’s government, apparently based on the idea that the Middle East didn’t need yet another failed state. We castigated Russia for that.

The idiotic behavior of the US toward Russia in these matters led to the most dangerous state of relations between the two since the heart of the Cold War. It culminated in the ridiculous campaign this fall to blame Russia for the defeat of Hillary Clinton. And here we are.

I didn’t vote for Hillary or Donald Trump (I wrote-in David Stockman). I’m not happy to see Donald Trump become president. But I’ve had enough of Mr. Obama. He put up a good front. He seemed congenial and intelligent. But in the end, he appears to be a kind of stooge for the darker forces in America’s overgrown bureaucratic Deep State racketeering operation. Washington truly is a swamp that needs to be drained. Barack Obama was not one of the alligators in it, but he was some kind of bird with elegant plumage that sang a song of greeting at every sunrise to the reptiles who stirred in the mud. And now he is flying away.

Next week, I’ll post the 2017 forecast..

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
CCRider
CCRider
December 26, 2016 1:10 pm

Whoever called for 2 presidential terms for 8 years was a friggen genius. It represents the very longest time we can stomach any puppet. Remember how we felt when that colossal fool W came limping out of the White House with the economy in shambles? Now it’s the black puppet’s turn. Something tells me that this charade is going to end. And badly.

unit472
unit472
December 26, 2016 2:08 pm

Let’s be honest. Obama is a lazy man and only wanted to be president for ‘racist’ reasons and for his personal enrichment.
Think he would be a millionaire today had he stayed in the Senate? Of course not. His wealth, such as it is, derives almost entirely from the sale of his literary masterpieces to public school and university libraries! Michelle would probably have divorced him had he lost the 2008 election as she would not have given up her $350,000/year affirmative action gig in Chicago to be the wife of a $175,000/year Senator with two daughters ( who would not have been attending Sidwell Friends) to raise.

The actions vis a vis Russia are a lot more complex than what Kunstler recites but it was Bill Clinton bombing the hell out of Serbia and dismembering that nation that set the tone. It wasn’t just American foreign policy either. Europe had a say in East/West relations and they were not about to ‘lose’ Eastern Europe again. The US had no say over EU membership and while we could block a NATO application, to do so after a state had expressed a desire to join has its own consequences and they are extremely negative when you have a Putin in Moscow.

underfire
underfire
  unit472
December 26, 2016 5:44 pm

Obama is a lazy man and only wanted to be president for ‘racist’ reasons and for his personal enrichment.”

Summed up Obama in a nutshell.

Anonymous
Anonymous
December 26, 2016 2:31 pm

I gotta agree with unit. The whole US/Russia breakdown also had something to do with Ukraine being the natural gas bridge to EU, and all the strategic problems associated with energy security for the region, percolating down to the proposed pipeline routes through Syria.

US foreign policy will always be about resource plays,
so go buy some XOM when it goes on sale, during the next correction. With Rex as our Sec. State, there will be some huge deals and mergers to be made, when the prices are right.

BB
BB
December 26, 2016 3:28 pm

Anyone who read Obama’s history before he was elected knows he was a lying Marxist piece of shit who hates our country.When he finally leaves office he will still be making regular political statements.He will be a 1000 times worse than Jimmy Carter.

Smoke Jensen
Smoke Jensen
December 26, 2016 3:52 pm

I don’t know who said the following but it should be the law of the land.
“Every politician should serve two terms. The first in office and the second in prison”.
This would weed out the fucksticks seeking power over us.

underfire
underfire
December 26, 2016 5:42 pm

I give JK almost an A on this piece. Right on in my opinion, except for his not casting a vote against Hillery, who promised more of the same but to a far greater degree.
That aside, I enjoy reading Kunstler, whether I agree with him or not.

David
David
December 26, 2016 6:01 pm

If a group of people who have gotten together to form a union can give, lobby, and run ads, why not a group of people who got together to form a corporation.

And legitimate government in Syria, really? Not saying we should get involved but call it what it is.

Desertrat
Desertrat
December 26, 2016 6:47 pm

Heh. Assad’s government seems to be as legitimate as any in Africa and a few in central/south America. All are members of the UN. At least Assad’s people weren’t killing non-Islamics for pleasure and profit.