Hi Deepak,

I'm just curious, who did you address this post to? The reason why I ask is that you made the following statement:

"The real worry is that a lulled electorate will allow itself to be duped once more by the "

It appears that you were not addressing the audience that needed to hear your message. It's as if you were simply musing about a situation to your known circle of regular Intent bloggers, and not the "lulled electorate" that you feel needs to hear your message. It's as if they are in the room and you are talking about them without really speaking to them. What to do with the poor unwashed masses? certainly a topic amongst the literati.

You seem to do this all the time, why not actually address directly to your target audience instead of talking about them as if they are invisible?

Why not say "Dear electorate, please wake up! Don't be duped or lulled into a ridiculous test of trivial pursuits that has no real meaning... something like that.

Otherwise you are not connecting to the appropriate audience.

Just my two cents worth.

Steve

I loved the fact that Rev. Wright is or was his minister. Obama is a graduate of the best private school in Hawaii.. I am sure he is used to blending and I am sure the State of Hawaii will vote for him.

Deepak I loved your video of you and Shekhar sharing about The Nature of Time. In my computer class I asked if I could take out the banging sound in the very beginning of the video. I was able to audio the video to share and only through listening over and over was I able to capture the whole context of the conversation. I am so happy you clarified physics and metaphysics.

My instructor wasn't able to help me other than suggesting going into a music program and reducing the bass. I loved the dialogue and wish transcripts would be made available. I work with people waiting to make their physical transition and your work gives delight in their Buddha's mindfulness in waking up for another day in a form that is collapsing. love patty

Thoughts provoking...

Always a pleasure to read Deepak's political perspectives and opinions, although I don't necessarily agree with all the arguments and reasonings or find them sufficiently convincing in supporting the conclusions.

We need a new consciousness, and a very smart president that cannot be duped by compromised advisors and members of congress. When we elect a president we are also electing their circle of influence. Same thought same old thing it has less to do with party affiliation. .

Of all the candidates, Obama represents the New Consciousness and a new reality. Look at the news, and we see testimony as to the reality the old consciousness and thought has produced. The many want a new reality one of liberation and wisdom.

A friend of mine presented a perspective in a way I had not heard before. He said that a long time ago a few of the smart slaves learned that if they could get the other slaves to conform or perform better they would get rewarded. In other words leader slaves that could use spiritual and religious concepts to keep the slaves passive, praying, conforming and sacrificing to have a place in Heaven, would be propped up and rewarded.

The Prophets say that one day smart members of the indentured servitude would not submit to the status quo or be seduced by their enticements and would lead the many to liberation and wisdom by destroying the fictions that enslaved them.

#1 Issue for this presidential campaign will be slavery or indentured servitude. We currently have the most advanced and humane (no whips and chains) system of slavery or indentured servitude ever known to man. A system of slavery that is not prejudice and was willing to indenture and usurp energy from any human regardless of color, culture, or belief.

The current systems do support the existence of a privileged minority group gaining a disproportionate percentage of wealth through extraction that is not a result of “real” value contribution to the other economic system participants.

This status quo group that benefits from the current system of things does not want change that would impinge their disproportional acquisition of wealth and positions of privilege.

Obama the New Consciousness president, will bring an end to the status quo that benefits from the current system of things based on a foundation of ignorance and misperception, triggering the great transformation to a new system of things, one that is balanced and fair.

Those that live and benefit from fiction are quick to silence or discredit the bearer of truth. Yet if they cannot locate the source of truth they cannot silence it.

How is it that one of the great spiritual teachers of our time has been reduced to disseminating political talking points?

"There's every hope in November that voters will be able to tell the difference between a lame bowling game and a disastrous, dishonest war."

Shame on you, Deepak, for implying that Obama would end the Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, "Iran", Drugs, etc.). Surely a man of your stature must be aware that Obama has repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq war; that he has advocated attacking Pakistan; and that he is being advised on foreign policy by perennial warmonger Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Surely you must know that his sidekick Hillary Clinton acted as a cheerleader for the Iraq war. You say that "Peace is the Way", yet surely you must know that both major parties are in fact pro-war. See this video, for example (but disregard the ending, which betrays it as mere GOP propaganda):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE&feature=related

You claim to be anti-war, yet your political posts serve to enable a two-party system that acts to promote war. I'm afraid you risk undermining your impressive body of work and squandering your entire legacy.

Deepak Chopra = Spiritual master and teacher; promoter of peace in the lineage of Christ, Buddha, and Gandhi.

or

Deepak Chopra = Hypocritical New Age salesman; shill for the establishment.

You talk the talk. Now will you walk the walk?

If anyone would like to watch The Moses Code, you can watch it for free online. Just click my name. love patty

My feminine intuition tell me...Jeremy sounds like a Ron Paul supporter...

dude #8 ...ur what intuition? damn!

Realpolitik:

Realpolitik (German: real ("realistic", "practical" or "actual") and politik ("politics")) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

***

Origin and use of the term

The term was coined by Ludwig August von Rochau, a German writer and politician in the 19th century, following Klemens von Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power to keep the European pentarchy was the means for keeping the peace, and careful Realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races.

As used in the U.S., the term is often similar to power politics, while in Germany, Realpolitik is to describe modest (realistic) politics in opposition to overzealous (unrealistic) politics, though it is associated with the nationalism of the 19th century. The most famous German advocate of “Realpolitik” was Otto von Bismarck, the First Chancellor (1862-1870) to Wilhelm I of the Kingdom of Prussia. Bismarck used Realpolitik to achieve Prussian dominance in Germany, as he manipulated political issues such as Schleswig-Holstein and the Hohenzollern candidature to antagonize other countries and possibly with the intention of war. Characteristic of Bismarck's political action was an almost Machiavellian policy; he acted with little regard to ethics, morals or legalities. Prussia's seemingly illogical move of not demanding territory from a defeated Austria, a move that later led to the unification of Germany, is one of the often-cited examples of Realpolitik.

Similarly, in the German Green Party, people willing to compromise are referred to as Realos (realists), and opponents as Fundis (fundamentalists or ideologues).

***

Realpolitik in contrast to ideological politics

The policy of realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's "shuttle diplomacy" after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where he persuaded the Israelis to withdraw partially from the Sinai in deference to the political realities created by the oil crisis.

Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules, but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. Since realpolitik is ordered toward the most practical means of securing national interests, it can often entail compromising on ideological principles. For example, the U.S. under the Nixon and Reagan administrations often supported authoritarian regimes that were human rights violators, in order to, theoretically, secure the greater national interest of regional stability. Detractors would characterize this attitude as amoral, while supporters would contend that they are merely operating within limits defined by practical reality.

Most recently, former ambassador Dennis Ross advocated this approach to foreign policy in his 2007 book Statecraft: And how to Restore America's Standing in the World.

In contrast, political ideologues tend to favor principle over all other considerations. Such groups often reject compromises which they see as the abandonment of their ideals, and so may sacrifice political gain in favor of adhering to their principles.

***

Relation to realism

A foreign policy guided by realpolitik can also be described as a realist foreign policy. Realpolitik is related to the philosophy of political realism and can be regarded as one of its foundations, as both implicate power politics. Realpolitik, however, is a prescriptive guideline for policy-making (like foreign policy), while realism is a paradigm that includes a wide variety of theories that describe, explain and predict international relations. Realpolitik also focuses on the balance of power among nation-states, which is also a central concern in realism. Both also imply operation according to the belief that politics is based on the pursuit, possession, and application of power.

from Wikipedia

Gen Wes Clark is supporting Clinton due to long time loyalties..he was the supreme commander of NATO forces during the Kosovo war under the Clinton administration...

I am guessing, he will be the vice presidential candidate if Obama is the nominee...

From Wiki: General Wesley Clark has said that he began to truly define his politics only after his military retirement in 2000 around the 2000 presidential election that would give George W. Bush the presidency.

Clark had a conversation with Condoleezza Rice. She told him that the war in Kosovo would have never taken place under a Bush administration, as they adhered more to 'realpolitik'.

Clark found such an administration unsettling, as he had been selected for the SACEUR position because he believed more in the 'interventionist' policies of the Clinton administration. He said he would see it as a sign that things were "starting to go wrong" with American foreign policy if Bush was elected.

Clark supported the administration's War in Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks but did not support the Iraq War. Clark continued to warn people as a commentator on CNN that he believed the United States was undermanned in Iraq, and has said the war was "never [about]... WMD or regime change," and believes "the connection to the War on Terrorism was not shown."

Interesting.

Dear Ambasteve

It's unlikely the "poor unwashed masses" are paying much attention to this media inspired theatrical false drama anyway. If they are paying attention to anything it is making car payments, trying not to default on mortgages, sending children to college and paying taxes. Sometimes working two jobs, or both spouses working it does not leave much time to play trivial pursuit.

What's really going on is the sprouting seeds of class animosity. And no candidate or pontificating media or internet mugwump dares touch that one because they are all in the class that benefits from a classist society. In the meantime we all stand before a near incomprehensible government system that was never intended and are all *&$%ed and robbed blind by republicans and democrats alike. In that we are all a little bitter methinks.

Still I must admit, I like Obama's speeches so full of national cliches and meaningless soaring rhetoric, he's fully convinced me he is awakened
to his overwhelming desire to be president and all that implies.

With all due respect to Deepak and Obama supporters, I am not drinking this Barack Obama kool-aid.

bonnie

Dear Dr. Chopra,

I would like to address Richard's comment in Posting No.4.: "The Prophets say that one day smart members of the indentured servitude would not submit to the status quo or be seduced by their enticements and would lead the many to liberation and wisdom by destroying the fictions that enslaved them."

I agree totally that we are in desperate need of a NEW CONSCIOUSNESS. However, I do not believe that any one presidential candidate will be in a position to accomplish this goal.

When George Bush was running for president he presented himself as a true conservative. He has now done a complete about-face and has shown himself to be a supporter of the proposed New World Order (One World Government).

I contend that there are powerful forces behind the scenes with motives and agendas that are being kept secret from the public at large.

Liberation and wisdom cannot be realized until the true sources of the enslaving fictions are exposed. If you want to learn more about the sources of control and misguidance go to: The Conscious Media Network (www.consciousmedianetwork.com) and listen to what David Icke has to say. He has been studying the subject of world governments, elitist power groups and their agendas for decades.

For a NEW CONSCIOUSNESS to be born there must be an understanding of who is controlling the current consciousness.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Oh, well, it looks like Barak Obama has fallen prey to the norm....poor fella, that, he has to put up with trying to win votes from folks who are duped di duped every election.

This is why I love that Barak Obama is dealing with his share of poo-poo. Barak Obama thought he could run for the Presidency on HIS TERMS, Like the global situation in our World will wait with baited breath for Barak Obama to lead them home. HE WAS going to CONTROL the where and how of the fight, or the race so it would be on HIS terms.
The Presidency has a way of taking a President by the tail and giving chase, just for the fun of it. Well, it pretty much worked, when, in the beginning, the press and media focused on their Hillary Hating fest o'rama but then they got a bit tired as they always do and found a opening in the Obama spin machine and went for it...Barak Obama had finally joined the ranks of the rest of the candidates who have eaten their share of the dirt.

Deepak, really, I am amazed at how you write as if Barak Obama is our ONE golden hope of redemption when, in fact, this, Candidate, has really done not a thing in his political life that would illict such high grades. Now, I will give the man his due credit, but, he, if you are a bit honest, know, Barak Obama has been playing the dupe di dupe game, pretty well, himself.

This, I know, for sure, if, Barak Obama wins the Presidency, this year there is a 50/50 chance that he can do a major screw up due to his inexperience and immaturity politically. Give him four more years and that chance is lessened.

If Hillary Clinton is elected there will be no major screw ups and the Nation will be so thankful that Barak could run and he could win, easily.

As, it stands the Republicans are our brick and chain around the neck of our future if we let them win again they will extend the chain to our feet and add 10 more bricks...and that will be our lessen to learn....politically, as a Nation.

So, Barak Obama had the same upbringing as millions of other Americans from racially diverse families and raised by grandparents or single mothers or single fathers but that doesn't make him excempt from anyting and it doesn't make him better either. All three Candidates have served our Nation to the best of their ability, for god's sake, John McCain was tortured because of his service to our Nation, Hillary Clinton suffered a blow aimed right through her heart because her husband was a President the Republicans wanted to humiliate.....the same way they, now, humiliate, enemy combatants and contract out torture....yes, the only thing I agree with you on is the danger of the Republican spin machine, they will use anything and everything to win...they are the true dirty dogs of our political system, in this time, in our history....Sorry, you Republicans, but using the lives of the victims of 9/11 was no excuse for the animalistic practices that were encouraged and condoned by this Administration. Period.

Now, for John Kerry and his windsurfing picture...remember I voted for him, but I remember, clearly, seeing that picture of him windsurfing and this was my honest to goodness thought, "god, if only he showed that much energy, excitement, when running his campaign...it looks to me like the man really doesn't want to be President as much as he wants to windsurf!" really, that is what I thought and, really, he was the Candidate that we all started to joke about, saying....Is He Trying to Lose this race on purpose!!! So, sometimes people are not so much duped as just seeing the forest through the trees.

Whether Hillary or Barak wins the nomination their fight will be deadly against the Republicans and I am nervous since Karl Rove is all over Fox TV, now, it is like big brother bad man is watching and waiting to pounce, like he doesn't even have to hide, anymore, he as air time.

oh, I am starting to chew my nails in anticipation of tomorrow's numbers but I probably will not watch, too tense, I will find out the next day....I am such a pansie.......

have a great day everyone, ruth

Dear Deepak,

"Are you talking to me?" Btw, how well do you bowl?

Can you break a hundred? Ever bowled on a league???

You play the King's game(golf). That doesn't make you any sort of 'bad guy' in my eye.

.

Anyway, the question is:

Do I want a President who's as dumb and ignorant as I am?

Well, duh! Of course not! Although personally, I

think I could do without one altogether.

It's the Vice I wish to keep. Not this one, mind

you...but one that's my own, nevertheless.

Class warfare, eh? Well, I made under 45 grand last year.

I work in a large manufacturing plant in Middle-America.

Do you see anyone asking me for advice on how they should vote?

Well, then...why do you think they'll listen to you--a celebrity?

You are more than a spiritual teacher, this I know.

You are one of the electorate, and like many of the Americans who play at IB,

you, yourself, are privileged to have one measly vote.

Deepak, you are just like us, too! Except you have more money.

(Was that supposed to go without saying?)

Political choices are usually very personal. People vote for the person who seems most like them to themselves, it would appear. Thus, in this election most of the electorate will not be fully represented by a candidate who thinks like him or herself.

But for the sake of argument, I have been assisted at several times in emergency situations by young black men who were kind enough to help me when I needed help in starting my car, getting gas for my car, and even in helping me get a cart at a super market. IN that case it was a young ten or twelve year old kid who just wanted to help me, an older white woman.

Yes, this is about racism. I have met many young black men who were kind, nice, and sympathetic to me when nobody else would stop to do a thing for me, and likewise, I have also helped black men and women alike when they have panhandled or come up to me on the streets of LA begging for assistance.

So for that reason alone, I wish to see Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee. It is a reward to the many black men who have done goodness to me. Barack is educated, talented, and has many valuable assets. The most meaningful one for me is that he has working knowledge of how the truly poor have lived and suffered. They need a voice.

I did vote for Ron Paul in the primary election simply because he had the nerve to tell the truth in front of a national audience and I liked his nerve, guts, and backbone. Besides he quoted General Washington and I had to support him then.

I hope Barack Obama is the Democratic canddidate!

Political choices are usually very personal. People vote for the person who seems most like them to themselves, it would appear. Thus, in this election most of the electorate will not be fully represented by a candidate who thinks like him or herself.

But for the sake of argument, I have been assisted at several times in emergency situations by young black men who were kind enough to help me when I needed help in starting my car, getting gas for my car, and even in helping me get a cart at a super market. IN that case it was a young ten or twelve year old kid who just wanted to help me, an older white woman.

Yes, this is about racism. I have met many young black men who were kind, nice, and sympathetic to me when nobody else would stop to do a thing for me, and likewise, I have also helped black men and women alike when they have panhandled or come up to me on the streets of LA begging for assistance.

So for that reason alone, I wish to see Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee. It is a reward to the many black men who have done goodness to me. Barack is educated, talented, and has many valuable assets. The most meaningful one for me is that he has working knowledge of how the truly poor have lived and suffered. They need a voice.

I did vote for Ron Paul in the primary election simply because he had the nerve to tell the truth in front of a national audience and I liked his nerve, guts, and backbone. Besides he quoted General Washington and I had to support him then.

I hope Barack Obama is the Democratic canddidate!

#6 Posted by Jeremy.

"Surely a man of your stature must be aware that ... he has advocated attacking Pakistan..."

1) Barack Obama has never said he would "attack Pakistan"--he has said that he would attack "high-level terrorist targets."

Obama's statement of policy--in his August 1 2007 terrorism speech--dealt directly with high-level terrorist targets like Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistani government:

"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama has voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Pakistani government's efforts to root out al Qaeda, and would prefer that Pakistan take action. But he will not stand by if he has actionable intelligence about high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions:

"But relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out."

The co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission--Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton--endorsed Obama's stance just over a month after his terrorism speech, writing in the Washington Post: "Pakistan should take the lead in closing Taliban camps and rooting out al-Qaeda. But the United States must act if Pakistan will not."

Obama "attacking" Pakistan is a republican distortion. Bush made that ignorant claim, and only a month later...pentagon seemed to have proved Obama right by their missile attacks in the tribal regions of Pakistan. And SURPRISE SURPRISE... Pakistani govt. didn't think that they are being "attacked."

I think the voting will be divided along the following lines:

1. Those who desire a welfare state ala Europe run by those who "know" better to take care of the lulled public who needs Big Nanny or

2. Those who don't desire a welfare state

Pretty simple, give up or live free folks

Cheers,

Steve

#6 Posted by Jeremy

"Shame on you, Deepak, for implying that Obama would end the Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, "Iran", Drugs, etc.). Surely a man of your stature must be aware that Obama has repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq war"

2)RHETORIC: "Yet, like most democrats, Obama voted to keep funding the war until last year."

REALITY: EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT HAS VOTED TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ

2005-2007: Since Obama Came To Washington, Every Single Senate Democrat Has Voted For Every Bill Funding Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Until President Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal – Including Both Emergency Supplemental Bills And Defense Appropriations Bills. Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every bill funding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal – including both emergency supplemental bills and defense appropriations bills that included bridge funding with the expressed purpose of continuing operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. [HR 1268, Vote 109, 4/21/05, Passed 99-0: R 55-0, D 43-0, I: 1-0; HR 2863, Vote 366, 12/21/05, Adopted 93-0: R: 51-0, D: 41-0, I: 1-0; HR 4939, Vote 112, 5/4/06, Passed 77-21: D 43-0, R 33-21, I: 1-0; HR 5631, Vote 261, 9/29/06, Passed 100-0: D: 44-0, R 55-0, I: 1-0; HR 1591, Vote 147, 4/26/07, Passed 51-46: R 2-45, D 48-0, I: 1-1]

#6 posted by Jeremy.

"Shame on you, Deepak,...Surely a man of your stature must be aware that Obama ...is being advised on foreign policy by perennial warmonger Zbigniew Brzezinski."

3) One should note that Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser to President Carter. Sure he was hawkish on foreign policy but he served under what looked like a dovish democratic administration.

He is a "realist" when it comes to foreign policy, painting him as a "perennial warmonger" borders on ignorance and distortion.

On the Iraq War:

"Brzezinski became a leading critic of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Some painted him as a neoconservative because of his links to Paul Wolfowitz and his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski wrote The Choice in 2004 which expanded upon The Grand Chessboard but sharply criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy. He has defended the paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. He has been outspoken in his criticism of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent conduct of the war."

Is certainly is not a surprise that Obama has him on the foreign policy team, along with many many other experts like Samantha Powers (a humanitarian) for example...

Just because he has Brzezinski on his team doesn't mean that Obama is himself hawkish on foreign policy.

Note that his expert views on the middle-east peace process (no where near to war mongering) are widely appreciated by many...I remember Yogi-one(one of the wise men who visit IB) quoting his views admiringly on this subject in the past, here.)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Brzezinski As National Security Adviser (1977-1981)

Afghanistan

... wrote several reports on the deteriorating situation in 1979, but President Carter ignored them until the Soviet intervention destroyed his illusions. Only then did he decide to abandon SALT II ratification and pursue the anti-Soviet policies that Brzezinski proposed.

Iran

The Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, meeting with Arthur Atherton, William H. Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, President Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in 1977
The Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, meeting with Arthur Atherton, William H. Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, President Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in 1977

Facing a revolution, the Shah of Iran sought help from the United States. Iran occupied a strategic place in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, acting as an island of stability and a buffer against Soviet penetration into the region. The Shah was pro-American, but domestically oppressive. The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." These reassurances would not, however, amount to substantive action on the part of the United States. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford) continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily. Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to stabilize Iran. President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force and opposed a U.S. coup. He ordered the aircraft carrier Constellation to the Indian Ocean but ultimately supported a regime change. A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government, but this plan fell apart when Khomeini and his followers swept the country, taking power on February 12, 1979.

China

Shortly after taking office in 1977, President Carter again reaffirmed the United States' position of upholding the Shanghai Communique. The United States and People's Republic of China announced on December 15, 1978, that the two governments would establish diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979. This required the severing of relations with the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. Consolidating U.S. gains in opening China was a major priority stressed by Brzezinski during his time as National Security Advisor.

The most important strategic aspect of the invigorated U.S.-Chinese relationship was in its effect on the Cold War. China was no longer considered part of a larger Sino-Soviet bloc but instead a third pole of power due to the Sino-Soviet Split, helping the United States to balance against Russia.

Major policies:

During the 1960s Brzezinski articulated the strategy of peaceful engagement for undermining the Soviet bloc and persuaded President Johnson, while serving on the State Department Policy Planning Council, to adopt in October 1966 peaceful engagement as U.S. strategy, placing detente ahead of German reunification and thus reversing prior U.S. priorities.

During the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of his political involvement, Brzezinski participated in the formation of the Trilateral Commission in order to more closely cement U.S.-Japanese-European relations. As the three most economically advanced sectors of the world, the people of the three regions could be brought together in cooperation that would give them a more cohesive stance against the communist threat.

While serving in the White House, Brzezinski emphasized the centrality of human rights as a means of placing the Soviet Union on the ideological defensive. With Jimmy Carter in Camp David I, he assisted in the attainment of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. He actively supported Polish Solidarity and the Afghan resistance to Soviet invasion, and provided covert support for national independence movements in the Soviet Union. He played a leading role in normalizing U.S.-PRC relations and in the development of joint strategic cooperation, cultivating a relationship with Deng Xiaoping, for which he is thought very highly of in mainland China to this day.

In the 1990s he formulated the strategic case for buttressing the independent statehood of Ukraine, partially as a means to ending a resurgence of the Russian Empire, and to drive Russia toward integration with the West, promoting instead "geopolitical pluralism" in the space of the former Soviet Union. He developed "a plan for Europe" urging the expansion of NATO, making the case for the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states. He also served as U.S. Presidential emissary to Azerbaijan in order to promote the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline. Further, he led, together with Lane Kirkland, the effort to increase the endowment for the U.S.–sponsored Polish-American Freedom Foundation (info) from the proposed $112 million to an eventual total of well over $200 million.

He has consistently urged a U.S. leadership role in the world, based on established alliances, and warned against unilateralist policies that could destroy U.S. global credibility and precipitate U.S. global isolation.

On February 2, 1979, Brzezinski wrote a memo to the president claiming that Islamic fundamentalism was not an imminent threat and would not gain prominence in the Middle East"

Hot off his myspace, Michael Moore on: who he's voting FOR, and about the Clinton/Reverand meeting during Clinton's scandal with Lewinski; that Obama, is too much of a gentleman to address under her attacks about the Reverand--if the Rev. is so evil.. why did the Clintons call upon him, in their most darkest hour of infidelity, and breach of promise of office(which he got away with breaking and lying to) Anyway.. MM's great rendition of logicaly putting politics into proper perspective.

---

Monday, April 21, 2008

My Vote’s for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore

Friends,

I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.

So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?

I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic" next to the candidate's name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.

But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.

How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).

There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.

I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?

I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.

I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.

Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.

Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com
MMFlint@aol.com

Now, having read that--what are your thoughts on this? Clinton threatens Iran with Nuclear Retaliation!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275

See what kind of President she would make? Her "If you dont listen to me, we are going to use nukes against you in retaliation" is kinda "GW Bush thinking..and this is what's turned the world against the US!

Do YOU, really want a mass-murderer(again) for President?

Ref. 22, talking of Farrakhan....Vanessa posted this in the Open thread:

"Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell loves Farrakhan.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

I'm sure Hillary Clinton will get the vapors and distance herself from the governor[without whose support she can't win Pennsylvania], right?"

Dear Dr. Chopra,

All the haggling over who is the "lesser of the evils" in the presidential race is quite disturbing.

No matter who the winner may be, there will be strong forces of power with destructive agendas which will be directing operations behind the scenes. These forces will not be intimidated by any leader who is already up against opposition by his own government members.

The petty verbal attacks and attempts at character assassination amongst the presidential candidates has shown them not worthy of being true leaders. The televised debates have only served to evidence how talented the participants are at avoiding truthful responses. It is alarming to witness how expert they are in avoiding "straight talk" and in their ability at refusing to give direct answers to questions asked.

We need all the help we can get in finding some way of discovering real inspiration and a leadership worthy of faith and allegiance.

"Betsy" S.

Tradition

Because our tradition
Every one of us knew who he was
And what God expected him to do

Who has the right to have the final word at home?
The papas?
The mamas?
The daughters or sons?

Aaaaaaahhh Grand'Pa
Dawmn!...