The Clinton family scandals need to be examined in another light, but you’ll need to get your tinfoil hat on for this one.  What do the conspiracy theorists like to say, “It’s not ‘theory’ anymore”?

Unbeknownst to almost all Americans but probably absolutely known and understood by the Congress of the United States, “Obama’s proposed Trade deals are actually about whether the world is heading toward a dictatorial world government, a dictatorship by the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations  or else toward a democratic world government, which will be a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent. These are two opposite visions of world government; and Obama is clearly on the side of fascism, an international mega-corporate dictatorship.”  

The rationale for this astounding statement comes from Global Research, June 2016, in an article by Eric Zuesse, The Two Contending Visions of World Government: The Origin and Broader Context of Obama;s “Trade” Deals.  “Also as a preliminary to the discussion is the understanding that if Obama wins Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, then all of his trade deals will be approved by Congress and then be able to be considered seriously by other governments, and that if he fails to receive this Authority, then none of them will.” (ibid)  The article gives a detailed history of how we got to here from there.

And Hillary is his handmaiden. 

Though it’s more fun to be entertained by the missteps of Bill and Hill and watch them scrambling to bury what’s too big to be buried ahead of the 2016 presidential elections, the scandals are not the point. The distractions are a means to a sinister end:  Hillary wants to be the Matriarch of The New World Order, and to do that, she has to be President of the United States. She and Bill had to start amassing tons of money after his departure from the White House if they had any chance of investing sums large enough to validate their eligibility to play in the big leagues. The Super Elite pulling the power levers of the country and the world had to see, after all, how far the Clintons would go.  Obama and she were intentionally chosen to close the door on freedom and democracy we Americans have seen deteriorating rapidly under the Progressive Democrats’ tenure and control over Washington.

Watching Obama’s first term unfold, anyone with a good eye could see he was not smart enough nor powerful enough by his own volition to orchestrate the breathtaking changes to the American systems of government.  Something else was afoot, and it didn’t feel good or right.  Nor did it feel “American.” The speed with which change is occurring serves to confuse and infuriate most Americans. It feels as if an invisible force for torment has been set loose on the nation and her people. But this, too, is as intended. Obama was the perfect choice for implementing psychological warfare against the American people while the forces of evil went to work dismantling what our Founders built 220 years ago. The arrogance in his work, and the delight with which he executed executive orders when Congress wouldn’t cooperate served as his reparations pay in addition to whatever other promises of remuneration he may have received for his role in this American tragic theater.

“But what about Congress,” you may wonder. Anyone seen Congress’ poll ratings lately?  They hover in the 8% range. Ever wonder why that is?  Have you noticed the Republicans look like Democrats today and vice versa and the political party distinctions make less and less difference anymore? Maybe it’s because the Congress hasn’t really been acting like a Congress in a very long time.  And might it be because so many are busy lining up to grab a Congressional seat or party nomination to be president, wanting to follow in the footsteps of the uber-privileged class in Washington – those who newly wear the millionaire’s crown for their dedicated service to America and her People. At taxpayer expense.  Whatever happened to selfless service to God, Family, and Nation? Greed obliterated it. We see glimmers of hope from principled and caring hard-working officials, but there’s not enough traction to make us believe our duly elected representatives can right the ship of state. Besides, Satan wants the whole WORLD as his kingdom; so imagine the international corporate forces moving against Congress and any group unprepared and unwilling to stand for what is right.

Here’s more about the forces we are up against from the above referenced Zuesse article:

Among the leading members of the Bilderberg group since its inception were David Rockefeller and George Ball. The latter was the first person on the Democratic side of American politics who championed as an ideal an anti-democratic, pro-aristocratic world government. Matt Stoller, on 20 February 2014, bannered, NAFTA Origins, Part Two: The Architects of Free Trade Really Did Want a World Government of Corporations, and he reported, from his study of the Congressional Record, that:

After the Kennedy round [international-trade talks] ended [in1967], liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down. Ball was an architect of 1960s U.S. trade policy he helped write the Trade Act of 1962, which set the stage for what eventually became the World Trade Organization.

But Ball’s idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for the benefit of mankind. It was a weird utopian vision that you can hear today in the current United States Trade Representative Michael Froman’s speeches. …

In the opening statement [by Ball to Congress in 1967], before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that business decisions could be frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind.

As for David Rockefeller, he wrote in the 1 February 1999 Newsweek an essay “Looking for New Leadership,” in which he stated (p. 41) the widely quoted: In recent years, there’s been a trend toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened the role of government, which is something business people tend to be in favor of. But the other side of the coin is that somebody has to take government’s’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it. (Of course, by business there, he’s referring only to international corporations, but he doesn’t say that; he’s tactful enough not to make it explicit.) This has been his clearest statement endorsing the emergence of a future world government by international corporations, which will possess sovereignty higher than that of any national government, which he says that he endorses because a lessening of the role of democratic government is something business people tend to be in favor of.” (Of course, those business people are only the hundred or so who actually control the major international corporations; they’re not mom-and-pop-type business people; but he’s tactful enough not to make that explicit, either. The whole endeavor is a con.) . . .

The U.S. aristocracy, and, to a lesser extent, the European and Japanese aristocracies, within the Trilateral Commission which had been set up by the Bilderbergers (especially under Bilderberger David Rockefeller), all continue their international-corporate aim for unitary corporate global power, and for the crushing of democracy within all of the member-nations. President Obama’s proposed international treaties, the TPP, TTIP, and TISA, would replace national democratic laws and regulations regarding the environment, consumer protection, workers’ rights, and investor protection, by means of international-corporate control of those regulations, via panels of three arbitrators, all of whom will be selected by or otherwise beholden to the international corporations that are being regulated; and, if any nation then tries to legislate stronger laws to protect the public than those panels approve under the given treaty, that nation will be fined by any corporation whose rights,’ under these treaties (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), have been ruled by those panels to have been infringed by that violating nation. The basic idea is that the rights of the owners of the controlling blocks of stock in the international corporations take precedence over the rights of any mere nation, or of the public in any nation that participates in these vast American-dominated trade deals. (The underlying ideology behind this is discussed in my 2015 book, Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.)

This new system, called Investor State Dispute Resolution, or ISDS, is only just starting to be employed and applied, from NAFTA and the few other such international agreements that are already in force. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report (which is generally heavily biased in favor of ISDS), in which is described one of the biggest cases yet that has been resolved by such panels:

A tribunal’s inability to change the laws or regulations of the United States directly does not mean that arbitration awards cannot be substantial. For example, in Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Ecuador, the tribunal ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental $1,769,625,000 over 1 billion dollars in damages.63 The tribunal rendered that award, which is one of the largest awards in favor of a claimant under ISDS arbitration, after finding that Ecuador violated an investment agreement by expropriating Occidental’s property in response to Occidental transferring some of its economic interests under an oil production contract in contravention of Ecuador law.64 Therefore, although a tribunal lacks authority to alter a U.S. statute directly, some commentators believe that the possibility for such large monetary damages potentially could influence lawmakers and regulators when they consider proposed laws or regulations that may run afoul of IIA obligations.65

Sounds like world communism to me.  Anyone need more evidence of the trouble we’re in?

World government may not be avoidable, however, the greater accomplishment, “a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent.”  is not what seems to be evolving.

And Obama’s role in this?  

Obama represents (not just in his policies, but even in his background) the U.S. aristocracy (or oligarchs), and he aspires to bring to ultimate fruition his predecessor’s dream, the dream of Bill Clinton, who did the largest previous Fast-Track-approved treaty, NAFTA, and, before him, of Richard Nixon, who created Fast Track (and before everything, there was the Bilderberg group): the goal of a fascist world government designed in Washington and signed by the aristocracies of the world’s countries that are subservient to the U.S. aristocracy trade agreements that are actually a signing-away of democratic national sovereignties to this U.S.-aristocracy-dominated global international-corporate sovereign, which is both the treaty and its implementation – a world-government in the fascist style. (Ibid, Zuesse)

And Hillary?  She wants to go down in the history books as being the mother of the new world order.  If money satiated her voracious appetite for power, she would not need to run for president. But it does not.  The hole inside of her cannot be filled up by anything, even by a title like “matriarch of the new world order.” So she will run and continue to steamroll over anyone and anything that prevents the hole from being filled up inside of her.  And that could not be good for the world’s people.

John Boehner didn’t want the TPP to fail; so after the Senate voted this week to stop it via the Trade Adjusted Assistance bill, he extended until July 30 the time allotted to getting a bill that would pass. That gives Americans just six short weeks to influence our elected officials and teach our friends and neighbors why they need to get involved in this fight. Because Obama wants it so badly is why we should be scared to death of it.

Some very serious closing thoughts from Zuesse:

In the long view of history, this matter is, on the global level, a continuation of WW II between democracy versus fascism; but, on the purely American national level, it is a continuation of the American Revolutionary War between democracy and aristocracy. Either way, what had been thought to have been a decisive victory for democracy has turned out to have been not so decisive after all; and the aristocratic, fascistic, forces have regrouped, and, at least up till June 12th, appeared to be heading for victory. But, this time, if they win, it might be final, because it truly would be a global victory for the aristocracy, and a global defeat for the public everywhere. This is what de Zayas warned of: a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots.”

This is a global war, which has been waged since at least 1954, and Obama is aiming to negotiate the surrender of FDR and the Allies who had won WW II. But they’d be surrendering to him. One might call it WW II, round 2. But it’s also The American Counter-Revolution. By either name, it’s the same war, and the earlier victories for democracy are on the line, to be determined now, by our generation or, perhaps, only by the aristocrats in our generation (if those few people will be its winners). If they win it, then what could a round 3, or an American counter-counter-revolution, conceivably be like – or would it be simply inconceivable? Or, perhaps, just inconceivably violent?

“All the world’s a prison” might sound peaceful for the aristocracy, who would be luxuriously outside those prison-walls in their own gated compounds, and far from earshot of the explosions within; but, for the global public, what would there be left to lose in a global revolution? The aristocracy already own almost everything. (And here is another way of looking at this.) That’s not enough for them, but maybe it will finally become too much for everybody else. This type of global warming could thus become a global conflagration, even before the environmental one destroys everything.