As I already predicted, Barack Obama will not rescind or amend (soften) the Patriot Act. Nor will he rescind or amend Bush's various Constitution-busting legislations and signing statements, like The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act and so forth; he'll not curtail his right to wiretap us or otherwise spy on our private lives to his heart's content.

During is election campaign Obama promised to lower taxes for middle and low income taxpayers and raise taxes for the wealthy (over $250k income). Remember? Repeated that one over and over like a mantra. And it sure sounds reasonable, doesn't it.

Then in a news conference after the election he was asked if this was still part of his plan.

He completely dodged the question. If you'll remember, in my newsletter after the election I citied this dodge, predicting he will break the promise, not raise taxes for the wealthy.

I'm reiterating that here. Obama will break that promise too, using this supposed economic 'law' as an excuse: 'Never raise taxes during a recession.' (Well, bullshit. Does anyone really believe that the rich are going to buy less stuff - cut back on their lifestyle - because they have, say, $1,560,000 in their savings portfolio, rather than $1,600,000?)

No, Obama will not do any of these things, although he has promised to do all of them. (By not fulfilling the above promises he will also have broken his oath to 'protect and defend' our constitution, thereby immediately subjecting himself to impeachment.)

Obama will keep his Bush-declared presidential right to label anyone, including U.S. citizens, an 'enemy combatant', and thereby nullify the writ of habeas corpus (the right to confront one's accuser) - which is the very foundation of a 'free' society.

He will not countermand Northcom's commission, which is to put down 'civil unrest' (technically, Northcom's commission makes the United States a 'theater of combat operations'): There are currently 20,000 grunts -- most of whom have seen combat on the streets of Iraq and are therefore suffering from some form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- standing ready to hit the streets of America if we citizens get out of hand; if anything, Obama will increase that number.

(Northcom's very existence is a violation of the Posse Commitatus Act, which has been on the books for over 100 years, and which proscribes the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.)

In figuring the specifics of the coming catastrophes I keep thinking back to Joe Biden's incredible blurt last October (seconded by Colin Powell) that soon after the Obama Administration takes office there will be a 'contrived' (bogus) crisis, and that the administrations response will initially be 'unpopular.'

Although the coming 'crisis' could be related to virtually any area of domestic or foreign affairs, my guess is that the unpopular Obama-decision will be an economic one. (The scare quotes around 'crisis' indicate that from the Obama point of view, the crisis is a false one, i.e., not a crisis at all, but an opportunity.)

As anyone who is paying the slightest attention to politics well knows, Obama is backed by the Wall Street/mega-bank cartel that runs the economic world (best represented by the inner circle of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR, but which I short-hand as 'Wall Street'). The giveaway here is that Obama got five times the financial backing from Wall Street as did McCain. (Obama also pushed harder than anyone for the passage of the bailout bill that will finish off the dollar and that Wall Street desperately wanted in order to loot the treasury - which is exactly what's been happening.)

So we have to ask ourselves 'what does Wall Street want?' What would bring them closer to their stated objective of a one-world currency system controlled by themselves, via a mega-central banking system (now in the form of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank)?

They make no bones about this agenda, by the way; it's quite public, although, predictably, The Media avoids the issue (which is why it's news to you): I urge you to do some googling, or, better, read The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

The dollar gotta go, folks. Wall Street has willed it.

So: Obama's 'initially unpopular' decision will be to in some way preside over the devaluation of the dollar; in the long-run effect, break its back as the world currency.

I do not know specifically how the dollar-dumping will go, but this is a prediction you can... well, take to the bank.

(If you think destroying the dollar must surely be the last thing Wall Street wants, then, truly, you have some smartening up to do. And again, I highly recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island.

I've recommended the little film 'Money as Debt' before. If you haven't seen it, click here. It's great as a warm up to The Creature from Jekyll Island. I received a volley of emails thanking me for this link.)

Speaking of the dollar, we can certainly look forward to big time inflation in 2009. This is one of those 'duhhh' predictions, so let me get more specific: A year from now your buck will be worth something like half of what it's worth now.

By the way: Do you know what inflation really is?

Inflation is a tax.

Huh?

Do you know whence came the (approximately) 10 trillion dollars currently up in smoke via the bailout bill? (I bet you didn't know it was that much.)

It was conjured out of thin air. How? It's this simple, and this ridiculous: A private cartel of Wall Street bankers (they call themselves The Federal Reserve even though they are not federal nor do they have any reserves) lent it to the government (at interest), which in turn lent it back to the banks.

Hold on. That doesn't sound right.

The great quote from physicist Neils Bohr comes to mind here: 'Those who are not shocked when they first hear of quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it.'

I mean, how could they lend something they didn't have?

But it gets better, and you gotta appreciate the Machiavellian simplicity of the scam. If you think about the above, you realize that the banks are both the debtors and creditors in the bailout system.

Take a moment to think about this.

Again, the first part of the transaction is the Federal Reserve banks lending money to the government. In this role (as creditors) the banks get to make the conditions of the loan.

This is why, for example, there is no transparency to what the receivers of the loans (the banks!) do with the money. (Maybe you've been wondering about that: a couple DSPs ago I reproduced a document from the banks to the Treasury that was so heavily redacted that it said nothing about where the money went, and how much went there.)

Now combine the Bohr quote with the following from Mayer Rothschild, the grandfather of modern banking, and you've gone a long way towards explaining... everything: 'Give me control over a nation's money supply and I care not who makes its laws.'

Rothschild is talking about the root of all power here.

But wait. Wasn't I trying to explain how inflation is really a tax?

Right. So the Federal Reserve (again, a private cartel with nothing but there own interest at heart) conjures money out of nothing by simply lending it out, in this case to the government; the Treasury Department. (Griffin, in his book, calls this trick the Mandrake Mechanism.) Sounds great, right? All these 'problems' are solved with no rise in taxes!

But there's a very big 'but': Creating money out of thin air makes the money already in the system worth less (not worthless, not exactly), which has the identical effect of a tax: You get to buy less stuff with the bucks you have - this is the same thing as taking money from you via taxation.

The government doesn't call this a tax because you'd be outraged. 'Inflation,' on the other hand, sounds... well, sort of like 'gravity'; it's no one's fault.

Have you noticed that The Media never explain where all the bailout money came from? They don't explain it because if they did they'd have to admit to the outrageous swindle we're being subjected to.

It is in fact a Ponzi Scheme (a Pyramid Scheme, like the old chain letter scam), which, in any other context, perpetrated by anyone other than our government, means jail time.

If you were so disposed (cranky), you might also label what they do as counterfeiting.

But I've digressed from simple predictions.

Ponzi Schemes all have one thing in common: they are designed to fail. So my prediction is that when the Ponzi Scheme that is the U.S. monetary system fails, we are going to see some shit like never before in world history. And, once again: The is and has been 100% predictable, and planned.

The resulting hyperinflationary depression will make the Crash of '29 look like a bargain sale.

(Obama has promised to 'inflate us' out of the meltdown - drastically increase spending -- which will cause massive inflation. Hence hyperinflationary depression.)

The world has never seen a genuine hyperinflationary depression: Real experts - those not hired by The Media to keep you calm - quake in their britches at the thought.

2009 will be the year when this catastrophe becomes obvious. (Actually, it's obvious now, but...)

As the dominoes fall:

Centralization will continue at a much-accelerated rate. The banks that are being 'bailed out' will continue to use the funds to buy up real assets (rather than liquefying the economy, which they promised to do), including infrastructure, and including smaller banks that are less directly involved in the Ponzi Scheme and who own real assets.

The credit crunch - banks refusing to extend it -- will make daily business at first difficult, then nearly impossible. This will result in shortages of the daily necessities, including food. (If you don't see this in 2009, you will see the direct loomings.)

This is why there are the 20,000 combat troops ready to hit the streets. In fact, Wall Street (once again, a short-hand for the inner membership of the CFR) has planned this collapse to culminate in the street violence and outright riots that will result from the shortages, which will then result in...

...martial law being 'officially' declared...

I say 'officially' because we are actually living under martial law now. With all the various Acts, including The War Powers Act (i.e., all real power runs through the executive branch, the White House), in effect, and posse commitatus out the window and the infantry grunts that are already 'pitching in' on roadside sobriety checks to get us used to seeing the military enforcing civilian law...

... did you know that U.S. Marines are already on the streets? If not, do some googling... try 'military + sobriety checks' or some such. (Hey, if you don't do some of the research-work, none of this will stick.)

Also, as I pointed out in October, Congress was 'officially' threatened with martial law if it didn't pass the bailout bill. Click here to see that again...

Back? When our lawmakers are blackmailed with the threat of violence (coming from a private banking cartel), you have to assume that the sumbitches making the threat are serious.

What else?

As I write (now on January 6), Henry Kissinger has just blurted what a great 'opportunity' all the current international chaos is, for refashioning the world. With Obama's terrific 'image', Kissinger went on, 'we' will be able to quickly move along toward the 'new world order'.

New World Order? What's that?

Kissinger is talking about a one-world monetary system, the stated objective of his Wall Street associates. Probably not in 2009, but within a couple or so years the devalued-until-worthless dollar will be replaced by a world currency system fashioned and run by the elites; the CFR. They've even come up with a name for the new money: 'The Phoenix'. Perfect, right? From the ashes of the economic meltdown they themselves engineered, rises the...

... are you thinking that all this is no more than a... conspiracy theory?

'Conspiracy theory'. All I can say to those who use the phrase in the derogatory sense ('conspiracy theories are nuts') is this: How's your coincidence theory doing, Jack?

But in the near-term (2009), here's what will happen to get us closer to a one-world currency, and here's where I can answer the people who object to my writing about subjects other than surfing, since what's in the offing will directly affect my local point break:

Ever hear of the North American Union?

No? Well, you have something in common with our new president. Barack Obama claims that he has seen 'no evidence' of a North American Union...

Hold on... it's better than that... our president-elect claims to not know there is such a thing as the North American Union, even if it be only in the planning stage; he's never heard of it. Bear with me and click here for a town hall meeting on the campaign trail. Come back here after he finishes with the guy's question...

Back? (I'll comment of the CFR part of the exchange in a minute, wherein Obama claims the CFR is just 'some folks who talk about foreign policy'.)

Notice how Obama apparently did not know anything about a North American Union: that confused hand gesture along with a bemused, 'What did you call it?'

... and, 'I've seen no evidence of that...'

No evidence?

I'll address this directly to Mister Obama:

In 2005, Mister President-Elect, George Bush met with (then) Mexican President Vincente Fox and (then) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and came to an agreement to form what can only be called a 'North American Union.'

What was finally officially admitted to was an informal 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' (SPP).

The joint statement on the SPP, issued by the White House on March, 23, 2005 described it as an initiative to: “...establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.”

Doesn't this at least sort of sound like a North American Union, Mister President-Elect? No? Okay.

Perhaps this surf bum down here at his campsite on the beach on Mainland Mexico can enlighten you on some world economic affairs.

Just a few miles up the coast from me here on Mainland Mexico is the port city of Lazaro Cardenas. It's busy busy up there: All sorts of construction and new infrastructure going in, big plans afoot; nasty plans if you're a surfer (or just a human being) who cares about Big Blue and the land adjacent to where you surf.

Here's what's planned for Lazaro Cardenas, if not in 2009 then soon thereafter: Containers from all over the world will roll off their mother ships at Lazaro, be loaded onto mega 18 wheelers and head north to...

...the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), which is called for by the 'SPP', and is already under construction: A quarter mile- wide corridor slicing right through the heart of Texas then north through the U.S. and into Canada, with Kansas City a designated Port of Entry for cargo trucks U.S. bound.

Kansas City a Port of Entry? That's right. No customs at our shared border with Mexico; no inspections, no tariffs, no hassles, just clear sailing from the cargo's onload at, say, Ningbo, China until the U.S. heartland. (If this sounds vaguely familiar, Mister Obama, think about George Bush's 'open border' policy; surely you've heard of that, and that it was designed primarily to get the dumbed-down masses used to... an open border.)

Yes, I would have thought you'd have heard of the Trans-Texas Corridor, Mister Obama, as... well... evidence that a North American Union was in the offing...

... apparently the Governor of the Mexican province of Nuevo Leon knows about the North American Union, since he said the following in a meeting with U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters: “The Trans Texas Corridor is not just the NAFTA Superhighway, but the Logistical Trans-Corridor of North America, uniting Mexico, the US and Canada.”

Whoa! Really starting to sound like there's evidence of a North American Union!

Your CFR... your Council on Foreign Relations -- just 'some folks' who like to chat about stuff -- came up with a full blown task force on the North American Union, in the resulting report calling for (the) “creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March, 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders (of the three nations) that 'our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.' Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

That last sentence says it all, no? In fact, I think it bears repeating, since you're so familiar with the CFR, have spoken at its meetings (although you apparently don't know about the secret handshake)...

“Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

I mean, with all due respect, Mister Obama, if it quacks like a North American Union duck...

“The public has been kept in the dark while business elites have played a lead role in designing the blueprint for this more integrated North America.”

That's from the Toronto Star, an article on September 20, 2006. But that's a Canadian paper. Maybe you don't read foreign newspapers.

“The Oklahoma-to-Mexico stretch [of the corridor] would be just the first link in a 4,000 mile [now up to 8,000 miles], $184 billion network. The corridor would be up to a quarter mile across, consisting of as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines, and broadband cables.”

That one's from the Associated Press in the good old U.S of A. But maybe, like your immediate predecessor, you don't you read any newspapers. Is that the case, Mister President-Elect?

One more. Speaking in Madrid in 2002, Mexican President Fox said, “Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States...an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as...the freedom of movement of capital, goods and services and persons. The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union.”

The European Union? What else does the European Union have that you, Mister Obama, and your CFR backers, want, to bring us closer to a one-world currency?

A common North American currency, right?

The Amero.

The North American Union.

And you've seen no evidence of it?

And the CFR - the Council on Foreign fucking-A Relations - is just some folks who like to chat about foreign policy? Just talk, huh?

You know what? People can get off their asses and google 'Council on Foreign Relations' to expose your preposterous lie about what the CFR is, or they can stay as dumbed-down as they are now, but here's what I've been wanting to say for a half dozen paragraphs, as the point of this exercise in figuring out who and what you really are:

Mister Obama, sir, you are a LIAR. And the matters you are lying about are very important to my country

Here's what really pisses me off about Obama's whoppers from the town hall meeting you just looked at, and see if you agree: I really didn't like the way he lied. His confused little gesture when he asked, 'What did you call it?' That's a... a deep lie. He's lying right down to his fucking bones.

Orwell said that the worst sort of lie is one by omission. I think you left out some stuff in your answer to the guy's question, Mister Obama.

Having accepted the fact that Obama was lying about the NAU and the CFR, we now must ask ourselves: Why? Why not just tell the truth?

I welcome your opinions on this, but here's my theory about why Obama lied about the North American Union: The truth would piss you off.

What would piss you off is the loss of your constitutional government and indeed the very sovereignty of your country, which is what a North American Union would result in.

Back to my predictions for 2009, the main one: Barack Obama will continue to lie - liars tend to do that -- as he brings us ever closer to what he and his backers really want: A one-world currency and monetary system run by the banking cartel that engineered the current economic meltdown.

More details.

Obama will see to it that we get more firmly entrenched in Iraq (breaking his number one campaign promise) and Afghanistan; he will add Pakistan to the list of countries under direct U.S. military fire.

There will be heightening tension with Russia and in Central Asia in general.

Although Obama's pretext for military intervention will always be 'the war on terrorism', the conquests he will carry out are to secure oil reserves and to facilitate the movement thereof. (Obama has long been under the tutelage of Zbignew Brisinski, the CFR architect of many godawful presidential foreign policy decisions, starting with Jimmy Carter. 'Zbig's blueprint for the world involves one thing above all else: more wars. Please do some googling if you don't believe me.)

Obama has called for a 'civilian security force' to keep civil order. He will organize some version of this under the guise of a 'domestic peace corps'.

A related issue: The draft will be back, possibly within the next year; it will not be labeled thus, however. Obama will quote JFK here, regarding 'what you can do for your country.' Citizens of certain ages will be given choices of 'service to the country', one of them being military service. But service will be - in effect if not by law -- mandatory.

In spite of the above (which, technically, 'employs' people), unemployment will top 20%.

More details.

One promise Obama might keep is to close down Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, as liberal window dressing.

Here's a promise Obama might have already made, and very well might keep: Pardon Bush and his gang for any 'crimes' they may have committed while in office. This under the guise of keeping the country 'united' and not 'distracted'. This is a good example of an horrendous act Obama can get away with that John McCain could not have, which in turn explains why I stated that an Obama presidency would be more dangerous than a McCain presidency. Again, the honeymoon Obama can look forward to will mean he can do almost anything he wants in the first few months; which is why I'm predicting so much awful shit so quickly.

The economic meltdown has distracted us from the factor that was (largely) behind 9/11, plus the meltdown itself: OIL.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, there are approximately one trillion barrels of accessible crude oil left underground. (Although estimates vary a bit, this is not arguable.) With the current demand at about 85 million barrels a day and with the exponential rise in demand that is now underway (mainly from China and India), it only takes some simple math to tell us that unless drastic measures are taken, a Mad Max scenario is only a few years away (20 at most); this is utterly unavoidable. (If for some bizarre reason you have doubts about the numbers or think that an alternative energy source will come to the rescue -- I highly recommend the documentary film, A Crude Awakening.)

Wall Street knows this, has known it for decades.

What's the 'drastic' measure that will be taken?

Four billion people will have to go. But since I'm not predicting this for 2009, we'll let it lay for now. (You can click here for my essay on the subject, 'I.C.U. Psychosis'.)

By the way: With the economic meltdown the price of oil plummeted by as much as $100 a barrel. Although this sounds good, there is something fishy going on, since the price drop is way out of proportion to the decrease in demand. As of this writing, I have not looked into this, but I sense something bizarre coming in the area of oil pricing -- which in turn will have Brobdingnagian effects on all areas of world affairs. (I'm really sorry but I've always wanted an excuse to use that word.)

Any thoughts out there?

Okay. I've been saving this one for last: Will there be a major 'terrorist incident' on U.S. soil in 2009?

I'm calling fifty - fifty on this one.

With all the blatant hanging out there of my ass I've been doing with all these specifics, why hedge on this one?

Let me back up just a bit, and be as succinct as possible. A few days ago I was listening to an interview with Paul Craig Roberts, a 'pure' conservative (meaning a real conservative, as opposed to the neo-cons, who are as far from 'conservative' as you can get). Although his curriculum vitae is too extensive to go into, Roberts was the principal economic advisor to Reagan; he is known as the father of 'Reaganomics'.

Roberts was in the midst of making the (excellent) point that to control nations you use access to oil, but to control people you use access to food, when the subject of 9/11 came up. In a wonderfully offhanded way, he said, 'Any fool could see that those buildings didn't fall down; they were blown up.'

I relate Roberts's words to make the point that although The Media will go no where near anyone who would say anything remotely like that (he was interviewed on the Alex Jones show), there are many people, many, who know that 9/11 was a 'false flag' operation; a self-inflicted wound. According to a Zogby Poll from a couple years ago a full two-thirds of Americans know we were lied to about the attacks, and a full one third (34%, I think it was) know that elements of the U.S. government were behind it.

This is a lot of people. And although the bastards appear to have gotten away with it in terms of avoiding legal prosecution (and may secure an Obama-pardon to seal that deal), should they pull another similar event, it might not go as well: Certain mainstream types like Keith Olbermann might just go public, which could start a real mainstream media domino shit storm, as others come out of the truth-closet. (I suspect Keith is completely aware of 9/11 truth but wants to keep his job so for now he's towing the line.)

On the other hand, they did get away with 9/11, as they got away with the JFK assassination...

So I dunno. A 'suitcase' type nuke going off, say, in the hold of a freighter in an east coast port would be a lot 'cleaner' (no clues left) than the almost comical aftermath of 9/11 (David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Report; Omissions and Distortions says it all on that subject)...

In any event, the key to the prevention of another -- possibly truly catastrophic -- incident is your knowledge of the truth. If you care at all about the human species, it is your responsibility to know the truth.

Details...

I'll leave you with a detail that you might mull if you find it impossible to believe that an element of the U.S. government, i.e., the cabal I call Wall Street, is capable of the behavior I've (barely) touched on here.

The detail involves your cell phone (odds are, if you're reading this you have a cell phone). No matter the brand you use, the U.S. government intimidated the manufacturer into including in the electronic system the capability of not only tapping your phone calls, but of using your phone to track your movements and record your everyday doings.

Right: They can use the phone's microphone and electromagnetic transmission function as what amounts to a room bug. (And via triangulation from cell phone towers, they can pinpoint your position anywhere on the globe.) And there is no way for you to know when this is happening (there are clues); nor is there any way to prevent it, except by removing the phone's battery. (None of this is surprising if you recall AT&T's illegal cooperation in divulging to the Justice Department citizens' private phone records without a court order.)

If you're thinking this is nuts, or I'm nuts, I urge you to do some googling; try 'cell phones + U.S. government surveillance' or some such. Since finding out about this a few days ago, I haven't had the online time to further look into it. (Apparently all electronic communication platforms, including personal computers, have been similarly designed; they can, in theory, bug you aurally and visually -- if your computer has a built in camera. Does that give you the creeps or what?)

But I hope you agree that any system of control (which is what the government is) that would do this is capable of pretty much anything. Which means that it - the system, Wall Street/whatever you wanna call it -- is capable of the rest of this stuff, including 9/11. I mean: How much do you need to know before you at least consider waking the fuck up?

Hey: Happy New Year!

Allan Weisbecker

Since you've come this far with me, as a postscript I'll ask and answer one last question: Why should you listen to a guy who's mostly written about surfing, plus his own sorry ass life and times?

As some of you know, in April of 2001 - about four months prior to 9/11 - I warned that a terrorist attack upon the United States would likely come via commercial aircraft (or commercial ships). This was in response to Bush's outrageously specious pitch for a Star Wars missile defense system - he claimed that terrorists would use ICBMs as a delivery system for WMD.

With my (far distant) past of delivering loads of cannabis into the U.S. with big airplanes and ships, I knew how easy it would be to turn these carriers into weapons.

I sent this warning to my subscribers via my newsletter and to a list of media outlets. NPR in fact quoted me verbatim, although un-attributed, leading with 'some people say'.

I lost the text of this warning to a crashed laptop, so I have no 'proof' of my warning. Call me a liar if you want, but most who have followed my writings know that it's unlikely that I'd make up such a claim. (If anyone cached that long-past newsletter, I'd appreciate your sending it to me.)

ONE more thing (I promise): If you're wondering what you personally can do to prevent the CFR in getting what it wants, click here.