Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

This guy just summed up every thought that's been in the back of my head for years.
And should not come as a shock to anyone. Unless your head is buried in the sand.

How is it that some guy that's all for change keeps on doing the same bone head things the last guy did? Well because he doesn't have a choice.

And nothing we do is going to change anything. That Shadow Government is a thing.

The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

a reply to: grey580

Part of the problem is that the PTB have convinced you that you have no power.

It's really easy to make people fall in line. All you need to do is convince them that there's nothing they can do to change it.

When in fact, ballot initiates and democracy do indeed work, so long as the general populace actually follows through.

Civil Apathy is a movement created and supported by those in power, because the less powerful you feel, the more powerful they become.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.

The point was that you can vote people in. However the people being voted in are deferring to "experts" from the various departments when it comes to national security.

This in turns leads to the same decisions being made across presidencies.

a reply to: grey580

This in turns leads to the same decisions being made across presidencies

I dunno how I feel about that. I'm a big fan of a Meritocracy society, where the best person for the job, does the damn job.

I always expect politicians and other leaders to surround themselves with the best mind's at their disposal in order to make appropriate decisions on things they know little or nothing about.

So it's about who does this leader surround himself with? I would imagine that those people change on a leader to leader basis and on a time sensitive basis as well.

So his point is valid, I just don't see how it differs from any other time in history. The leaders who didn't do that, and who tried to rule with complete and utter control, have always failed miserably.

Even the Kings & Queens listened to their royal court.

~Tenth

a reply to: grey580

It doesn't matter who fills those seats, when the people are organized and they demand something to be done and are willing to make themselves and everyone else a little bit uncomfortable until they get what they want, change will happen. Even a tyrant or a king will cave eventually to social unrest. Just view the congress as a rotating aristocracy and treat them accordingly. The biggest mistake that we make is that we say this is "our" government. It is not. This is the government of by and for the corporations. We are just human resources living in their world.

When Obama won the 2008 election and was waiting to take office, the FBI brought him in for a series of briefings that would bring the president-elect up to speed on everything the president knows before he took office. I am not sure the official name of this briefing -I would like to - but I remember the report distinctly on CBC 6 years ago.

How is a presidential hopeful supposed to set him/herself a mandate without all the information? And what kind of information could be held from the public that it takes a week or 2 ( can't remember exact length) of private briefings?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree. A wise ruler listens to all his advisers and acts accordingly.

But. Ya gotta wonder about the advice being given. Especially when that advice is telling the president to send more people to die.

a reply to: grey580

That isn't exactly how the real article reads... your link is broken.- I think it has an extra "http" at the end.

Th is one isn't.

The Author, Glennon, is not saying there is a "Shadow Government" he is speaking about committees, advisory boards, and the like that run the bureaucracy.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The Executive branch basically owns the other two branches. They own the internet and with the information captured there, they control many of these scumbags, including POTUS and SCOTUS.

They totally control election outcomes and SCOTUS outcomes. Money and cronyism are the two primary forces in government.

The media and their controllers keep people split as close to 50-50 as possible. Think about it -- what are the chances the two parties would be split so close at every election?

I used to think voting mattered. I was sure about it from a philosophical standpoint. I am much less sure after an extensive effort to understand the workings and actions of the USG.

a reply to: grey580

This guy is 2 years behind Alex Jones' "The Obama Deception" ATS thread two years ago.

Yawn...

You're exactly right and it would not matter short of millions of protesters flooding DC will so much as put a dent in their plans. Gore -Bush -Kerry -Obama - every one would have produced the same results with perhaps a difference in presentation. We would have still invaded Iraq, threatened Iran continually, debased our currency, allowed the bankers to loot and pillage with no repercussions regardless of who was sitting in the White House.

If I may refer you back to a thread from 5 years ago (has it been that long already?):
The Constitutional Republic is Dead
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fun Fact: A declaration of National Emergency was made only days after 9/11 and has continually been renewed every 2 years with little notice. We are still under a declared state of National Emergency and for all intents and purposes the real government is operating remotely from somewhere other than Washington, D.C.

Oh I've seen many of those threads int he past.

But here we got someone from a University talking about it.

Not just a bunch of guys on the interwebs.

a reply to: grey580

That is an issue I have know for years, nothing new, since the shadow government was enacted during the Reagan administration, we American has lost our nation and now lies in the hands of a few that dictate policies behind close doors while we get to be mislead into political arguments that brings nothing to our nations problems.

While we bicker about political, religious and economic issue you all notice that nothing is dome to fix anything, for the contrary the laws, bills and mandates that are enacted hardly takes the peoples voice into account.

a reply to: grey580

NOTE: I've read all the replies posted up to this time.

For what its worth, I think this guy is really onto something and its something I began to suspect with GWB's move into Iraq to take out Saddam. The day to day workings, and worse, the conduct of foreign policy and the conduct of the military and defense structures are actually determined by the administrative bureaucracies and agencies charged with the respective tasks.

Those bureaucracies and agencies are the second government or shadow government, if you wish to call it that.

Finding this article is a brilliant piece of work! And I don't want to jump to the conclusion that this means voting is pointless. Rather, it may mean that we need to reevaluate who we vote for and how we communicate our interests to elected officials. Its a fascinating situation and it may well point to a situation that's historically been a problem for all governments over the course of their respective tenures. I am well aware, for example, that some of the bureaucracies in Italy trace their origins to the administrations of the Roman Empire. The Water Works department in the Italian Government in Rome traces its history back to the administrations of the original Roman aqueducts, three of which are still in use in the city of Rome.

We see this working in the US when, for example, a comprehensive Health Reform bill can come together in a manner of just a few weeks. When I saw that happen, I immediately recognized the fact that it was an "off the shelf" item.

originally posted by: TonyS
And I don't want to jump to the conclusion that this means voting is pointless. Rather, it may mean that we need to reevaluate who we vote for and how we communicate our interests to elected officials.

No, it means that voting is pointless.

No matter who you vote for or how you communicate your interests, there is a plan already in motion.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: TonyS
And I don't want to jump to the conclusion that this means voting is pointless. Rather, it may mean that we need to reevaluate who we vote for and how we communicate our interests to elected officials.

No, it means that voting is pointless.

No matter who you vote for or how you communicate your interests, there is a plan already in motion.

Yep... Read or heard it once that the best kind of slave is the kind that doesn't know it is a slave.

Apply that to the United States. We live under an illusion of "freedom and democracy". Tptb cloak what is really going on with a thin veil of what we perceive to be normality.

This is why I don't vote, it's a farce. One party carries out one part of the plan, a lot of people get tired of what they're doing, then the "opposition" pretends to be the saviour of the people and they carry on, and on it goes. It's the same in western Europe.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

That's not really it; effectively the point that Glennon is making is that most incumbents don't have any say over many policies; they couldn't change them even if they wanted to. One example he uses is of early on in Obama's presidency, when he was presented with two options regarding the War in Afghanistan: send more troops, or send a lot more troops. Obama conceded to sending 30,000 troops.

To paraphrase, there is the elected government, which the public believes is in control of American domestic and foreign policy, and then there are the institutions which govern the elected officials in said elected government. Our democratic system is a sham.

a reply to: grey580

critics tend to focus on Obama (insert other POTUS) himself

That is the key to the whole shebang as far as I am concerned. Whilst the international propaganda behemoth has the gullible populous focusing on the left hand, they are oblivious to what the right hand is actually doing.

Who here actually believes the tripe that Afghanistan and Iraq were Invaded liberated to bring freedom and democracy, and that it had nothing to do with oil?

Who here actually believes the tripe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman with issues?

Who here actually believes the tripe that the Federal Reserve Act of 1914 was instilled to benefit the common folk and enhance capitalism?

Who here actually believes the tripe that the Patriot Act was implemented to protect Americans from terrorists?

You want to take out the shadow government? Storm the White House and Pentagon, take out all the muppets that have anything to do with American domestic and foreign policy and have them all stand trial in the international criminal court, jail all the Banking families, disband, try and incarcerate all bloodlines that have a stranglehold over global events and start again.

Yes, there will be blood, those in the true seat(s) of power will not give it up easily.

The fight truly is against principalities, powers and rulers in high places

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: grey580

critics tend to focus on Obama (insert other POTUS) himself

That is the key to the whole shebang as far as I am concerned. Whilst the international propaganda behemoth has the gullible populous focusing on the left hand, they are oblivious to what the right hand is actually doing.

Who here actually believes the tripe that Afghanistan and Iraq were Invaded liberated to bring freedom and democracy, and that it had nothing to do with oil?

Who here actually believes the tripe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman with issues?

Who here actually believes the tripe that the Federal Reserve Act of 1914 was instilled to benefit the common folk and enhance capitalism?

Who here actually believes the tripe that the Patriot Act was implemented to protect Americans from terrorists?

You want to take out the shadow government? Storm the White House and Pentagon, take out all the muppets that have anything to do with American domestic and foreign policy and have them all stand trial in the international criminal court, jail all the Banking families, disband, try and incarcerate all bloodlines that have a stranglehold over global events and start again.

Yes, there will be blood, those in the true seat(s) of power will not give it up easily.

The fight truly is against principalities, powers and rulers in high places

Would that be enough to flush out the answer of perhaps the biggest conspiracy of all? That is, who are the actual persons in charge?