IS BARACK OBAMA THE FIRST BLACK JIMMY CARTER?

Was Barack Obama handed the Jimmy Carter script from day one of his presidency?

Both men were political amateurs who came out of nowhere. They were tutored and mentored by the radical Globalist, Z. Brzezinski, who became Carter’s national security adviser and Obama’s informal but vital foreign policy consultant.

Obama and Carter are both creatures created by David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission. Carter’s administration was rife with TC members, and of the 87 TC members who live in the US, Obama appointed 11 of them to key posts.

Carter’s political downfall was the Iran hostage crisis. One of Obama’s major perceived failures has been his handling of “the nuclear weapons crisis” in Iran.

During Carter’s term, an attack on the US embassy started the Iranian hostage crisis. During Obama’s term, the flashpoint was an attack on the US embassy in Libya. Both events made the sitting presidents look weak and ineffective.

In truth, the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the ascendance of the Ayatollah was engineered by Carter, who ordered the restraining of the Shah’s secret police and troops, in the face of “student protests” against the Shah. It was Iran’s “Arab Spring.”

In a similar manner, Obama has promoted phony Middle East “popular democratic uprisings” and the overthrow of ruling strongmen in that region.

Both presidents injured their standing by blandly observing rising oil prices on their watch. They promoted humility and fairness in dealing with major oil-producing nations, sending a signal that gasoline at the pump was not a crucial issue.

In truth, they welcomed higher prices. Carter was hell-bent on his “religious” policy of conservation and asceticism, and Obama wanted to make expensive alternative energy finally cost-effective and competitive with oil.

Carter and Obama launched rhetoric about “a new kind of honorable politics,” a messianic call for greater “social justice” in both the domestic and foreign-policy arenas. As a result, both men were perceived as “weak.” Carter then fell to the “stronger” Ronald Reagan. Obama is running against the “stronger” Mitt Romney.

Obama and Carter both promised sweeping change that would take place immediately after their inauguration. For Carter, it was a (specious) comprehensive energy plan that would free Americans from dependence on foreign oil. For Obama, it was the (specious) stimulus that would put millions of Americans back to work. Both men vastly overplayed their positions, and both men failed utterly.

It’s hard to imagine either man wanted his grand plan to succeed. It’s much easier to conclude that both men wanted to diminish America.

Interest rates played a central role in both presidencies. For Carter, it was crippling escalation. For Obama, it has been massive manipulation to keep rates extraordinarily low. The result in both cases has been a significant degradation of the dollar and rising prices of goods.

Obama and Carter became intimately involved in Afghanistan. For Carter, it was about undermining the Soviet war there, and the training and arming of Arab proxies to attack Soviet troops. Obama has extended the Bush war in Afghanistan, and he has armed Arab proxies to launch wars in the Middle East (made to look like home-grown popular rebellions).

Both men have faced crises that involved their secretaries of state. Cy Vance resigned when Carter ordered a mission to rescue the 53 Americans held hostage in Iran. Now, Hillary Clinton, embroiled in the disaster in Libya, has “taken responsibility” for it. At this moment, whether she will resign is an open question. But both Vance and Clinton chose their strategies to subtly point fingers at the presidents they were serving. In Clinton’s case, she was essentially saying, “Somebody around here has to stand up and take the blame, and since Obama won’t, I will.”

The most powerful similarities between Carter and Obama, though, relate to their bosses, the Trilateral Commission. This is the least-talked-about key.

David Rockefeller created the TC 40 years ago. Its purpose then and now? The erasure of sovereign nations and the establishing of a single global management system.

Carter and Obama submitted to that influence. They pretended they were independent, innovative, unique political figures possessed of a vision that would, finally, transform Washington and business-as-usual politics in America.

They both played the “innocence” card. They came into power promising unique change. They both used religious speech to bolster their claims. They both paraded themselves as humanitarians, first and foremost, who had somehow skirted the corrupt vetting process for presidential candidates.

They both knew this was a lie.

To ensure there is no misunderstanding, a comparison between the stances of Reagan and Romney would provide equally disappointing content.

It’s all about script. The “strong” (Reagan and Romney) were put in place to provide contrast to the “weak” (Carter and Obama).

It’s the old whipsaw effect. “You didn’t like that president? Well, here is an entirely different one.”

Meanwhile, the federal government, like a fungus, grows. It encompasses and steals more power, as the monopolistic two-party system fortifies the dark canopy under which the fungus can thrive.

The real message to the American people, from the top of the power ladder, is: “You can vote for X, or you can vote for X.”

Faced with that rank insanity, the public consciousness spins its wheels in place and tries desperately to invent fairy tales in which one of those Xs is really a Y. But it isn’t.

It’s all about the script.

That’s why even one vote scrawled on a piece of paper in an alley at midnight, for a man like Ron Paul, means more than 30 million taps on a touch screen for X or X in three weeks.

Barack Obama is the first black Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was the first white Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the first Hollywood Mitt Romney.

It’s all about the script.