
The blog is a view of life, science, politics and education from an engineering perspective. As engineers, we are taught to view the world objectively. We can hope, believe and calculate a particular outcome, but natural laws are inflexible and pay no heed to who we are or what we believe. We must approach the objective dispassionately, while compensating for our own distorted perceptions. Balance is also a key element; balancing between the ideal and the pragmatic, balancing cost and functionality, balancing analysis with action, etc.
Scheduling routine critical self-analysis is the foundation to objectivity. If we do not fully understand and compensate for our own failures, tendencies, habits and skewed thought processes, we will not see the world as it is. Without a regular critical self-analysis we will see the world as we are and then fall prey to self-delusion.
Failure is a great teacher. When failure is coupled with perseverance, it produces the fruit of patience and humility. An engineer, fresh out of engineering school is typically set up for failure early and often. The failure breaks the new engineer of any ideas of self-importance, arrogance and book smarts. Only then can the new engineer be formed and molded into a productive element in the industry.
Thanks,
Bernie
Webster Tarpley
Webster Tarpley has been making the rounds on all of the conservative media outlets over the past 2 months. My first thought was that Webster Tarpley is much too liberal to interest a conservative audience. Why would Tarpley be in such demand to people like Michelle Malkin, Press TV, Alex Jones, Dennis Praeger, Christopher Walken, Russia Today, Laura Ingraham, Mychal Massie and others?
Tarpley was a member of the Democratic Party and ran for office on the US Labor party ticket. In the 70’s and 80’s he considered himself to be to the left of mainstream Democratic ideology, but he thinks the mainstream Democratic Party no longer represents American interests. He came up through the Ivy League cabal and was the head of several liberal think tanks such as the Schiller Institute. Tarpley was employed by the Italian parliament in the late 70’s to investigate high level assassinations and terror connections. Since that time, Tarpley has maintained close connections within the Red Brigade and Hamas. He rose to prominence after he wrote a scathing biography of George H. W. Bush in which he accuses President Bush of antagonizing the Middle East radicals to benefit the Military industrial complex. He believes that George H W Bush was the start of a new agenda to undermine the influence of the US around the world and push a globalist agenda.
Since the Benghazi terror attack, Tarpley has surfaced publicly to disclose the truth (from his perspective) behind the event. I have paraphrased Tarpley’s contention: The consulate in Benghazi was actually a base for covert operations. It served as a clearing house for weapons and ‘freedom fighters’ en route to Syria (via Turkey). Prisoners (political and combatants) were also housed at the consulate (outside the influence of US laws and due process). The Benghazi consulate was the covert operations base that the US government denied having.
The attack on the consulate was orchestrated by Sufyan Bin Qumu, a US double agent who spent several years in Guantanamo and released earlier in 2011. Qumu had joined with Khalifa Hifter who was instrumental in the over throw of Gaddafi. Khalifa Hifter defected from the Gaddafi regime and created his own militia with money from the CIA, according to his own book ‘Manipulations Africaines’ published by Le Monde Diplomatique. In essence, we had rogue double agent CIA agents attacking a state department agency to release detainees. When the CIA was called by the State Department to help intervene in the conflict, they were reluctant to fire on their own agents.
To this date, the attack is not being investigated or prosecuted, because it would raise more questions than it answers. Also, there is nothing to investigate, everything is known. The only goal of the Obama administration is to sweep this under the rug as soon as possible.
Tarpley, in his interviews and appearances, has sharply attacked Obama on a number of fronts. He believes that Obama has betrayed Democratic Party principles. He claims that Obama is not for the middle class worker but actively supports and is supported by Wall Street. He cites documents showing Obama to be a Globalist; serving interests other than US interests. Obama and Bush have the same international objectives; only that Obama raised the stakes tenfold. Where Bush dared only to stick his toe, Obama has jumped in with both feet. Obama and Bush both served the Military industrial complex. But where Bush funded the military through US taxation, Obama funds the military through foreign purchases. Both have also actively deflated the value of the US dollar and drove up debt. Tarpley contends that although the methodology used by both Presidents was different, the results are the same. Therefore, he concludes that both Presidents are serving the same master. However, where Bush only introduced the Globalists to the US public, Obama is advancing their agenda.
Transparency is something that Obama campaigned on, but once in office, the tune changed. Tarpley shows that with Executive Order 13489, Obama bans access to his records the first day in office with this executive order. Executive Order 13489 section 3(d) states: "If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order." Tarpley complains that Obama has no interest in transparency. This executive order is virtually the same as Executive Order 123283, which President George W. Bush issued early in his presidency and was a point of contention for Obama during the campaign.
According to Tarpley, the actions of President Obama are showing his allegiance to corporate interests; while his rhetoric is quite the opposite. Obama is artificially forcing the gasoline prices to remain high, hurting primarily the lower and middle income Americans. Obama is forcing the electricity cost to remain high, hurting primarily the lower and middle income Americans. Obama is choosing political correctness over a quality education in the public schools, hurting primarily the lower and middle income Americans. Obama is not doing much about the high cost of a college education, which hurts primarily the lower and middle income Americans. The ethanol mandate is farce, driving up food costs hurting primarily the low and middle income Americans. High unemployment hurts the low and middle income Americans. Obama is perpetuating the cycle of poverty, hurting primarily the lower and middle income Americans. The $2.2 billion per year cell phone program benefits the lower income Americans, but is ridiculous. Even the taxation designed to hit the high income brackets the hardest raises very little taxes and does nothing to bring income disparity into line.
Tarpley claims that there is a grand conspiracy behind the actions of our government; credit default swaps, a 15 trillion dollar Ponzi scheme perpetrated against the American public; a rigged stock market; repeated 700 billion dollar windfall tax cuts for the rich when the economy is teetering on collapse; a street full of homeless people including veterans; carefully orchestrated bank failures; a healthcare system written only to boost big pharma's profits; hundred billion dollar bailouts for the very crooks who ran economy into the ground; an unconstitutional ‘execution by drone’ program; a dramatic expansion of Bush's wars of choice; and a Congress that has been bought and paid for by the lobbyists. But I fail to see the conspiracy behind any of these activities; it has been done in the open for all to see. I think that this just amounts to corrupt politicians, writing corrupt laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the US citizens.
Tarpley lists the connections between Obama and elitist organizations (Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderbergs, Tides Foundation and CFR) and analyzes the connections in conjunction with the legislation and policies that Obama pushes. Actions such as Obama’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline are indications of his allegiance to the elitists. The oil will get from Canada to US via one method or another. Without the pipeline, the oil will be shipped by rail. Warren Buffet and other elites own the railways and make an enormous profit by the transport of oil. The pipeline would be more efficient, less costly, create thousands of jobs and is better for the environment, but it doesn’t serve the elitist masters.
Tarpley’s book, ‘Obama: the postmodern Coup’, spends a great deal of time dissecting the Carter administration because Carter and Obama have one great commonality; Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski was the key advisor to Carter. He is also a key behind the scenes advisor to Obama. Zbigniew Brzezinski had supported Obama through Columbia and Harvard and influenced his foreign policy.
Enclosed is a quote from Tarpley’s, ‘Obama; the unauthorized biography’, “Obama was chosen, because his own desire to become someone embodied by a synthetic mythology of hope and unity that is betrayed by the policies of economic privation that he becomes the politically correct salesman to seduce and polarize Americans into the next phase of imperialism and economic fascism.”
The fascinating element about both of Tarpley’s books on Obama is that I could think of about a dozen conservatives who had written nearly identical books about Obama, including Jerome Corsi, David Maraniss, Aaron Klein and Jack Cashill.
With all of that said, I was amazed to find the hard core conservatives and Tarpley so united over their disdain for President Obama, the military industrial complex, foreign entanglements, Neocons, governmental/corporate collusion, elitist control, failed economic agenda and Wall Street bailouts. Apart from a few social issues, I think that they agree on more than they disagree.
Recent articles, interviews by Webster Tarpley.
http://www.voltairenet.org/auteur120022.html?lang=en
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/30/280875/syria-rebels-unleashed-genocide-machine/ (In this interview, Tarpley calls for the impeachment of Obama.)
I agree with only about 60% of Tarpley’s opinions, but it is certainly worth hearing.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Moses' Song (45)
- NSA wire tap (108)
- McCain and the terrorists (168)
- Power of the ballot box (50)
- The Raw Milk Debate (192)
- Congressional hearings (79)
- Israeli attack on Syria (101)
- The reserve currency (121)
- Who Is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? (185)
- The Boston tragedy (6)
- More The Engineering Perspective posts





37 Comments
MGarber - Feb 13, 2013 9:15 PM
Bernie Ziebart - Feb 13, 2013 11:45 PM
I don't agree with his politics, but every now and then he stumbles onto something. I don't disregard people's opinions because of past alliances or past beliefs. I think that people can develop over time.
I think that Tarpley is closer to the truth regarding Syria, the Arab Spring and Benghazi that anything that I have read in the mainstream media.
But Tarpley and his ilk are just a very small percentage of my news source. About 50% of my news comes from the London Telegraph, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Press TV, Chicago Tribune and Washington Times. 25% comes from the liberal fringe, including Huffpo, and Tarpley and the remainder is from more conservative sources.
From everything that I have read, Tarpley's account of the Benghazi incident has not been challenged. Of course, the NY Times still parrots the Obama rhetoric claiming that this was a spontaneous riot over some You Tube video. But the Times has denegrated itself down to the Enquirer level by becoming a propoganda tool.
Put it this way, the Tarpley explanation answers about 50% of my questions regarding Benghazi. The mainstream narrative answers 10% of my questions and the official administration talking points raise more questions than it answers.
MGarber - Feb 14, 2013 7:54 AM
Ditto for Larouche.
"..Tarpley's account of the Benghazi incident has not been challenged."
Neither has the claim about Obama walking on Mars as part of some spacewarp portal experiments.
Bernie Ziebart - Feb 14, 2013 9:00 AM
With the bits of information we know about the attack on Benghazi there are different accounts of this event:
White House: "Spontaneous riot over a YouTube video"
State Department: "At this point, what does it matter."
Tarpley: "The consulate was a covert operations base."
Which narrative answers the most questions?
Until our government stops treating us as sheeple and stops feeding us garbage that even the most die hard Kool-Aid drinkers can't swallow, there is no other option than to give the Tarpley explanation some credibility.
MGarber - Feb 14, 2013 9:38 AM
State Department: "At this point, what does it matter."
Tarpley: "The consulate was a covert operations base."
The 3rd explanation actually explains the 1st one.
"Until our government stops treating us as sheeple and stops feeding us garbage"
Its *always* been a delicate balance between the public's right to know, and national interests/secrets.
Bernie Ziebart - Feb 14, 2013 10:24 AM
I am not following your logic. Please explain.
I understand the delicate balance, but the White house did not handle this crisis with dignity or decently. This was botched so badly, people should have been fired or resigned in disgrace. There is no accountability in this administration.
MGarber - Feb 14, 2013 11:20 AM
It was a *covert* CIA operations base; they needed some kind of cover story, and the film protests fit perfectly. True, it was weak, and ill handled, but the only botching was in the dissemination of information. Trying to protect what the CIA were actually doing there (which we'll probably never know) wasnt what killed those 4 Americans.
So why *did* the compound get attacked??? What *did* the attackers know (or think they knew)?? I dunno, but I suspect it was (and still is) strongly in the national interest to make sure we didnt confirm or deny their suspicisions.
WFB resident - Feb 14, 2013 1:19 PM
Neither has the claim about Obama walking on Mars as part of some spacewarp
portal experiments."
who claims that the o walked on Mars ? lol... ohboy talk about not staying on topic
!!! lol...
Then this comment :"It was a *covert* CIA operations base; they needed some
kind of cover story, and the film protests fit perfectly. True, it was weak, and ill
handled, but the only botching was in the dissemination of information. Trying to
protect what the CIA were actually doing there (which we'll probably never know)
wasnt what killed those 4 Americans."
Where did you get your information garber ? Do you realize that the o is the
leader ? If so why do you wish to keep such a slimeball of a president (the o) in
office ? lol...
MGarber - Feb 14, 2013 1:50 PM
tml
Bernie Ziebart - Feb 14, 2013 5:09 PM
Obama's executive order 123283 is very similar to previous executive orders. But one of Obama's campaign issues was transparency.
geno53151 - Feb 14, 2013 6:52 PM
Flight time from New Your city to Benghazi on a commercial jet is 12 hours with top speed of 575MPH . The max speed of an F16 is 1500 MPH. Fron NY would be 4 hours. Having bases close to libya, possibly an hours flight away, why were they not dispatched????
Leon Panetta testified under oath Obama was briefed that the attack was taking place, he then went to bed without asking for further updates. Perhaps he had to get up early for a round of golf. I think the American people deserve an answer as to who gave the order to stand down. Apparently based upon your comments, you could care less.
Now state your excuses...........................
MGarber - Feb 14, 2013 7:03 PM
Its the claim of many others, not me.
"... the Embassy..."
it wasnt an embassy.
"... should have had more than normal protection."
It all depends on what was happening there, CIA wise. If you're running a covert operation, you probably dont want to bring in overdue attention to yourself. There might not have been much paperwork to protect.
"Apparently based upon your comments, you could care less."
Inasmuch as I VERY much care about national security, yes, I could care a whole lot less. But I dont. But if you care more about politicizing a bad incident than you do about protecting american interests, thats your business.
geno53151 - Feb 14, 2013 8:56 PM
Since you have claim to information we do not, what Government official said it, or do you believe anyone saying it was a CIA operation??
Since Panneta said Obama went to bed after only one briefing, National Security was not at risk. What was at risk was the 4 Americans who lost their lifes.
Political? I for one, as most Americans, care to know the truth. Are you afraid to learn who gave the orders to stand down?? How far up the chain of command did it go for someone to have the power to make that decision? Same person who signed off on Fast and Furious?
MGarber - Feb 14, 2013 9:52 PM
Fist of all, did you even read Bernie's topic?
Second of all : (for the 2nd time)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html.
BTW, Im not saying it positively happened this way, I wasnt there, but it IS a very possible scenario that makes more a LOT more sense that "Waaahhh, Obama hates America".