Posts Tagged ‘John McCain’
Guest Post: Is Obama Starting A War With Syria Just A Distraction From All The Scandals?
Friday, 14 June 2013 20:17
No Comments

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

Well, isn’t that convenient?  At the moment when the Obama administration is feeling more heat then ever before, it starts another war.  Suddenly everyone in the mainstream media is talking all about Syria and not about the IRS scandal, Benghazi, NSA snooping or any of the other political scandals that have popped up in recent weeks.

(Read more…)

As if on cue, Obama made headlines all over the globe on Thursday by claiming that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against the rebels “multiple times”, and that the U.S. was now ready to do more to assist the rebels.  That assistance is reportedly going to include “military support” for the rebels and a no-fly zone over at least part of Syria is being discussed.  Without a doubt, these are acts of war, and this conflict is not going to end until Assad has been ousted.  But Assad will not go quietly. 

And all it would take is for Assad to fire a couple of missiles at Tel Aviv for a huge regional war to erupt in the Middle East.  And what happens if Russia or China decides to get involved in the conflict in Syria?  Obama is playing with fire, but he has shown again and again that he is willing to do virtually anything if it will benefit him politically.

As far as the Obama administration is concerned, there is no such thing as a coincidence.  The timing of this announcement regarding Syria was not an accident.  If Obama wanted to use chemical weapons as an excuse to go after Syria he could have done it weeks ago, or he could have waited several more months before taking action.  He chose to do it right now for a reason, and hopefully the American people will be able to see right through this.

So exactly what are we going to be doing for the Syrian rebels?  Well, we will definitely be arming them and training them.  And it is probably reasonable to assume that there will be American “advisers” on the ground inside Syria helping to organize the Syrian resistance.  In fact, according to Debka, a large U.S. Marine force has already been deployed to the Jordanian border with Syria.

In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. aircraft may be involved in enforcing a no-fly zone inside Syria…

A U.S. military proposal for arming Syrian rebels also calls for a limited no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced from Jordanian territory to protect Syrian refugees and rebels who would train there, according to U.S. officials.

 

Asked by the White House to develop options for Syria, military planners have said that creating an area to train and equip rebel forces would require keeping Syrian aircraft well away from the Jordanian border.

 

To do that, the military envisages creating a no-fly zone stretching up to 25 miles into Syria which would be enforced using aircraft flown from Jordanian bases and flying inside the kingdom, according to U.S. officials.

No matter how you slice it, the United States is now in a state of war with Syria.  The only question is how “involved” we are going to get.

And several prominent Republicans are already rushing forward to applaud Barack Obama on this latest move.  The following comes from a CBS News report…

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who met with the rebels last month and has been a vocal critic of the president’s Syria policy said in a joint statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: “We appreciate the President’s finding that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on several occasions. We also agree with the President that this fact must affect U.S. policy toward Syria. The President’s red line has been crossed. U.S. credibility is on the line. Now is not the time to merely take the next incremental step. Now is the time for more decisive actions.”

But you know what?  Many of these Syrian rebels have actually pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda.

Yes, you read that correctly.

The whole point of the “war on terror” was to supposedly fight al-Qaeda, but now the U.S. military is allied with them.

Why in the world would we want to help the people who are supposed to be our greatest global enemy?…

A Syrian rebel group’s pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

 

The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.

 

Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has assisted al Nusra for some time.

 

“They provided them early on with technical, military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria,” Bakri says. “There will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups.”

This group of jihadists has been responsible for car and suicide bombings all over Syria, and they are the ones that have been doing the heaviest fighting on the front lines…

When the group Jabhat al Nusra first claimed responsibility for car and suicide bombings in Damascus that killed dozens last January, many of Syria’s revolutionaries claimed that the organization was a creation of the Syrian government, designed to discredit those who opposed the regime of President Bashar Assad and to hide the regime’s own brutal tactics.

 

Nearly a year later, however, Jabhat al Nusra, which U.S. officials believe has links to al Qaida, has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad.

 

Not only does the group still conduct suicide bombings that have killed hundreds, but they’ve proved to be critical to the rebels’ military advance. In battle after battle across the country, Nusra and similar groups do the heaviest frontline fighting. Groups who call themselves the Free Syrian Army and report to military councils led by defected Syrian army officers move into the captured territory afterward.

 

The prominence of Nusra in the rebel cause worries U.S. and other Western officials, who say its operations rely on the same people and tactics that fueled al Qaida in Iraq – an assertion that is borne out by interviews with Nusra members in Syria.

These are no “freedom fighters”.  In fact, if these guys take over they will be much worse than Assad.  These “rebels” recently massacred an entire villages of Christians, and just two days ago they slaughtered a 14-year-old boy for supposedly insulting Mohammed…

The rebels, according to ABC News’ reconstruction of the Syrian groups’ reports, appear to have whipped Qatta. When they brought him back to where they’d taken him, his head was wrapped by a shirt.

 

The rebels waited for a crowd to gather; Qatta’s parents were among them. Speaking in classical Arabic, they announced that Qatta had committed blasphemy and that anyone else who dared insult the Prophet Mohammed would share his fate. Then, the shirt still wrapped around the boy’s head, the rebels shot him in the mouth and neck.

Is this really who the U.S. government wants to be allies with?

Are we that stupid?

And guess what?  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Obama administration is considering plans to bring all of the poor “refugees” that are allied with these “rebels” to the United States…

Two years into a civil war that shows no signs of ending, the Obama administration is considering resettling refugees who have fled Syria, part of an international effort that could bring thousands of Syrians to American cities and towns.

 

A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families.

But now we are committed to this conflict thanks to Obama.

There will be no backing down until Assad is gone.

Of course this could create a huge regional war in the Middle East or even eventually lead to World War III, but Obama doesn’t seem to care.

For now, Obama is saving his own skin, and that is the most important thing to him.

    



 
Guest Post: The Terrible Future Of The Syrian War
Wednesday, 05 June 2013 21:28
No Comments

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

The last war America fought openly through proxy was the Vietnam War. The idea was not necessarily “new”; General Smedley Butler’s exposé on his career as a conqueror-for-hire, titled War is a Racket, uncovered a long history of bloodshed by U.S. government and corporate interests in third world countries designed to destroy sovereign nations and plunder their resources. (Read more…) This was done through the use of mercenaries for hire, military men acting covertly or guerrilla forces with a pre-existing agenda supplied through back channels.

After our defeat in Vietnam, our government set forth on a program of private warfare.  The “School of the Americas” was formed, also known as the School of Assassins, in Fort Benning, Georgia.  The combat academy churned out some of the most unstable monsters in third world politics.  The U.S. trained and conditioned agents for violent social change and military overthrow, who were then implanted around the world (mostly in Central and South America).  These agents then initiated war fever in the name of cementing U.S. interests around the globe.  Their horrifying methods were seen as a means to an end.

The sad and disturbing reality is that most wars fought by our country over the course of the past century have not been fought on principle. Instead, they have been fought for profit and for the consolidation of power and oligarchy.

Vietnam was a break in the tradition of secret puppet conflicts, sending the U.S. into the realm of openly admitted proxy. The establishment wanted the American people to know that we were supplying funding and weapons to the South Vietnamese nationalists, meddling in a civil war which had absolutely no bearing on U.S. international relations or domestic policy. The rationalization then was that America had to stop the spread of communism. Ironically, the communists of North Vietnam were a minimal threat compared to the elitist communists within our own borders sitting in positions of political power.

Ultimately, the Vietnam War had nothing to do with fighting communism, and everything to do with manipulating the public into accepting the concept of foreign intervention. That is to say, we were being conditioned to think of interventionism as a perfectly normal U.S. policy.

The war in Vietnam was achieved in stages. First, the U.S. aided then abandoned the government of Ngo Dinh Diem, who was assassinated during a military coup inspired partly by Diem’s despotic mistreatment of the Vietnamese populace. Money was then sent to cement the power of the military junta in the name of countering the rise of the communist North. Soon, weapons and heavy ordinance were being shipped to the South. Then, U.S. “advisors” were sent to train South Vietnamese soldiers.

Full intervention was successfully avoided by the John F. Kennedy Administration until his assassination, after which President Lyndon B. Johnson launched into a full-spectrum U.S. invasion which the mainstream referred to as a “police action.”  This invasion was facilitated by the “Gulf of Tonkin event”, which is now openly admitted by officials of the day, including Robert McNamara, as a false flag incident entirely fabricated by the U.S. government in order to engineer a validation for outright war.  Simultaneously, Chinese and Russian interests began supplying the North, though their involvement never officially led to boots on the ground.

I rehash this history because I think it is important to note that the Vietnam theatre seems to have been recycled in Syria today, though the cast of characters has been rearranged slightly. This time, the U.S. and Europe has supported the insurgency. The government of Bashar al-Assad has been cast as the “villain”. Russia and China are now playing the role of mediators and peacemakers, while the West now sends men like Senator John McCain to throw money and weapons into the hands of a rebellion permeated with members of Al Qaeda, who decapitate and eat the hearts of prisoners on video, and who, last time I checked, were supposedly our enemy.

The process and escalation of the conflict has been very similar to our adventures in Southeast Asia. Money has been openly sent to the rebels. Weapons have likely been covertly sent (evidence suggests that this program was perhaps a part of the reason for the Benghazi incident and subsequent cover-up). Now, certain parties within the U.S., Israel, and the EU have suggested open armament of the insurgency, while destabilization of the region is blamed on Assad by the Western media.  A false flag event seems to have already been fabricated in the form of a chemical weapons attack.  Samples of a particular Sarin gas incident have allegedly been collected by French journalists from the La Monde newspaper, and have been supplied to the UN.  The UN of course has identified the samples as Sarin and has immediately led the public to believe that the Syrian government was involved, though they have been forced to acknowledge that the insurgents may also have access to similar chemical weapons.  My question is, who the hell is La Monde?  Are we really supposed to believe that random embedded journalists with no agenda have supplied the UN with substantial proof of chemical weapons by the Assad regime?  Where are these samples?  Where were they taken?  Where is the proof that they were taken during a combat incident?  I smell an Iraqi setup special all over again…

In response to the accelerated armament of what many now consider an entirely fabricated revolution, Russia, Iran, and Lebanon have offered aid to Assad. Russia has supplied Syria with weaponry for years, though shipments have increased in recent months, including a new shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles which has infuriated Israel (Israel has claimed it has no intention to escalate, even thought it has twice used airstrikes within Syria’s borders — their anger over S-300 shipments only shows that they intend to continue such aggression).

Iran has a longstanding mutual defense pact with Syria and has stated that any further direct incursions by the West will result in Iranian involvement (though I think it likely that they are already involved sending arms and advisors of their own). Lebanon has supplied actual ground troops to Assad through Hezbollah. They are aiding the Syrian army in what appears to be a successful campaign against the insurgency. Hezbollah was very effective in repelling an invasion by Israel in 2006, causing the United Nations to step in to provide face-saving resolutions and an excuse for Israeli retreat. I believe their involvement in Syria will be a game changer.

I have been writing and warning about Syria’s potential as a catalyst for an expanded global war for years, long before most people had ever heard of Assad, and much of what I have predicted in the past is now coming true. Whether you believe the Assad regime is good or evil, it is important to realize that our government’s involvement in the region has nothing to do with Assad. This conflict is about setting off chain reactions in the Middle East, and, perhaps, even triggering a world war. You can read more about this in my article “Syria And Iran Dominos Lead To World War.”

Using Vietnam and other proxy wars as a reference, here is how I believe the war in Syria is likely to progress over the coming months:

  1. Heavy weapons will be supplied to the insurgency, including anti-aircraft weapons, leading to increased casualties, especially civilian casualties.
  2. Assad will respond with expanded and deadly airstrikes and ground troops will advance with the aid of Hezbollah.
  3. Iran will begin openly supplying arms, and step up covert supplies of advisors and ground troops.
  4. Russia will increase arms shipments even further, including anti-ship, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles in order to dissuade U.S. and Israeli interests from sending their own forces into the area.
  5. Syrian insurgents will begin losing ground quickly. The UN will offer to “mediate” a ceasefire, but this will only be designed to allow the insurgents time to regroup, and for the U.S., EU and Israel to position themselves for attack.
  6. The UN ceasefire talks will be a wash, if they even take place. Israel will begin regular airstrikes in the name of stopping Iran and Hezbollah from interfering in the war, or to stop them from obtaining “chemical weapons.” The strikes will be aimed at Syrian military facilities and Syrian infrastructure. There will be many civilian casualties.
  7. Syria will respond with ground to air and ground to ground missiles. Israeli cities will see far more precise targeting than the scud missiles used by Iraq during Gulf I and Gulf II. Civilian deaths will be much higher than expected, despite common claims that Israeli missile defenses are the most advanced in the world (Israel has never faced the threat of advanced Russian missile systems).
  8. A no-fly zone will be announced over Syria, enforced by U.S. and Israeli planes, along with anti-aircraft batteries.
  9. A violent attack will take place in Israel, likely against a civilian population center (I would not be surprised if chemical weapons are involved). The attack will be blamed on the Assad government, or affiliated allies. It might be a real attack or it might be a false flag. In either case, the result will be the commitment of Israeli ground troops.
  10. I think it highly probable that Israel will be the first Western country to invade Syria. However, their involvement will immediately draw a declaration of war from Iran, and, increased ship movements from Russia, which maintains a strategic naval base off the coast of Tartus.
  11. Israel will be swallowed up in a strategic quandary, and will demand U.S. military action. The U.S. will supply that action. Combat will spread into cross-border battles in countries not directly engaged in the fight (as it did in Cambodia during Vietnam).
  12. China will respond with economic retaliation, dumping the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. Russia will respond by reducing petro-product exports to Europe and staging a massive naval presence in the region. From this point, all bets are off…

Now, the temptation here is for one to immediately take sides and to look at this conflict through the lens of “East vs. West.” This would be a mistake. The Syrian government has in the past acted in tyrannical fashion (though much of the latest accusations appear to be propaganda designed to lure the American public into rallying around another war).

Russia is just as restrictive an oligarchy as the U.S. or the EU. China’s society is a communist nightmare state and the average globalist’s aspiration for what they want America to become one day. Iran has many oppressive policies and is certainly not the kind of country I would ever want to live in. The Syrian insurgency is a mixture of immoral and unprincipled death squads and paid covert wet-work agents. The U.S. government is immorally supplying the cash and weapons for them to operate in the name of fighting the same kind of tyranny that is being instituting here at home.

The point is, there are no “good guys” in this story. There are no heroes; only the insiders, the outsiders, and the general public. It has been the habit of the public to ignore most past proxy wars and then flip on the patriotism switch during the rare occasions that American troops are actually deployed. Given time for adequate contemplation (as well as significant American losses), the citizenry eventually turns sour against the paradigm and demands a change. This time, however, there may be no time for such contemplation. I believe that any forward ground action in Syria on the part of the U.S. or Israel will result in a very fast moving global war.

Such a war would seem like insanity, but it serves a vital purpose for certain special interests. It would provide perfect cover for a global economic crash which is about to occur anyway, except in the midst of war, international bankers can divert blame away from themselves. It would provide a rationalization for overt domestic security and the reduction of civil liberties in the name of public safety. It would allow an excuse for a government crackdown on activist groups, who can be labeled “traitors” who aid the enemy simply by speaking ill of government policy. It would give credence to the ideology of globalization and centralized governance. The elites could claim that sovereignty must be erased and all nations must come together under a single banner so that such a “terrible catastrophe” will never happen again.

The war in Syria will not be about Syria. It will not be about the freedom of the people. It will not be about dethroning Assad or establishing democracy. It will not be about defusing violence in the region. Syria will not be the target; we will be the target — our society, our rights, our nation.

America is in the middle of the most insidious consolidation of power in history and Syria is merely a stepping stone in the game. If we cannot maintain our vigilance and allow ourselves to be sucked into the proxy war façade, the elites will get their global conflict with little to no home opposition. The globalists will win, and everyone else will lose.

    



 
Guest Post: It’s Not About Obama…
Wednesday, 29 May 2013 22:09
No Comments

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution gained general victory against the empire’s sovereign, Czar Nicholas Romanov II, a monarchal ruler widely considered despotic and inhumane in his treatment of the Russian citizenry.  After the dethroned Romanov family was summarily executed by former members of the military, the Bolshevik rampage continued against the remnants of the “White Russians”, culminating in a bloody civil war.  In the minds of the common populace, the communist propaganda was legitimate.  The people had been terribly oppressed, and the world war in Europe was draining any hope of prosperity they had left. (Read more…)  The Russians were ready for an abrupt and even violent change in their political leadership. 

However, unbeknownst to them, a great upheaval was about to be supplied for them.  Their anger and rage, their revolutionary spirit, was about to be exploited to produce vast gains for international interests and create a massive experiment in collectivist tyranny that would span decades and claim millions of innocent lives. 

That’s right, in case you’ve never read a real history book with concrete facts, the Russian revolution was an almost entirely fabricated event.  International financial interests, known today as “globalists” with no patriotic ties to any particular nation, supplied the funding, the philosophy, and even the leadership of the Bolshevik uprising against Nicholas II:

 

 

Now, does this mean I support the tyranny of czarism?  No.  Does this mean I support the despotic actions of the Romanov dynasty?  No.  My point is that an immoral government was used by globalists to rally the downtrodden people around an even more immoral and destructive government which the money men had full control over.  The elitists gauge the revolutionary fervor of a particular society, and, when they believe the time is ripe, they co-opt that revolution by installing their own leadership and creating their own events. 

In my view, the American Revolution was a startling wake up call for the globalists.  The concept of centralized monarchy and godlike rulers was dead.  Common people were ready to fight for the right to participate in their own political systems, and as the American patriots proved, they could win.  The elites responded, cleverly, with events like the French Revolution.  They tested the waters for public discontent, then, manhandled revolutions into being when the moment was right.  If a revolt was about to occur, fine; as long as the globalists controlled the outcome, revolution could serve their interests.    

This strategy is used even today.  One merely need examine the escalation of the so-called “Arab Spring” to see that globalists manipulate legitimate social anger over legitimate oppression in order to create a rebellion that they can dictate.  The destabilization of Syria being perhaps the most blatant act of fabricated insurgency by international financiers in history.

Though brutal and bloody, revolution is actually a very natural human act of balance which counters the unnatural and engineered functions of centralization.  Human beings are not meant to be “ruled”.  The spirit of individualism, inherent in every person from the moment of birth, strikes hard against the visible construction of any cage.  We are designed to rebel.  It is a fact of our existence. 

Only an oblivious fool would try to deny that America is on the verge of revolution today.  Public discontent politically, socially, and economically, is at an apex not seen in decades.  The White House under the presidency of Barack Obama is in a shambles, sweltering in a sweaty sauna of corruption and scandal.  The revelation of Nixon’s Watergate is a joke compared to the Benghazi conspiracy of covertly funded Syrian insurgency and false flag treason against a U.S. diplomat, the IRS persecution of conservative opposition, the wiretapping and privacy invasion of mainstream journalists, the admission of assassination initiatives against American citizens, etc, etc.  Truly, whether you consider yourself on the “right”, or the “left”, if you have any sense of conscience or honor, Barack Obama is a monster of epic proportions.

That said, I challenge you to question whether or not Obama is the real danger, or just a boogeyman being used to control YOUR sense of rebellion?  

The American citizenry is ready to snap.  I can feel it, and I think many others out there can feel it too.  A fight is inevitable.  The question is, what will be the form of that fight, and who will ultimately determine the outcome?  There is a lot of talk in the Liberty Movement today concerning “solutions” which I believe, according to historical reference, are perfect examples of controlled opposition.  After several years working in the movement, I’ve heard it all…

Military Coup

The idea of military coup against the Obama Administration is alluring for several reasons.  For one, it comforts those people who fear personal sacrifice or direct conflict.  There are many out there, even in the Liberty Movement, who are desperate to avoid confrontation.  They don’t want to lose their property, they don’t want to lose their job security, they don’t want to enter into combat, and they certainly don’t want to lose their lives in the process.  These fears are understandable, but ultimately irrelevant.

The military coup concept feeds into the apprehensions of the common activist by giving them a false “way out”.  If “patriotic” generals within the military rise up against the Obama regime and wrest power from its clutches, then average citizens will be spared the heartbreak and terror of fighting for themselves.  They will not have to devise their own strategies, their own structures, or their own end solutions.  They merely have to sit back, allow military factions to defeat the “evil usurper”, and then enjoy whatever government the leaders of the coup devise.  Surely, anything would be better than to continue under the rule of a communist thug…

I would point out, however, that this is NOT what the Founding Fathers did, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful.  Revolutionary leadership was maintained by citizens, not a cadre of military elites, and the aftermath of victory was managed by those chosen by the people to lead, not those chosen by generals. The war was fought by regular men, living regular lives, in support of beloved families.  It was exactly because those men had everything to lose that they were driven so completely to succeed.  They were fighting for their homes, and their principles.  Not for political power. 

I would also point out that most military brass hold views consistent with Neo-Conservative or even Neo-Liberal ideologies, both of which are slightly different versions of the same globalist religion.  They may preach to us about their grand designs for freedom, but in reality, many of them are seeking to co-opt our resolve and use it to foment a controlled and homogenized uprising that will end in the same tyranny that we originally hoped to defeat.     

A military coup is not a silver bullet solution to our problems.  It may appear to be easier, but there will never be true freedom for any of us without tangible sacrifice.  This battle is ours.  Beware of anyone who strolls out of nowhere and offers to fight it for you.

March On Washington D.C.

Our problems will not be solved by military coup exactly because Barack Obama is not the primary source of our problems.  He is a middle-man, a mascot, a salesman for the collectivist dictatorship, and nothing more.  Getting rid of him in the wrong way will only exacerbate our dilemma. 

Because our fight is with a globalist element that uses government as a tool, rather than a seat of power, removing one abusive president will change nothing.  This is why the “March on Washington” idea is strategic idiocy at its most dangerous and cliché.  I can’t tell you how many times over the years I have heard chest beating activists wail in anger, wondering “why, oh why!” we don’t all simply “take up arms” and march to the capital.  Well, here are few good reasons…

First, how many successful revolutions began with a march on a government center?  I can’t think of any.  But, I can think of a few military campaigns that were thwarted by dumb marches led by thoughtless leaders.  What about the battles of Lexington and Concord, in which Lt. Colonel Francis Smith of the British Army under the direction of General Thomas Gage led 700 regulars into a wasp’s nest of colonials who proceeded to wipe them out and fully launch the revolution with the American people clearly established in the eyes of the world as the defenders, and the British as the aggressors? 

What about the ill conceived Confederate march on Fort Sumter which painted them as dangerous aggressors against the North, haunting the southern campaigns throughout the Civil War, and has even been partly attributed as a reason for their eventual defeat?

What about the hubris driven march of George Armstrong Custer, right into the mouth of enemy territory, on ground which the enemy was vastly more familiar, and against a force of far greater strength?  That didn’t end so well either…

No one with any legitimate combat sense would ever suggest that a REVERSE Lexington is a good idea for the Liberty Movement today, and, no one with any understanding of asymmetric warfare would condescend to lead thousands of patriots into D.C., into what amounts to an elongated kill box, or an immediate surrender.  The message sent during such a campaign would be “hey, we’re gullible, please kill us”, or, “hey, we’re pansies, please take our weapons and lock us away without a fight”.  In either case, we lose, and all in the name of an ill conceived attack on a bunch of paid cronies and a puppet president, rather than the men behind the curtain.  Dumb.  Very dumb…         

Rely On Opposing Party Leadership

The Republican Party is an embarrassment to many conservatives, but not for the reasons that should be most embarrassing.  Sadly, many Americans only care about belonging to the “winning side”, rather than the right side.  Currently, Republican excuses for consistent losses revolve around the fantasy of “changing demographics” and “a disconnection from the more moderate and liberal public”.  These scapegoats have nothing to do with the disintegration of the Republican Party. 

In truth, the Republican establishment continues to degrade not because it does not appeal to some imaginary growing faction of budding American socialists, but because it no longer appeals to conservatives and constitutionalists.  The Neo-Con leadership of the backwards party continuously supports nearly identical legislative actions to the hated Obama paradigm.  Unfortunately, there are still some naïve people out there who hope against hope that the GOP will rise up and defeat the Democratic stronghold, all while the GOP openly energizes Democratic policies.

Consider that both Republicans and Democrats strong armed the American public into massive banker bailouts which have so far produced no real jobs, and no tangible recovery, but have created perhaps the largest stock bubble the world has ever seen.

Consider the “Safe Act” legislation of New York, which imposes draconian restrictions on the 2nd Amendment; long held as a Republican line in the sand.  Yet, 11 Republicans voted YES in line with Democrats to pass the bill.

Consider that many Neo-Con Republicans attacked the filibuster against anti-gun rights legislation in the Senate as if the move was “outlandish”.

Consider that the wire tapping of the Obama Administration is merely an extension of the wire tapping used by the Bush Administration under FISA and the Patriot Act. 

Consider the expansion of executive assassination and rendition powers under the NDAA, which are widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

Consider that the AUMF, the resolution which is often used to justify the further passage of NDAA provisions for treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants”, was established under George W. Bush, and is defended to this day by many Republicans despite the abuses of Barack Obama. 

Consider that provisions within the latest immigration legislation that call for biometric ID’s as well as tracking of U.S. citizens are supported by both Democrats and Republicans. 

Consider that John McCain, often labeled a “die-hard Republican” and hero to islamophobes everywhere, has now personally visited with Syrian insurgents openly working with Al Qaeda to overthrow the Assad government.  These are the same insurgents that have been accused of false flag chemical weapons attacks which were then blamed on Assad, and the same insurgents that have a penchant for severing the heads and eating the raw hearts of their prisoners in front of video cameras.  For all the talk of Obama being secretly supportive of Islamic terrorism, the Republicans seem to be just as friendly. 

I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear; there is no light at the end of the election tunnel in the Republican Party.  The Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs have the same objective, total centralization and the dissolution of U.S. sovereignty.  Both parties are merely continuing the perpetual game of good-cop vs. bad-cop, switching roles every decade or so to keep the public confused and dependent on the system rather than enforcing their own solutions.  Barack Obama is nothing more than a fulcrum point – a useful piece of leverage meant to push Americans from one fake initiative to the next, or to divide us completely.  Our fight is not with Obama, it is with ALL globalists who obstruct our liberty, regardless of what party they are affiliated with.  If we allow the debate, and the battle, to be framed around the superficial Obama presidency, then we have allowed ourselves to be co-opted, and any revolutionary action we take afterwards will end exactly like the fabricated Bolshevik rebellion; it won’t mean a damn thing.