Thursday, August 27, 2015

Pat Buchanan Was Right – On the Iraq War, Abortion, Trade Deals and More

You can’t say he didn’t warn us.

Pat Buchanan, the conservative political commentator and former senior adviser to Ronald Reagan, warned against going to war for Kuwait.

He warned against the siren song of unfavorable trade deals. He warned against political correctness. And he warned against the evils of the abortion industry, among other things.

He wasn’t right about everything. But he was far more right than wrong, especially given the Bush family’s long record of abject failure, especially given the Washington establishment’s long record of abject failure.

Moreover, he warned against going to war in Iraq and was proven tragically right. The heartbreak is that so many young lives have been ruined in what was a counterproductive and needless foreign adventure.

Buchanan, who sought the Republican nomination in the ’90s, gave a speech in Houston in 1992 that was full of predictions. He predicted the “culture war for the soul of America,” the intolerance for Christians and the “with Bill you get Clinton and Clinton,” meaning two for the price of one. We are seeing this now in the sense that Hillary Clinton may be the next president of the United States.

Read the entire article

Tuesday, August 25, 2015


Since China devalued its currency 3 percent, global markets have gone into a tailspin. Why should this be?

After all, 3 percent devaluation in China could be countered by a U.S. tariff of 3 percent on all goods made in China, and the tariff revenue used to cut U.S. corporate taxes.

The crisis in world markets seems related not only to a sinking Chinese economy, but also to what Beijing is saying to the world; i.e., China will save herself first even if it means throwing others out of the life boat.

Disbelievers in New World Order mythology have long recognized that this new China is fiercely nationalistic. Indeed, with Marxism-Leninism dead, nationalism is the Communist Party’s fallback faith.

China has thus kept her currency cheap to hold down imports and keep exports surging. She has run $300 billion trade surpluses at the expense of the Americans. She has demanded technology transfers from firms investing in China and engaged in technology theft.

Read the entire article

Friday, August 21, 2015

Ankara: the New Capital of Jihad

Has US policy in Syria fallen prey to the political ambitions of one man, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan?

Certainly not. Washington has its own malignant agenda in Syria, which is to topple Syrian President Bashar al Assad, split the country into pieces, lock-down critical pipeline corridors, and establish a “Salafist principality” that will justify continued US intervention across the Middle East for the foreseeable future. These are the objectives of US policy and they haven’t changed because of anything Erdogan has done.

That’s not to say that Erdogan hasn’t complicated matters by requiring the US to play by Turkey’s rules.  He has. Just look at the Incirlik deal. In theory, it looks like a win-win for US war-planners who will now be able to cross into Syrian airspace in 15 minutes instead of the two hours it took from Bahrain. But the devil is in the details which suggest constraints on the US military’s ability to conduct its own campaign or even choose its own targets. Take a look at this excerpt from an article in Al Monitor:
“Turkey wants to open Incirlik not only to US warplanes but also to the aircraft of anti-IS NATO members France, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Canada. What Turkey wants to accomplish here is to affix NATO legitimacy to the operation by reinforcing the perception that operations against IS targets in Syria are part of a NATO mission.
Read the entire article 

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Scorecard on U.S. Interventionism

Since 9/11, the United States has flailed away and attacked or invaded at least seven Muslim countries. (I say "at least" because, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, American presidents now run secret overseas conflicts, including the latest drone wars, without public knowledge or the consent of their representatives in Congress.) Since U.S. (non-Muslim) military presence or intervention in Muslim countries was the original motivator for the 9/11 attacks, doubling down on a failed policy seemed a poor bet among many expert analysts, even during the period of hysteria after the attacks on the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

Of course, the U.S. government has never wanted to focus public attention on its own irresponsible conduct before 9/11, so politicians and government bureaucrats have always told the public that the terrorists attack us because of our "freedom" or because they are poor and jobless--neither of which stands up to objective analysis. Yet the American public, content to only cursorily examine the problem, is content to see it as an "us" versus "them" or "good" versus "bad" phenomenon, never wanting to believe that their government had been part of the original problem. In a democracy, that would then implicate public negligence in correcting the root of the disease: allowing the American governmental elite to conduct profligate and unneeded U.S. meddling into the affairs of Islamic countries.

So because we can't tread on this sensitive ground, how about just looking at the counterproductive results since 9/11 of escalated U.S. interventionism--more of the same that motivated the anti-U.S. Islamist terrorist attacks in the first place. The obvious place to start is Afghanistan. Instead of just blasting the central al Qaeda group, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, in Afghanistan and Pakistan and calling it a day, the United States decided it was going to pacify (and democratize) Afghanistan with a nation-building occupation. Never mind that the British failed to do this three times and the Soviets once very recently and that the last successful occupation of untamed and xenophobic Afghanistan was accomplished centuries before Christ by Cyrus the Great of Persia. But somehow, American politicians thought, the U.S. experience would be different. Not really.

Most of U.S. troops have now been withdrawn from Afghanistan, and the Afghan Taliban have just conducted multiple attacks on the capital of Kabul and have made inroads in the north--not a traditional Taliban area of strength. After more than a decade of fighting--costing more than 2,300 American lives, many more Afghan lives, and at least hundreds of billions of dollars--the United States lost the war and Afghanistan's future still looks bleak. The U.S. war in Afghanistan also destabilized the neighboring nuclear-armed state of Pakistan--perhaps the most dangerous country in the world--leading to the rise of the Pakistani Taliban and that group's attacking U.S. targets, including an attempted bombing of Times Square in New York.

Read the entire article

Monday, August 17, 2015

“Homegrown Terrorists”: New US Draconian Laws Usher in the New World Order

With his unprecedented number of oppressive executive orders bypassing both US Congress and constitutional rule of law, the ex-constitutional lawyer himself President Obama has become a bona fide dictator and traitor exercising tyranny over the people of the United States.

According to McLean and McMillan’s Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, essential features present in tyranny and dictatorship are that “the abuse of the state’s coercive force operates in the absence of rule of law” but instead by “rule of the tyrant’s arbitrary treatment of citizens if not by outright systematic use of terror.” The latter application using terror against the populace more accurately describes the evolution of US dictatorship from one criminal regime (Bush-Cheney’s) to Obama’s criminal regime. On marching orders from the globalists, through both the neocons remain in charge.

Clearly mounting evidence blatantly exists in recent years that demonstrate a totalitarian police state power in America. The systematic militarization of police state USA has used terror to recklessly and maliciously abuse its own citizenry, particularly those of color in cities across this nation. The soaring rate of militarized police deploying lethal force to willfully murder unarmed Americans, calculatingly cause growing racial tensions and civil unrest with near complete impunity reflects the growing contempt that agents of US government increasingly harbor against the very citizens they took oaths swearing to protect and serve. This police state phenomenon has unfolded in parallel process with elected government leaders who treasonously plot and destroy America despite taking oaths to both uphold and protect the Constitution and the nation from both foreign and domestic enemies.

While cold-blooded murder of US citizens is skyrocketing now (over 70 times of other Western nations), federal agencies across the boards not even remotely related to either law enforcement or the military have been buying up billions of rounds of bullets that upon impact tear the human body apart. What does that say about a government that has its postal service, Social Security Administration and Department of Game and Wildlife arming themselves to the hilt with brutally lethal weapons? The answer is pathetically obvious. The federal government has embarked on waging an all-out war against its own hapless, law abiding citizens.

Read the entire article

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Jade Helm Martial Law Forces Are Occupying Every Corner of America, Unprecedented Troop Movements

The martial law forces of Jade Helm are everywhere. In the United States, we are witnessing unprecedented troop movements. Some of the American people are becoming hyper vigilant as they know, from what they are seeing, that something is terribly wrong. The following is a small cross-section of what I receive everyday. The takeover of America well under way as the country sleeps its way through the major events and embraces the beginning of a new NFL season.

From Portland, Oregon to Portland Maine, Jade Helm Forces Are Preparing for the Final Crackdown

Slacker 614 sent me this original video of a massive shipment of medical, surveillance, equipment supply, and troop transport and mechanized fighting vehicles being transported through Union Station in Portland, Oregon.

This is typical of what is going on in our country on a daily basis. This is unprecedented, unwarranted, a drain on the American taxpayer and is ultimately very dangerous to the safety and security of every American.

From one Portland to another Portland, a local Maine newspaper details how Jade Helm military forces are training with local law enforcement in order to quell any “civil unrest”.

Read the entire article

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

The Republicans Need To Debate Foreign Policy

After the hysteria stirred up by the Islamic State lopping off a few heads in a faraway land, including those of a very small number of Americans, Republicans running for president fell all over themselves in beating the drums of war. That response was predictable, given public opinion polls that showed Americans, horrified from media stories about the beheadings, wanted something to be done about the group – as long as it didn’t involve heavy costs in blood and lives, a la Afghanistan or Iraq. Never mind that beheadings have also occurred in the U.S.-friendly countries of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Obama read the same polls and sent U.S. air power over Syria and send air and ground forces back into Iraq to battle the group without any congressional approval, as the Constitution requires.

Yet the Republican narrative of criticism, of course, has been that Obama somehow caused the rise of ISIS by doing too little rather than doing too much. In their minds, Obama should have enmeshed the United States earlier in the Syrian civil war by aiding "moderate" Syrian rebels and negotiated with then Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to leave a small number of U.S. troops in Iraq – even though George W. Bush also was unable to do so with an Iraqi leader dealing with his own population that was fed up with eight years of foreign occupation. Republicans love to forget that the Islamic State group sprang from al Qaeda in Iraq, which in turn had been created to fight George W. Bush’s idiotic invasion of Iraq. (This misadventure bore a striking similarity to U.S. military assistance to the Afghan mujahideen during the 1980s, which inadvertently led Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to eventually give us Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.) And providing arms and training to indigenous forces in the Middle East hasn’t gone well recently. The U.S.-trained Iraqi army fled the battlefield with the Islamic State on two major occasions, allowing the group to capture much sophisticated U.S. weaponry, Furthermore, the Pentagon trained a whopping 60 "moderate" rebel fighters in Syria and the CIA a few more, only to have both groups debilitated by an attack from al Nusra, the al Qaeda in affiliate in Syria.

With a track record of gross military incompetence during the two most recent presidential administrations of both parties, one would think politicians would be more leery of pulling the military trigger and making the Islamist jihadist threat worse, as the track record indicates has occurred. Unfortunately, the worse the American military does in combat, the more militarized American society becomes in singing the praises of a sclerotic and unimaginative bureaucracy. The country’s founders – most of whom were cognizant of America’s uniquely safe strategic position away from the world’s conflict zones and who were squeamish about even having a standing army in a republic – would be shocked and dismayed at modern day America’s conception of "patriotism."

Republicans always cite the founders’ vision much more than Democrats, but they usually omit the founders’ distaste of standing militaries and needless overseas wars. The one Republican candidate who did mention such niggling issues had been Rand Paul, but he then became so enamored with expanding his appeal that he started dancing with the many hawks in the party. He signed Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran interfering with and undermining the president’s constitutional responsibility to negotiate treaties with foreign countries and proposed a hefty hike in defense spending in exchange for cuts in U.S. foreign aid.

Read the entire article

Friday, August 07, 2015

The Brookings Institute Plan to Liquidate Syria

Here’s your US foreign policy puzzler for the day:  When is regime change not regime change?

When the regime stays in power but loses its ability to rule. This is the current objective of US policy in Syria, to undermine Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s ability to govern the country without physically removing him from office. The idea is simple: Deploy US-backed  “jihadi” proxies to capture-and-hold vast sections of the country thereby making it impossible for the central government to control the state. This is how the Obama administration plans to deal with Assad, by making him irrelevant.  The strategy is explained in great detail in a piece by Michael E. O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institute titled “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”. Here’s an excerpt:
“…the only realistic path forward may be a plan that in effect deconstructs Syria….the international community should work to create pockets with more viable security and governance within Syria over time… The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via special forces. The approach would benefit from Syria’s open desert terrain which could allow creation of buffer zones that could be monitored for possible signs of enemy attack. Western forces themselves would remain in more secure positions in general—within the safe zones but back from the front lines—at least until the reliability of such defenses, and also local allied forces, made it practical to deploy and live in more forward locations. 
Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL….
Read the entire article 

Wednesday, August 05, 2015

Washington’s Alliance With Syrian Jihadists

Remember when President Obama decided it was time to bomb Syria and was only stopped by a wave of widespread grassroots protest? After announcing his intent to bomb, Obama decided to seek congressional approval and go through the motions of asking permission – although reserving the right to do what he wanted in any event – perhaps because he realized the move would not be popular. And he was right about that: as congressional switchboards were overloaded with calls from outraged, war-weary citizens, one-by-one those members of Congress who were either on the fence or inclined to go along with the War Party changed their minds and defected to the Peace Camp. A broad coalition of anti-interventionist groups, including, was involved in the campaign against this new folly, and its success was a wonderful sight to behold – but that wasn’t the end of the story.

In a little-noticed move, the President has now authorized air strikes over Syria in support of Syrian rebels, as Bloomberg News reports:

“President Barack Obama has authorized the use of air power to defend U.S.-trained Syrian rebels if they come under attack from terrorist groups or the Assad regime, deepening the U.S. role against Islamic State forces in Syria.

“The broader US rules of engagement, approved July 31, came after rebels fighting Islamic State were attacked by the al-Nusrah Front, an al-Qaeda offshoot, in northern Syria, a US defense official said. The US provided close air support to protect the rebels and quash the attack, he said.

“While air strikes remain limited to Islamic State targets for offensive operations, they can now be used to defend US allies on the ground in Syria, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.”

Read the entire article