A Voice From The Past: General Smedley Butler Speaks Outstandingly

By 1933 corporate America was firmly established in the UNITED STATES of America, corporate ideology had already begun to supplant the ideals of free market commerce and trade (capitalism). This should be keep in mind as you read General Butler's comments regarding corporate racketeering.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." 

Semper Fidelis

Obama Wants A Third Term: Declare War!

Anyone who has been following the Fix America blog knows that Obama wants to remain in office and finish the destruction of the United States. He knows that he cannot do so legally, but based on all of his actions to date, that hasn't stopped him.

Congress has on occasion made a lot of noise, but a resolution to impeach has yet to be brought up. It's almost as if Congress is afraid to test him. And that should bother all Americans.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putina invades Crimea and Obama is gathering warlords of NATO. We all know now how well he has handled Iran, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. And in case it has been buried in all of the other 'phony scandals' that seem to follow this phony person occupying the White House, this is the man who told outgoing Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, “Let me get reelected first, then I’ll have a better chance of making something happen. On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Yes, Russian Prime Minister and President-elect Vladimr Putin wanted assurances that US/NATO missiles would not be deployed in Poland and targeted at Russia. Just so he could do what he has done without a chance that NATO could respond quickly and decisively. Besides, how else could Obama get Congress to declare war and remain in office?

To some this may seem like a far-fetched conspiracy theory. But then when you see names like Soros, IMF, bargaining for control of Ukraine by way of economic aid (loans) and using Crimean gas/oil as the collateral, it is easy to understand why Russia is willing to move militarily to secure the fuel resources and their own economy.

I guess we will all know if I am right or not in the next few weeks and months. It seems like a more pressing issue than other distractions in the privately-owned major media blitzkrieg of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 and the deadly mudslide in Washington State. Although the recent arrests of Democratic politicians did get me to raise an eyebrow a few times over morning coffee.

Ukraine: Freedom or Serfdom?

While most of the news is focused on the missing Malaysian flight 370, and the Russian Federation taking control in the Crimean region of Ukraine, we are being bombarded with rhetoric from our government about how Vladimir Putin is violating international law and the constitution of the Ukraine.

There are many mysteries to be uncovered regarding the missing plane, but very few regarding why Putin did what he did, and where he really stands. Yes, he is formerly Soviet KGB, and generally a pretty tough character. But his is neither arrogant nor stupid. Russia's Gasprom has vested interest in Crimea, and the Ukraine's economic problems have placed Russian interests in jeopardy. Ukraine was being swooned by NATO and the IMF, as allies and debtors to the banking cartel. And the fuels that flow through the Crimea were surely the only decent collateral that the Ukrainian government could offer for massive loans.

It really is hard for me to agree with my own representatives when they seem to think that I am dumb enough to buy the rhetoric of war mongers. I have not witnessed a war in my lifetime that was in direct defense of our liberty or our lands. What I have witnessed is a government that has systemically moved to a socialist oligarchy that these political pinheads have duped most Americans into believing is progress.

This isn't partisan war mongering. John McCain and now John Boehner have both publicly condemned Russia and support 'sanctions' against Russia. Russia is securing its pipeline and fuel resources from the banking cartel of the west. Good for him. But the 'free' press in American will not present that point of view. No, that doesn't fit in with the agenda of the globalist bankers.

As I was about to close down for the night and enjoy some music, I noticed a news article claiming that Barack Obama has issued yet another unconstitutional executive order claiming the right to seize the assets of anyone (including American citizens whether here or abroad) if he 'thinks' you may be supporting the Russians.

Well, I am an American, a patriot, and a liberty-loving, Constitution carrying member of no party, and I commend any president who has the intestinal fortitude to stand against the takeover of the natural resources and economy of a nation by placing it in debt to the IMF. Maybe Obama needs to give his Nobel Peace prize to Putin?

Perhaps we need an Icelandic revolt against the banks to get our economy back on track. Along with changes in Washington so we can get back to a constitutionally limited, representative republican system of governance. And stop being the police force for the globalists.

Now that I got that off my chest, I'll sleep better.

Reference:

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf/oppose

Two Americas Tied in a Bow

"In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, read his 'Two Americas' response to Barry Soetoro's/Obama speech on 'Income inequality'":

Two Americas

by Bob Lonsberry,

December 9th, 2013

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal. The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibility have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college - and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education. You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow."

Two Americas post from:  http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=3651&go=4

Income Inequality speech text from:  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/obama-income-inequality-100662.html#ixzz2too6EJSA  as provided by The White House

Red Lines in The White House, Or Stirring A Pot of Lies - Part 3

Because of the politically appointed and strategically placed democratic socialists (read as Marxist communists), the same government side show barkers and shills (Susan Rice of Mohammad MOVIE FAME and a newer player Samantha Power) are trying to sell an agenda based in lies, False Flag Actions, and political loyalty to the person occupying the White House and are barking for war. The Secretary of State, John Kerry (relying on information regarding the chemical weapon attack from a paid advocate and lobbyist for the extremist rebels (think Al Qaeda)), who has intimated an incredibly small action, which if anything, what-so-ever, unfolds poorly will begin anything from full scale warfare to World War III.




This current cadre of self serving criminals are all under the control of extra territorial entities. The CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Builderberg Group (Esteemed Readers may just remember Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barry Soetoro/AKA BHO rode together in a Limousine to the Bilderberg Group meeting at Chantilly Virginia.)

Backing up this carnival of ineptitude and negligence, Hillary Clinton former disgraced Secretary of State (because of the Benghazi debacle {dead ambassador, dead seal team members, dead un-named people} no one held to account for any action or inaction, except a few suspended government scapegoats who are now happily back on the government payroll, survivors (having had their names changed and being relocated all over the country with federal gag orders in effect) who admits the CFR controls some actions within this puppet administration.


     
CFR was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, a Marxist! The CFR elite, (like George H. W. Bush, Willard Mittington Romney, John Kerry, William Jeffreson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Diann Feinstein, Alan Greenspan and others) those on the top, who control the International Bankers for control of the entire world. Their agents are bred, educated, and trained to be placed behind the scenes at all levels of government. As experts and advisers, they mold government policy so as to further the plans of their masters. They lure people away from God by offering them money, the world, the flesh.

The elite use all peoples to serve their New World Order purposes. They divide to conquer, supplying arms and money to both sides, inciting people to fight and kill each other, in order to be able to achieve their objectives. they foster the terrorism of atomic warfare and deliberately cause world famine. The primary goal of CFR is to form a one world government to have complete control of the entire world, destroying all religions and governments in the process.

As the esteemed Reader may recall the only officials to suffer the aftermath of the debacle as Michael Savage reported, "There are reports that two high-ranking military officers, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette and General Carter Ham, were fired by Obama for wanting to come to the assistance of the beleaguered U.S. missions in Benghazi."  

Tod Beamon reported, "Benghazi whistle-blower Gregory Hicks has been demoted to a desk job for speaking out on the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks at the U.S. post in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, his attorney said." Newsmax reported, "He was offered a choice: no job or a job that doesn't mean anything," attorney Victoria Toensing told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV. "It's a desk job."

Gregory Hicks

After reading and understanding the lead in article, parts 1 and 2, the esteemed readers may wonder just who are we giving aid to and why?  Is the ongoing series of wars or interventions ever going to end?  What you may ask, is this really all about?  These Middle East region countries, because of the rigid religious rule, will never accept even limited democracy. They continue to kill or execute whoever just happens to get in the way and everyone who does not have the same beliefs.


Is all this carnage being carried out to create a new caliphate for Muslim extremists?

Are the correct questions being posed?  Are there any other reasons that might explain a larger picture?

Could there be a much different reason for destabilizing the Middle East?  The esteemed readers may have asked themselves these questions and others. 

Red Lines In The White House, or Selecting The Truth - Part 2

There is a cause for John Kerry's and John McCain's brain dead position on just how moderate the rebel force is in Syria, which is made up of more than seventy factions. 

"The woman whose opinion lawmakers are relying on to go to war in Syria is also a paid advocate for the war-torn country’s rebels.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged members of the House of Representatives to read a Wall Street Journal op-ed by 26-year-old Elizabeth O’Bagy, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War, who asserted that concerns about extremists dominating among the Syrian rebels are unfounded.

“Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and Al Qaeda die-hards,” O’Bagy wrote for the Journal on Aug. 30. “Moderate opposition groups make up the majority of actual fighting forces,” she wrote.

But in addition to her work for the Institute for the Study of War, O’Bagy is also the political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a group that advocates within the United States for Syria’s rebels, a fact that the Journal did not disclose in O’Bagy’s piece.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, O’Bagy said that despite her title as the group’s political director, she is paid as a contractor.

She insisted that she is not involved in the political lobbying that SETF does. “They kind of have two departments within the Task Force — one focused on working with the government on the Hill on advocacy and then the other working inside Syria and directly implementing government contracts,” she said.

O’Bagy’s relationship with SETF is a serious conflict of interest, according to David Reaboi, vice president for strategic communications at the Center for Security Policy.

“While there’s been a lot of worthwhile effort to expose activists considered pro-Assad or pro-Hezbollah — or, at least, to consider their analysis as coming from an interested party — O’Bagy seems to pass herself off as an impartial observer of the situation. Her access to Congress, intelligence services and to think tanks should be regarded as what it really is, which is a reflection of the Syrian rebels’ cause and aspirations,” Reaboi said.

In speaking with The DC, O’Bagy regularly insisted that she was not a salaried employee of SETF, but a paid contractor acting in an advisory role.

“I’m the political director and aid coordinator, and that’s my official title at the organization, but that’s mostly because it provides me an opportunity to engage on humanitarian issues and to be a part of some of these larger government contracts going to humanitarian aid,” O’Bagy said.

The Foreign Policy news site reported in June that SETF “boasts extensive contacts with rebel commanders” and “spent months lobbying Congress, the State Department and the White House for everything from small arms to anti-tank and and anti-aircraft weapons to body armor to advanced communications equipment for the rebels.”

O’Bagy is quoted in the Foreign Policy piece saying that the Obama administration’s June decision to openly arm Syrian rebels didn't go far enough. ”Small arms and ammunition really only get you so far against airplanes,” she said then.

Kerry and other lawmakers (including Sen. John McCain) have relied on O’Bagy’s assessments while calling for an American military intervention in Syria. McCain even traveled with O’Bagy to Syria in May.

“A woman by the name of Elizabeth Bagly, B-A-G-L-Y, just wrote an article,” Kerry said in congressional testimony Wednesday (spelling O’Bagy’s name wrong)“she works with the Institute of War. She’s fluent in Arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition and studying Syria. She just published this the other day. Very interesting [Wall Street Journal] article, which I commend to you.”

“I just don’t agree that a majority are Al Qaeda and the bad guys,” Kerry concluded.

Kerry made the same argument before the Senate on Tuesday.

“The opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation,” Kerry told Sen. Ron Johnson, “more defined by the breadth of its membership and more defined by its adherence to … an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution, which will be broad-based and secular.”

But on Thursday morning, Reuters called out Kerry’s — and by extension, O’Bagy’s — assessment as “at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.”

In December, O’Bagy opposed the Obama administration’s attempts to designate Al Nusra — a powerful Syrian rebel group — as a terror organization because of its ties to Al Qaeda.

“I’m not saying they aren't a terrorist group. But given the circumstances and given their cooperation with the opposition as a whole, designating them now would be disastrous,” O’Bagy said to McClatchy newspapers in December 2012.

In April 2013, Al Nusra pledged loyalty to Al Qaeda.

O’Bagy told The DC that she had opposed the terrorist designation because she feared it would damage the rebellion against Bashar al Assad’s dictatorship.

“The point that I was trying to make in terms of Al Nusra being designated a terrorist organization was that at the time they had been embraced to a large degree by certain aspects of the population and they were very much seen as fighting for the cause,” she said. “I knew that designating them as a terrorist organization would have a very radicalizing impact on the ground. I wasn't sure if that trend could be reversed. I was terrified that this could be an irreversible process of radicalization.”

O’Bagy told The DC that she was wrong to consider Al Nusra anything but a terror group.

“I can admit when I’m wrong. In many ways Al Nusra has revealed its true face and many see it as a foreign influence and an outside group… Designating them a terrorist group has helped empower more moderate groups,” she said.

But O’Bagy blames the United States’ lack of support for the increased role of such Al Qaeda affiliated groups.

The “failure of America to help the Syrian people” is what is “pushing” Syrian rebels “into the arms” of extremists, she said.

“If the moderate forces are going to be successful, if they are going to maintain their ability to leverage any sort of influence, then they need to be supported and they need to be empowered. If they are not able to respond to these attacks, the rebels [will join the extremists who] are better resourced, better equipped, actually willing to respond directly to these chemical weapons attacks,” O’Bagy said."
by Charles C. Johnson

Considering the source, to whom these and other government officials are relying on for sound information, a paid lobbyist for planes, tanks, weapons, and body armor for extremist Al Qaeda off shoot groups, is the last person, if at all, to who anyone should be listening. This is but one example of the type of mental ineptitude displayed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain.   

However, according to others who actually have been on the ground in Syria and have talked with the people still living there and people in refugee camps, The Free Syrian Army, which is made up of jihadi radical extremists from other countries, raped, murdered, and burned homes to the ground until the majority of the decent people fled the country.




End Part 2

Reference Links:

Woman informing Kerry, McCain’s opinions on Syria also an advocate for Syrian rebels
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/woman-informing-kerry-mccains-opinions-on-syria-also-an-advocate-for-syrian-rebels/#ixzz2e9F2tvvW

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/05/woman-informing-kerry-mccains-opinions-on-syria-also-an-advocate-for-syrian-rebels/#ixzz2e9FcptGF

Syria: Nobel Peace Laureate Tells Her Account of What She Witnessed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msA35ATXol8

Red Lines In The White House, or WAR For Peace - Part 1

The Nobel Peace Prize recipient occupying the White House, at least when he is not playing golf or God or raising campaign funds, has once again shown his stripe and color which is not red, white and blue, is writing executive orders and about to commit US military assets to begin yet another costly war and attack Syria. A nation which has not aggressed the United Sates. 

Alleged American military troops who are against breaking their oath to defend the United States and fight a unilateral offensive action or war in Syria have posted across the Internet. The reason for the posts, that they would be fighting with and for the same extremist terrorists who are busy killing fellow soldiers throughout the Middle East, is well grounded in fact. They would be fighting for and with Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, the same groups of terrorists who were involved in the Benghazi debacle. It should be correct and is right that all Americans must oppose an attack on a nation that is embroiled in a religious civil war.

"On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom. Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all."

"Former US congressman Ron Paul has said that a reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups.

Washington has accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack against militant strongholds on August 21, and is preparing for what it calls a retaliatory military response. 

“We are not really positive who set off the gas,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday. 

“The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” he noted. 

Paul said that the case for a military intervention in Syria resembles the scenario used prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when the US accused the Saddam Hussein regime of having an active “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) program. The intelligence was later discredited. 

“Just look at how many lies were told us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” he stated. “I think it’s a false flag. I think really, indeed,” Paul said, referring to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The US released an intelligence report on Friday claiming the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation. 

On Saturday, President Barack Obama, who had previously described the use of chemical weapons as a “red line”, announced that he had decided Washington should attack Syria. The president, however, said he would seek congressional approval for an attack." by HJ/HJ 

The Chemical weapon attack, the Obama administration has used against Bashar Al-Assad’s forces to justify a new war in Syria, is just another lie coming from the administration. One of an uncountable number of prevarications of the truth used by this criminal administration in order to carry out the destabilization of the Middle East in order to carve out an area for an Al Qaeda Nation. The number of deaths are not important to Obama and his minions:  he has already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands all over the world. The illegal administration will have its way at any price. Syrian Jabhat al-Nusra rebels, an Al-Qaeda offshoot, in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta are responsible for the Chemical weapon attack. This new information (linked below) is now an unquestionable fact. 

False Flag Operations and Operations of Misdirection are being used against multiple targets "Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day that our exclusive high level military Intel revealed to us that nuclear warheads were being shipped to South Carolina from a major Texas air force base under an ‘off the record’ black ops transfer." as reported by Anthony Gucciardi and Alex Jones (linked below)

John Kerry wants a House resolution of war worded in such a way which allows for ground troops in an attack on Syrian soil. Mr. Kerry, after attending extensive meetings given by expert people who were on the ground in Syria, refuses to believe the rebels are the same groups of terrorists who were involved in the Benghazi debacle. It is not clearly understood just who make up the factions, except that they are religious fanatics committed to killing anyone having different beliefs. The Head of the U.S. State Department is displaying unsound judgement based in faulty logic which relies on a refusal to understand basic facts and truths and is completely detached from reality. 

The American people, according to various polls, who approve of this costly open ended military action is hovering poorly around eleven percent (11%), which of course means, of those polled, eighty nine percent (89%) disapprove of any involvement in Syria. The person occupying the White House where red lines abound is unwilling to take any responsibility for his instigation and blames inaction on anyone he can call on the telephone.

Anyone in Congress who supports such an action displays their weakness of moral fortitude and mental ineptitude to reason, especially when Democratic loyalties are given as the foundation for support which are blatantly political in nature, instead of the principles and concepts held within the Unanimous Declaration and the Constitution. If Congress or the person occupying the White House commits troops to battle when there are no apparent attacks or threats of any kind directed against America or American interests, their action is not sane. Any action taken, simply because of atrocities committed in the Middle East, is not a valid constitutional reason to declare war and send American troops into harms way. 

The price of this proposed action will be more lives in ruin and heaps of dead people and a further destabilization of the Middle East region. The cost of this action's opening shot has been estimated at two billion dollars;  however, if the action lasts more than a week or two no one is sure of the figure. The esteemed Fix America readers may recall the 900 billion dollar figure for the ACA which was covered in the previous article 'The Pain of Health Care at Any Cost: The Remedy is Nullification and Then Repeal' and how the implementation estimates have grown to 2.6 trillion dollars and increasing, which does not cover any unfunded liabilities.

It has now been revealed, General Jack Keane former vice chief of staff of the US Army, that Obama plans for a much larger engagement in Syria, see link below. The American people have been told by the Obama administration that the planned intervention will be from a week to two weeks;  however, various sources within the Department of Defense are indicating months to years and that it is an open-ended plan for the instigation of full scale warfare. 
-- End of part 1.

Reference links:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/02/321665/ron-paul-syria-gas-attack-a-false-flag/

Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report
http://www.infowars.com/sen-graham-warns-of-nuke-strike-after-missing-nuke-report/

Is Obama Planning Bigger War In Syria Than He Is Admitting?
http://www.popularresistance.org/is-obama-planning-bigger-war-in-syria-than-he-is-admitting/

Chuck Chuck: No Defensive Senator for Defense Secretary

Why a Presidential appointee for Secretary of Defense shows up for a confirmation hearing so totally unprepared and clueless, bumbling, mumbling, and stumbling over simple yes/no answers is beyond me. If this is the choice of the President, Obama is truly doing what he can to destroy our defenses.

A Commander-in-Chief that has control of the most formidable weapons one the planet, must have a Defense Secretary that is competent in military and political strategies when dealing with the types of enemies that we have created.

Charles "Chuck" Hagel is obviously not the choice that I would make. Actually, I would like to see someone like Ron Paul in that spot. A true statesman that has military background and knowledge that would surely be a positive in our national defense interests. Unless the goal is not to strengthen but to weaken our defenses.

So let me see if got this right: The government wants to take our personal defenses away, while they are arming the IRS and other Homeland Security agents with "assault' military weapons using hollow point ammunition that is prohibited by international laws or treaties, design for maximum kill capacity. And they want the People by proxy of their Senators, to confirm a man who has little clue about any defense beyond covering his own hind quarters when caught in a lie or just plain demonstrably wrong about an issue.

While all the economy goes to hell in a hand basket,our elected representatives are looking out for our best interests by putting a self important member of the Republican Party up for confirmation by the Democratic-controlled Senate, showing the public that the liberals are willing to "reach across the aisle" and select a member of the "opposition" for a cabinet position. If anyone watched the badgering he got from members of his own party, it seems obvious that he is not the Republican choice for the position.

In all the time he was being questioned, it seemed that he was lost, unable to think quickly or clearly enough to even seem credible. Not the person that I would want between the President and the military. I can't imagine how he was elected as a Senator by a majority. The other choice must have been really bad!

Sandy Hook vs. End of the World

Blessings and prayers to those lost and those who mourn.

I was going to write a short post about the end of the world, just as I did many years ago with the Y2K disaster predictions, but now that I seem to be getting all of these emails and posts ob Facebook regarding the shootings that killed so many children and adults in Connecticut last week, it seems that I must address this issue from my own unique perspective.

It is always a tragedy when human life is lost seemingly without any sense at all. Whether it be a lone gunman or a suicide bomber, the death and destruction remains senseless.

The knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook was the push for banning guns. An obvious rebuttal to that is this: Had teachers in that school had been trained and armed, the tragedy would have been lessened if not avoided. Blaming guns on the senseless murders is no different than blaming pencils for failing tests. Most people don't see the analogy as more  tongue-in-cheek quip, but it is nonetheless an accurate assessment.

Some insisted on having so-called assault weapons banned, since there was no 'use for them' for hunting, and the very nature of these weapons were designed for combat. That being so, it is still in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The right to own and bear arms was not limited to flintlocks and muskets. The very purpose of that right was to arm the citizens and protect them through the right to form militias against any aggression from forces including a tyrannic government.

The very purpose of the Constitution itself was to limit the government, not the People. In the course of American history however, many laws have been enacted that were to benefit the people although they also violated constitutional limits and individual rights. Even today many feel that it is a necessary evil because they have become dependent of a government that gives them benefits at the cost of their own liberties and the burden of taxes on others. Most liberals call it paying their fair share, which as wards of the state, they themselves pay nothing.

The world did not end as many thought it would, based on the incorrect interpretations of a perpetual Mayan calendar. So now we all must go forward and face the realities of a world that is systematically becoming a totalitarian global corporate state, where rights are replaced with privileges and liberty is nothing more than a dream of patriots.

Stop This Madness and Murder!

How many years have  the Israelis been subjected to rockets targeting civilians? They were not targeting troops. Hamas militants hide behind children and claim the children are being killed by atrocious Israeli aggression.

Both sides are guilty of atrocities against each other, but the privately-owned major media and the American President are most sympathetic to the Muslims than they are to the children of both sides.

Prior to Balfour, Great Britain was the occupier of "Palestine" and the land was mostly populated by nomadic Arab tribes from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The Nazis had influenced those tribes prior to WWII to not admit 'Jews' who were seeking escape from death camps.

The Zionists were Ashkenazim Jews, a radical sect no better than the radical militants of Islam. Why must all Jews be persecuted because of the radicals?

During the Crusades, it was the Holy Roman Catholic Church who were the aggressors and the occupiers of those very same lands, and the retribution by Muslims was directed towards them. It turned to Jews because of Hitler and his henchmen.

We the People, who love our liberty and freedom to speak out against injustices must unite and not choose sides. This divisiveness is how we are all exploited to condone genocide and the war machine of the Military Industrialists, the global banking elite, who seek only power and profit.

It is long past time that all nations rise up against the true enemy of humanity instead of bickering and fighting among themselves. We need each other to stop the takeover of these megalomaniacs who hold the purse strings of the treasuries of so many nations in the world.