The saga of continuous deployment and a garrison
empire is a long and sad state of affairs. Using the trumped up fright that America’s enemies are geared up to bomb
malls and sporting venues, builds a phony fear that the only response to combat the threat is to wage continuous foreign campaigns.
What put such sophistry to rest are the facts that such uninterrupted carnage just feeds the fields of growing hostility towards
America. If the War on Terror was winnable, why not start by stopping the War of Terror that is the center
piece of aggressive projection of bellicose power.
The militarist over at Red States warns that Obama is gumming up the works. In
the article, Obama’s AUMF is Actually a DUMF the horror that placing a limit on the use of expansionist support deeply offends the warmongers. Folks, their positions
are not a fair or representative reflection of true and traditional conservative foreign policy.
“The AUMF proposed
by Obama, on the other hand, explicitly repeals the 2002 AUMF and furthermore explicitly states that ground troops cannot
be used, as they can be used (and have been used by Obama) under the 2002 AUMF. It furthermore contains an automatic three
year expiration, which is not contained in the currently active AUMF.
In other words, this is not even fairly called an Authorization for the Use of
Military Force. It’s actually a Deauthorization for the Use of Military Force. Republicans in Congress should start
referring to it as the DUMF (pronounced DUMB-f) so that people will be reminded what sort of person would be convinced that
Obama takes confronting the threat of ISIS seriously.”
In order to have a sound and constitutional approach
to safeguarding the Republic, the first step is to be honest with ourselves. The preservation of the sole superpower mantra
is far more dangerous than any suicide bomber. Yet, the internationalists will never be content until they manufacture or
invent a new advocacy to keep the full spectrum dominance machine rolling along. Such a mind-set and way of thinking is psychotic.
For those who hope the Obama administration is actually operating on a more balanced
level; don’t believe that spin for a minute. The essential reality is that there are only two positions in gauging foreign
policy. The first is the bipartisan establishment agreement that “Politics Stops at the Water’s Edge”. Even the Council on Foreign Relations admits in the essay, American Foreign Policy Is Already Post-Partisan the following.
“Yet how deep is the partisan divide over the place of multilateralism in U.S. foreign
policy? To explore this question, in the past year we sent a survey to foreign policy professionals: 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, who had served in a mid-level or higher foreign policy position in the Clinton, Bush, or
Obama administrations, or on Capitol Hill. The respondents included 23 Democrats and 20 Republicans.
The results of our study reveal that the parties are not as divided about multilateralism as the conventional wisdom suggests. First, strong majorities
of both Republican and Democratic respondents said they believed that working closely with other nations serves U.S. interests
and makes the country's foreign policy more effective. Second, foreign policy leaders from both parties agreed that international
economic institutions and free trade agreements are valuable, and that working with regional and global multilateral organizations
such as NATO and the UN is important.”
Such a response is expected from the echo chamber for the New World Order.
The second perspective
accepts the wisdom of the historic and guarded non-interventionism approach to foreign affairs. Based upon power politics
exponents, who are in control of government agencies and influence institutions, their defiance for a reason and true national
security, attacks such advocates for halting the unending cycle as domestic terrorists. The recent BATR RealPolitik Newsletter, Israel Owns Congress, illustrates a significant factor behind the driving pressure that exports violence from the Nefarious
Warrior Organism. Yes this fitting description for the New World Order characterizes the essence of the establishment.
Daniel Larison writes in the American Conservative, Paul and the Right’s Ideological Enforcers.
“Michael Brendan Dougherty comments on the silly reaction of some “pro-Israel” hard-liners to Rand Paul’s insufficiently zealous applause for
“And I understand the suspicion. If I ever exerted myself so frantically
on behalf of a cause, if lobbying for it required investing so many millions of dollars, and if maintaining party discipline
on it required “brutal” ad drops on congressional obscurities, I would worry that some of the response I sought
was perfunctory and insincere. The sonnets you receive don’t sound as sweet. The applause seems forced. Almost like
they are faking it.”
Unfortunately, this ludicrous ideological policing
seems to work only too well. Paul’s response in the last two days has been to reaffirm how enthusiastically “pro-Israel”
he really is. Even though the fixation on the intensity of his clapping at Tuesday’s disgraceful spectacle ought to have made clear that he will never be able to do or say (or clap) enough to satisfy his party’s hard-liners,
he made sure to emphasize his “pro-Israel” bona fides by talking up his co-sponsorship of Corker’s Iran bill and the number of times (50) he has joined in standing ovations for Netanyahu.
We can already hear the hard-liners’ response: “He gave only 50 standing ovations? He should have given at least
This goes to the heart of the establishment’s primacy principle, American adventurism benefits
Israel First interests. The reason the United States is engulfed in perpetual war is to keep the power elites in control.
The permanent war of terror has the domestic public as the target. Why is this so? Plainly speaking, the globalists who have
completed their takeover of the apparatus of governance have eliminated even the semblance of the rule by law.
In the Ron Paul
video from a GOP Presidential debate, Let Iran Have Nukes. No Sanctions, No War, you heard for the last time a common sense and prudent approach to counter the NeoCon and NewLib mantra of continual threat
of war or actual combat.
Stopping the interventionism of the foreign policy establishment like in their Ukrainian coup d'état, would
require a total repudiation of the entire power structure that perverts the body politic. The lawlessness, that is the staple
of the Obama administration, just made a pivot in rhetoric from the “Mission Accomplished” absurdity under Bush.
All the time the same
drum beat to a truly global conflict marches on because the fundamental axioms upon which, rest the internationalist system,
is based has proven beyond any reasonable doubt, to be false and deadly.
We live under a reign of terror from our own illegitimate authorities. The domestic
police state is a reflection of tactics used and perfected in Iraq. The creation of ISIL was achieved by western intelligence.
The need for a new enemy becomes obvious when the old one turns out to be a phony menace.
If Obama would really sunset the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, it might be the only worthwhile initiative of his years in office. However, in order to judge the feasibility and sincerity
of his intentions, one might need to access the private emails of the former Secretary of State. Fat chance! Dragging
out the goods from the heroine of culture concealment brings back all the memories of the former Klinton era.
That’s the way
the guardians of the establishment work. Brew up mind numbing scandals, while the existential global tragedies of designed
world domination, are ignored. The ease upon whom the war of terror is sold to the public is dreadful.
Listing all the transgressions upon lawful restrains,
imposed on the country since the 911 Wag the Dog scenarios, would take a book. How long will repeating the same strategy
of failure continue to get favorable support? As long as confused conservatives accept that the bogyman is overseas and are
not able to focus on the architects of treason at home, the NWO will just waltz its way to the symphony they compose.
The absence of the formerly
vocal anti-war movement in the way the Viet Nam war galvanized is a great regret. Adopting a non-interventionist doctrine
should not be a left-right dichotomy. It needs to become a unified and committed cause that each citizen will actively adopt.
The pathetic peer pressure
used on a Rand Paul to become an Israel-First supporter needs to be condemned. If it was not for the internationalist and
globalist lobby, our troops could and should be stationed on our own borders.
Perpetual war to justify a permanent war of terror
will destroy all that was once unique about America. The fifth column and systemic treason that passes as “PC”
policy, is the enemy. Waking up is not enough. The blowback coming must be against the establishment. In order for the nation
to rise from the ashes of destruction, the public needs to defeat the reign of terror conducted in our name.
SARTRE – March