The Neocons in the Trump Administration are steering America into another war

This also includes the Saudi Government as well. I say this, because of this piece of news here, via YNetNews.com:

A state-aligned Saudi newspaper is calling for “surgical” U.S. strikes in retaliation against alleged threats from Iran.

The Arab News published an editorial in English on Thursday, arguing that after incidents this week against Saudi energy targets, the next logical step “should be surgical strikes.”

The editorial says U.S. airstrikes in Syria, when the government there was suspected of using chemical weapons against civilians, “set a precedent.”

It added that it’s “clear that (U.S.) sanctions are not sending the right message” and that “they must be hit hard,” in reference to Iran, without elaborating on what specific targets should be struck.

The newspaper’s publisher is the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, a company that had long been chaired by various sons of King Salman until 2014 and is regarded as reflecting official position.

It seems that John Bolton is behind much of this:

Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with Iran.

We know this because he has been saying it for nearlytwodecades.

And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump’s top foreign policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East of the past two weeks.

Just after one month on the job, Bolton gave Trump the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully boxing in Iran’s nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton’s drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.

Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, it can achieve a “better deal” that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.

And Bolton has no qualms about manipulating or outright ignoring intelligence to advance his agenda, which is exactly what’s happening right now.

In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East, Bolton cited “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence. But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since said that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it “out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually was”. Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week, saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.

Pat Buchanan observes:

After Venezuela’s army decided not to rise up and overthrow Nicholas Maduro, by Sunday night, it was Iran that was in our gun sights.

Bolton ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln, its carrier battle group and a bomber force to the Mideast “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

What “attack” was Bolton talking about?

According to Axios, Israel had alerted Bolton that an Iranian strike on U.S. interests in Iraq was imminent.

Flying to Finland, Pompeo echoed Bolton’s warning:

“We’ve seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and … we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests. … (If) these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group or the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the … Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”

Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself.

Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.

Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.

Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.

Iran responded last Tuesday by naming the U.S. a state sponsor of terror and designating U.S. forces in the Middle East as terrorists.

[…]

Today, Trump’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation.

While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?

In late April, in an interview with Fox News, Iran’s foreign minister identified those he believes truly want a U.S.-Iranian war.

Asked if Trump was seeking the confrontation and the “regime change” that Bolton championed before becoming his national security adviser, Mohammad Javad Zarif said no. “I do not believe President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war.

“President Trump himself has said that the U.S. spent $7 trillion in our region … and the only outcome of that was that we have more terror, we have more insecurity, and we have more instability.

“People in our region are making the determination that the presence of the United States is inherently destabilizing. I think President Trump agrees with that.”

But if it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?

Said Zarif, “I believe ‘the B-team’ wants to actually push the United States, lure President Trump, into a confrontation that he doesn’t want.”

And who makes up “the B-team”?

Zarif identifies them: Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.

Should the B-team succeed in its ambitions — it will be Trump’s war, and Trump’s presidency will pay the price.

Buchanan also writes:

After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, “Why is this our problem?”

Perhaps the most serious issue is North Korea’s quest for nuclear-armed missiles that can reach the United States. But the reason Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA is that 28,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, committed to attack the North should war break out. That treaty commitment dates to a Korean War that ended in an armed truce 66 years ago.

If we cannot persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons in return for a lifting of sanctions, perhaps we should pull U.S. forces off the peninsula and let China deal with the possible acquisition of their own nuclear weapons by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. It wants no war with us. It does not threaten us. Why is Iran then our problem to solve rather than a problem for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Sunni Arabs?

Nor does Russia’s annexation of Crimea threaten us. When Ronald Reagan strolled through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, all of Ukraine was ruled by Moscow.

The Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro was established decades ago by his mentor, Hugo Chavez. When did that regime become so grave a threat that the U.S. should consider an invasion to remove it?

During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo’s predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe’s quarrels and wars.

Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.

Bolton must go, if Trump wants to remain President. because those who elected him, who do not subscribe to the neocon foreign policy doctrine, will vote for someone else or not at all.

 

John Podhoretz gets exposed for the intolerant Trotskyite that he truly is

This is great;  a Trotskyite Zionist goes for a debate; and the minute he sees that he is losing the debate — he storms off the stage, takes his marbles and goes home.

I am referring to the greatest Trotskyite, Zionist, Neoconservative of them all — John Podhoretz.

See here, here, here and here.

Money quote:

Bottom line: I’d had a long day and I didn’t see the point in spending more of it getting booed and shushed. So I left. So sue me.

If only we could sue you and your family for all the trillions of dollars — and the 4000+ lives that were  wasted in the Iraq War —- which you and your satanic Father were cheerleaders for, after 9/11. Actually, I would very much like to see criminal charges filed against you and few of your Trotskyite friends as well. However, as we realists know; that will never happened to a protected class as yourself.

You want to know what got wrong with Conservatism? You want to know why the GOP is in the shape that it is in? Look no further than this man here and his idiotic Trotskyite magazine that he runs. They are the true enemies of America; they are the ones who put us in the war that almost broke this Nation and ruined its standing in the world.

It is a pity that there is not true justice in this Nation of ours; otherwise, this man and his friends would be sitting in jail cells.

 

Taking Religion out of the Military?

I have mixed feelings about this one:

“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.” A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.” “After a Christian prayer, the cross was removed from the roof of the chapel,” the spokesman said. “During the removal, the cross was dismantled; however the cross was reassembled and currently awaits transportation to a larger operational base.” The military told Fox News the cross will only be brought out during Christian services and will be designated as a “non-permanent religious symbol.” Silverman said a Christian chapel on an Army base in Afghanistan could have put American troops in danger. “It inflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,” he said. “This is not a Muslim versus Christian war — but if the Army base has a large chapel on it that has been converted to Christian-only, it sends a message that could be interpreted as hostile to Islam.” An Army spokesman said all chapels must be religiously neutral. “The primary purpose of making a chapel a neutral, multi-use facility is to accommodate the free exercise of religion for all faith groups using it,” he said. “We take the spiritual fitness of our Soldiers seriously and encourage them to practice their faith and exercise their beliefs however they choose.” Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way. “I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.” —- Military: Crosses Removed ‘Out of Respect for Other Faiths’ | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

On one hand, I would hate to think that having Christian symbols on a battle front could be putting our Military at risk. On the other hand, I would hate to see Christianity being removed from the Military entirely. However, we are in a Muslim Nation is Afghan region; one would think that the Military would want to be respectful of those people and their culture.

It is a mixed bag, and all the more reason why we really need to get out of that Country. Our mission is done there; we killed Osama and we need to leave. We do not want to make the same mistake the Russians made there. Besides all that, Al-Qaeda has moved into other regions and is much more a threat to other interests in other parts for the world now.

So, to this Independent, the quicker we leave, the better.

Video: NewsWatch

This comes via CBN:

[podcast format=”video”]http://dl2.cbn.com/Newswatch/Newswatch092512_WS.mp4[/podcast]

On CBN Newswatch Sept. 25:

  • President Obama addresses Muslim violence to the U.N.
  • U.S. congressional candidates hold the first-ever Spanish debate
  • Indonesia churches kicked out of their buildings,
  • and more.

The fallout continues

The fallout from the embassy attacks is continuing.

Some on the left now are even upset about it.

Video via Gateway Pundit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOnQJehP_is

Now there comes word, via one of the most liberal papers in the U.K., that the State Department actually knew that these attacks were coming, and did absolutely nothing:

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

 — Read the rest at the U.K. Independent

Of course, the Obama Administration is in denial mode, via The Politico:

The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored.

A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There’s no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”

[…]

Shawn Turner, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, emailed: “This is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

The guys over at Powerline are not buying it at all:

Of course, the Independent story didn’t say that the Obama administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” It said that “the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted,” but did nothing to step up security. The administration’s denial does not contradict the Independent’s statement, and the fact that the denial is phrased so narrowly suggests that the Independent’s report is, in fact, accurate.

[…]

So the Obama administration is already in cover-up mode. Note how willing administration spokesmen are to take absurd positions, secure in the knowledge that reporters will help them with their cover-up.

I can tell you this; the fallout from this is going to be great. I believe this little incident right here and the fact that embassy works were unguarded like this will be amplified during this election cycle and it might just cost Barack Obama the election. I realize Romney might not have handled the situation the greatest. But this here is nothing more than a dereliction of duty.

Sarah Palin over on Hannity weighed in as well:

For once, I actually agree with Sarah Palin. I also agree with the fact that this bogus movie was not the cause of these attacks. These attacks were pre-planned and this movie just happened to be out there and it was used, by these terrorists, as a cover for their actions. The sad fact folks is this, the United States of America and more broadly; The West is involved in a Religious War, between Christianity and Islam. The people over at Gates of Vienna, Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, and Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, and others have been covering this for a very long time. The sad truth is that those who point to these sites and just dismiss them as hatemongers are just willfully blind to the danger that Islam is for this Country. The Nation should have realized this after 9/11, but because we had a President who wanted to remain Islam-friendly; the truth was ignored.

Furthermore, as a Christian, allow me to say this; Islam is an intolerant Religion and should be totally outlawed in America. There are extremist Christians in America, there is no denying that. But the last time, I checked, they were not as well funded as these people are. (and before anybody mentions him, Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian! Nor was he well-funded…) This is not a Religion anyways, it is a political philosophy, intermingled with a fascist religion and should be eliminated from this Country. If you are offended at this, tough crap; because the facts are that there is no such thing as peaceful Muslim. There are Muslims who choose to fight Jihad, and there are those who refrain from it. Because of this, America will never be safe at all. Call me a bigot, call me a hater, call me an A-hole; I really do not care. But America is going to learn this lesson of what Islam really is, one way or another. It really is too bad that more people are going to have to die, before the United States Government gets a clue and finally wakes up to this threat.

As a compassionate human being, I hate to think that people would actually be so ate up with their religion that they would act in this manner. However, as a realist; I have to go with my gut feelings and with what I see and all I see is this that is happening.

The sick part is, the way this Nation is headed at the moment, we will most like be too darned broke to even deal with the situation much less even fight it. It is a depressing state of affairs, which is why I try to avoid writing about it, because it just makes me sad and depressed to watch it all happen.

There is my statement, quote me, if you wish. Please, just be aware of this here. Thanks.

My Thoughts on the situation in Egypt and Libya

I remember seeing this news breaking early this morning, before I finally drifted off to sleep. I remember thinking to myself, “oh crap…” and thinking, here we go again, another situation in the middle east.

At first, I heard it was over a lamely produced Movie trailer, which was produced by someone claiming to be a Israeli Jew — who might not even be a Jew after all; then I hear it might be a coordinated attack in retaliation over the number 2 of Al-Qaeda’s being killed.

Meanwhile, an couple of Americans are dead today. Their bodies being drug through the streets in some God-forsaken Country. What does our President do? Act like some aloof jackass, who cannot be bothered with the situation.  As for Romney, he takes advantage of the Situation and points out that this President’s foreign policy has been a utter failure. In response, the media tries to portray Mitt Romney as not ready for Prime time. A typical tactic that was used on John McCain as well.  Not to mention the fact that the media is coordinating to try to tear down Romney in this election.

I could sit here and yowl on about this shows that America and Judeo-Christian Values are under attack by Islam and Muslims.  However, I believe most of you, that read this blog already know this. Whatever the cause of these American Embassies being attacked, it is a tragic thing.

However, as a Non-Wilsonian Conservative, allow me to float this idea. Could this be a piece of living, in color, proof that the United States of America ought to just withdraw from these Countries and not have American Embassies in those Country? Perhaps that this is one of the signs that America needs to stop kowtowing down to the United Nations and stop trying to be the world’s policeman. Perhaps we should stop getting involved in the affairs of other Nations. Perhaps we should being to restrict our immigration polices more and stop allowing a free flow of Muslims into this Country.

Perhaps we as a Nation need to take a second look at the practice of Islam and how it is intolerant to other Religion and to criticism; and possibly pass laws banning the Religion in this Country, on grounds it is threat to Nation security.  After all, this attack happened one day after the 11 year anniversary of the terrorist attacks in NYC and at the Pentagon, and Shakesville, Pa.

Again, is it wrong to ask such questions? I am not hating on any religion of any sort. I am looking at the protection of our Republic and all I really know, is that foreign citizens have killed Americans working abroad; this is unacceptable and something needs to be done. However, with the current leadership in the White House, nothing will be done, at all. Yes, I know, Military has been dispatched;  at this point, that is nothing more than window dressing and buttocks covering by the White House. The truth is, that once again, leadership in the White House has failed us.

This is why we must vote differently, come November.

Gun Business booming under Obama’s tenure

That’s right, President Obama might not be helping the general economy; however, the gun sales market is booming.

The Video:

The Story via CNBC:

The gun business is booming. The question is, why?

Smith & Wesson stock Friday was zooming, thanks to a stellar earnings report. The firearms maker also boosted its outlook for the rest of the year. Because of the strong business, its backlog of orders more than doubled from the same quarter last year, the company is concentrating on boosting production and building inventory.

 “We are underserving the market at this moment, we all know that, and that’s a great opportunity going forward for us,” CEO James Debney said in a conference call with analysts.

 And another gun maker, Sturm, Ruger & Co., also hit a milestone of sorts in terms of meeting consumer demand. It produced its one-millionth gun of the year…well ahead of last year’s pace.

 “It took us nearly all of 2011 to build one million firearms, but in 2012 we accomplished it on August 15th,” said Ruger President and CEO Mike Fifer in a statement.

What’s driving the demand that has gun makers cranking up production?

 Speculation has focused on fears of a coming regulatory crackdown on gun ownership. Liberal administrations tend to be anti-gun and so, the thinking goes, an Obama re-election would set the stage for stricter gun purchasing requirements. Hence, people are buying now in anticipation of difficulty later.

Indeed, looking at background checks for gun sales (a metric commonly used to gauge general industry performance) 2009 showed a measureable increase that many attributed to Obama’s election.

 Is it the same this year? Some anecdotal evidence tends to bear that out.

“I should put Obama’s picture on the wall up there,” said one New Jersey gun salesman, asking not to be identified. “I’d name him salesman of the month!”

 But it’s not universal. Some suggest it may be less about regulatory worries and more about the immediate economy.

 “Sure, about a third of it is politics,” said a Maryland salesman, who also didn’t want to be named. “But the majority are people concerned about safety. They are worried about crime and looking at the economy and no one having jobs. They want to be protected now. So they’re buying.”

Of course, if Hillary and the gun grabbers at the U.N have anything to say about this; all of our guns will be taken away. This is why we have to vote different this time around; and put Mitt Romney in the White House, so that the gun grabbers will be put at bay.

Video: Alex Jones on Ron Paul’s campaign manager

I happened to have found this on Facebook.

I know what I said earlier about Ron Paul.

Alex Jones’s delivery and acting aside; the information is interesting.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18PgaZzJDzE

I had heard about this before, but didn’t realize the extent of it.

Interesting indeed.

Chuck Baldwin minces no words about Paul Ryan

I have to like Chuck Baldwin, he does not mince words:

It has happened again. We go through this every four years, and every four years the vast majority of “conservatives” fall for it. This is such a broken record. What did Forrest Gump say: “Stupid is as stupid does”? And wasn’t it P.T. Barnum who said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”? Well, here we go again.

Neocon RINO George H.W. Bush picks “conservative” Dan Quayle. “Conservative” G.W. Bush picks neocon RINO Dick Cheney. Neocon RINO John McCain picks “conservative” Sarah Palin. Now, neocon RINO Mitt Romney picks “conservative” Paul Ryan. As long as there is one “conservative” on the ticket, mushy-headed “conservatives” across the country will go into a gaga, starry-eyed, hypnotic trance in support of the Republican ticket. I’m convinced that if Lucifer, himself, was the GOP Presidential candidate, he would get the support of the Religious Right and Republican “conservatives” as long as he selected a reputed “conservative” to join his ticket. And, by the way, the notable “conservative” wouldn’t think twice about joining such a ticket, either, I’m convinced.

Let’s just get this on the record: since 1960, there have only been two Presidential nominees (from the two major parties) who were not controlled by the globalist elitists. One was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; the other was a Republican, Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was shot and killed; Reagan was shot. Every other President, Democrat or Republican, has been totally controlled, which is why none of them have done diddly-squat to make a difference in the direction of the country. On the issues that really matter, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are just more of the same!

via Chuck Baldwin — Paul Ryan: More Of The Same.

He goes on to say that Ron Paul is the only one; and I disagree with that. However, I will say this; he is right about Romney and Ryan. Which is I am voting for:

Goode/Clymer in 2012

He will not win the election

But voting for anything else is simply Anti-American

Click here to Donate

 

 

Phyllis Schlafly says, “The UN Is Bad News for the U.S.”

The audio:

[podcast]http://www.eagleforum.org/radio/3min/audio/2012/aug12/08-17-12.mp3[/podcast]

The Story:

The news has leaked out that an obscure, secretive UN agency called the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO shipped sophisticated U.S. computer equipment to Iran and North Korea despite UN and U.S. sanctions against both those governments. U.S. policy is to block their development of nuclear weapons so they won’t be able to fire nuclear bombs at us. In addition to being a major threat to U.S. security, these UN shipments violated the restrictions of the equipment manufacturer, Hewlitt-Packard, which forbids any HP equipment from being sent to such regimes.

The shipment to Iran included 20 Hewlitt-Packard desktop computers that will give Iran significant computing power. The shipments to North Korea also included sophisticated computers.

Let’s face it. The United Nations is not only NOT our friend; the UN is our enemy. It’s time to say goodbye and kick all those overpaid anti-American bureaucrats out of their preferential real estate in New York City.

via Eagle Forum Blog: The UN Is Bad News for the U.S..

I known and felt this way for years about the United Nations. I suggest you go read the rest of this and give the commentary above a listen.