Warmongering Hillary

Of course this isn’t a Trump add.  It’s something put together by Infowars.  A site normally dismissed by all “respectable” people in the world.  I doubt it will be seen by many people who are actually considering voting for Killary.

Still, I’m reminded of some history lesson I taught myself (my public school education didn’t discuss such matters) regarding the 1964 election.  Here’s an official LBJ campaign add that aired on NBC at a time when that network commanded at least 1/3 of the US television audience.

So it’s nice to see the Democrats getting a small taste of their own medicine.  This ad was the start of their successful attempt to brand themselves as the party of peace despite getting this country embroiled in war after war after war after war.

The Democrats have been a party of war for over a century.  LBJ himself, after releasing this ad and defeating Barry Goldwater in a landslide, escalated Vietnam to a point where close to 60,000 Americans and millions of Indochinese were slaughtered for no reason. With the exception of a brief interlude in the 1970s McGovern and Jimmy Carter era, they never met a war they didn’t like.  The Republicans have usually been terrible on the issue of war and peace, at least since Nixon.  But the Democrats have managed to brainwash the last few generations of Americans into believing they are somehow less bellicose, less likely to engage in needless overseas violence, and less likely to start World War III. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s nice to see Republicans, with the advent of Trump, at least paying some lip service to the notion that avoiding war is actually good.  We need it now more than ever as Hillary Clinton is the most unhinged warmonger outside John McCain to win a major party’s nomination in my lifetime.  Even with a Democrat presidential victory, perhaps some members of the GOP can learn from Trump’s dominant Primary campaign and actually oppose further aggression against Syria, Russia, China, Iran, or whoever the latest bogeyman turns out to be.

The USA needs an actual opposition party to the War Party.  We haven’t had one in a very long time.

Hillary’s I have a dream speech to some banksters

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders

She also wants “universal” healthcare.  So in this dream of hers, anyone, from anywhere in the entire Western Hemisphere can show up in the United States and get free healthcare? Or are the entire continents of North and South America going to be one giant tax jurisdiction under a single payer bureaucracy run from Washington, DC?

Either way sounds like a great idea.

Obama to declare people from Middle-East non-white

The Obama regime wants to hasten the end of the white majority of the United States by declaring 10 million people previously considered white to be “Middle Eastern.”  If he gets his way it will take effect in four years.

It also means they can enjoy preferential treatment from the government such as:

• Enforcing the Voting Rights Act and drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries;

• Establishing federal affirmative action plans and evaluating claims of employment discrimination in employment in the private sector;

• Monitoring discrimination in housing, mortgage lending and credit;

• Enforcing school desegregation policies; and

• Helping minority-owned small businesses get federal grants and loans.

All of these policies are basically designed at this point to discriminate against whites so naturally everybody who can claim some portion of their ancestry outside of Northern Europe wants to be considered non-white.

Regardless of which race or ethnicity benefits, the Federal Government has no right to be doing any of these things other than drawing congressional legislative districts.

Here’s a quote from some Egyptian professor in Texas who has been agitating for Arabs to be officially minoritized:

“I think with him being the first African-American president and being an obvious example of making the American fabric more diverse, that this could be great sign of inclusion about what it means to be an American,”

Please explain to me what exactly it does mean to be an American.  As far as I can tell it means being in the tax jurisdiction known as the United States and saying you’re American. That’s about it.  Melting pot indeed.

Sorry if I don’t get all weepy when I see the flag or hear the War National Anthem.

Obama to escalate Iraq War III

Image result for obama iraq war 3The never ending Terror War continues in Iraq and Syria to defeat Emmanuel Goldstein al Qaeda ISIS. Obama will order another 615 troops to Iraq bringing the total there to 5,262. They will assist the Empire’s puppet regime in retaking Mosul from the evil terrorists. Although as the article points out, the true number of US soldiers in that decimated country is actually much higher.  I guess the government is trying to downplay this latest imperial adventure in the Middle East ahead of Killery’s coronation as Empress.

Meanwhile both Obama and Clinton promise to bring in more refugees from Syria.  So basically they want to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria and then import them to the USA as long as they claim refugee status.

The Secretary of War Defense Ashton Carter had this to say:

“But I need to make clear… American forces combating ISIL in Iraq are in harm’s way… no one should be in any doubt about that,” Carter said.

How long they will stay is up to the Iraqis, Carter insisted.

“We are certainly to continue to help the Iraqi security forces in whatever measure and manner they wish to consolidate the control over their country after they’ve recaptured this last major ISIL center,” he said.

So our glorious leader, Emperor Barack Hussein Obama, is putting US soldiers in harm’s way and promising to keep them there as long as the Iraqi government wants them to stay. Is that how it works now?  The president offers combat troops to foreign governments and lets those foreign governments decide how they will be used and when they’re allowed to leave that foreign country?  I thought decisions like this were supposed to be made by the American people through their congressional representatives.

I almost couldn’t type that last sentence I was laughing so hard.

I remind anyone reading this that the US Military has been occupying Japan and Germany for over seventy years.

Latest Trump-bashing article misses the mark

There is plenty you could criticize Donald Trump for, but the Financial Times seems to have become a cheerleader for the US Dominated Global Military Empire. So of course they prefer Hitlery and make a number of unfair attacks on her opponent.

Here is some of the nonsense written by Philip Stephens where he expresses his fear that the “liberal rules-based system” that has kept “global order” for the last seventy years is breaking down:

Mr Putin is trying to redraw borders in Europe

Just an outright lie.  The US expanded NATO right up to Russia’s border.  The US funded the overthrow of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government which drove the inhabitants of Crimea to vote for Russian annexation.  Who is the aggressor here?  What other borders has Russia “redrawn?”  I believe the US and NATO redrew the borders in the Balkans in the 1990s.  But that was okay because liberalism.

the Middle East is in flames

Thanks to the “liberal” Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s meddling there.  How is this Trump’s fault?  He hasn’t been president and it’s already “in flames.”  Seems more like it’s Hillary’s fault.

European unity is fracturing

I’m not conceding that this is a bad thing, but at any rate, the main reason it’s fracturing is because Europe’s version of Hillary, Germany’s Angela Merkel, has flooded the continent with Muslim “refugees.” The refugee crisis, by the way, was caused by Hillary’s Middle Eastern wars.

jihadi terrorism is spreading

Again, this is due to the Iraq War that Hillary supported, and her meddling in Syria and Libya.  But the article suggests somehow that this is Trump’s fault or that he’ll make it worse.

pluralism is challenged by authoritarianism

This is just an example of the meaningless gibberish smug liberal writers use to try and sound smart.

China is contesting the status quo in the South China Sea and its neighbours are rearming in response

What’s President Hillary going to do about it?  Start a naval war with China?  Give Vietnam money and weapons so they can lose a war with China more slowly?  Why is this the USA’s problem? If Trump wants to stay out of the South China Sea (I’m not really sure what his position is), then I would support that.

populists are storming the citadels across advanced democracies.

Precisely because the leaders of these democracies have been carrying out the policies advocated by the likes of Phlip Stephens.  I guess democracy’s only good when the globalists win elections.  Otherwise it’s “dangerous populism.”

He questions the US security umbrella in the Pacific

And everyone knows that’s dangerous to question.  I mean obviously the USA has to defend Japan and South Korea for the rest of eternity because they’re such poor defenseless countries.

He undercuts the credibility of Nato’s defence of Europe

Right.  I’m sure if the US takes troops out of Germany, the Russians will invade.  And Germany could never afford to pay for their own defense.  And once Russia takes over Germany, then it will be England.  Then they’ll invade New York City.  Oh my God!!! Trump is so dangerous!

the US might stand by if Russian troops marched into the Baltic states

Of course it would.  Does Philip Stephens really believe that if Russia occupied Estonia tomorrow that the USA would do anything about it other than pass more sanctions and condemn it in the UN?  What could the USA actually do?  Launch a global nuclear war?  And what evidence is there that Putin would have any interest in taking over the Baltic States?  What benefit would there be to him or the Russian people?  None.  This is just fear mongering masquerading as serious foreign policy analysis.

There is no sense in any of this that American national security is safeguarded by alliances and international order.

That’s because it’s not.  These alliances are all one sided.  The USA defends Estonia.  What the Hell is Estonia going to do for America?  How is having troops in South Korea enhancing the national security of ordinary Americans?  Is the only thing stopping North Korea from nuking Los Angels the 30,000 soldiers on its border?  Does anyone really believe that?  What is the evidence that any alliance has ever benefited the average citizens of the USA?

Remind me to stop reading articles that start out by lauding the “liberal global order.”

Image result for us military empire

Obama continues to flood USA with “Syrians”

All they have to do is say they’re a refugee from Syria.  No way to check.  But it adds to diversity so it’s automatically good.  Anyone who questions the policy is a Trump-loving bigot whose ancestry is probably comprised of ethnicities that should just do the world a favor and go extinct anyway.

Plus these “refugees” and their children will probably eventually vote Democrat.  That’s all that really counts.