Why The Hysteria Over Syria?

If you are new to this story, understand, what is happening in Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

It also has nothing to do with dead civilians.

In recent years, your lawless federal government, US Inc., has killed thousands of innocent civilians with missile strikes, paid mercenaries and drone attacks. Obama authorizes these attacks regularly. You can be certain, collateral damage is not the issue.

And it also has nothing to do with a Syrian “civil war”.

What is happening in Syria is not a civil war. It is paid mercenaries (the rebels) trying to topple the Assad government. And it is US Inc. that is funding the “rebels”. Google it and see for yourself.

Here’s a couple of articles to get you started (Article I, Article II).

Does US Inc. running guns in support of mercenaries trying to topple governments surprise you? If it does, you need to spend a lot more time here and a lot less time in front of the television. Remember, there is a reason it is called the “boob-tube”.

By the way, this gun-running fact sheds a little light on the attack in Benghazi and the killings of four Americans. True, it doesn’t explain who did it. But now you can begin to understand why the supreme ruler and Central Planning blamed it on an amateur video.

After all, who in their right mind would come clean and confess the reason a covert intelligence agent—I’m sorry, an Ambassador—and his security team were killed was because they were running guns to mercenary misfits trying to topple governments in the Middle East. No, it is much easier to lay the blame on an amateur “B” movie that was apparently so bad it drove peaceful protestors insane enough to reach for their RPGs rather than their signs.

Ask yourself this: if China or Russia or some other “villainous” country was running guns here in America trying to topple your state or local government, how would you feel? Would you take action? Don’t these folks, watching US Inc. trying to topple government after government in the Middle East, have a right to be angry? Don’t they have the right to take action?

But let’s jump back to Syria.

If it isn’t the people rising up in a civil war against their government, and it is rather, US Inc. paying and supplying mercenaries to try to topple a government, then the next question to address is why it is happening, what has Syria done?

Remember when Israel and US Inc. went public with the sales pitch that Iran was building nuclear weapons? There were calls for an attack. Well, an attack didn’t happen but sanctions were imposed against Iran and the economy in that country has been hurt.

But last month, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal to build a pipeline to give Iran direct access to Mediterranean ports, thereby allowing it easier access to Euro-asian markets. Increased access to markets means increased sales.

But why does US Inc., and its controller, Israel, care whether Iran can increase gas/oil sales?

Because in March of last year, Iran announced it was going to start side-stepping the petrodollar system and start doing oil deals in currency other than federal reserve notes (US dollars).

Well, for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other NWO elites, who reap trillions by controlling the petrodollar system, this was way too much to handle. So Iran got put on the hit list.

Israel, the criminal capital for the NWO, and US Inc., the enforcement arm, work together. The relationship is just like Republicans and Democrats. It is the “good cop, bad cop” routine played out on the world stage.

In this case, Israel calls for blood—an attack on Iran because it will soon have nukes. The excuse has to be nukes, of course, because how can you justify pummeling Iran into the stone age just for selling its oil to China for yuan or Russia for rubles or Japan for yen? You can’t. So Iran has to become a nuclear villain.

Then, at the very next press conference, US Inc. takes the stage and announces its concern and calls for sanctions. These sanctions are put in place to punish Iran and hopefully, force it back into the petrodollar system.

But, let’s face it, if you are part of the NWO cabal, you know you have a long-term problem. Sanctions alone won’t do the trick. Iran is a big country. It sells a lot of oil. And selling oil outside the petrodollar system cuts into your profits. It cramps your life-style. It is unacceptable.

In fact, you have already showed the world this is unacceptable behavior. You whacked Saddam in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya for the same offense–stepping outside the petrodollar system.

Obviously, these messages went unheard, as apparently these mud-blood leaders in other countries just don’t get it. So, rather than an individual assassination, perhaps it is time to take down a country and send an unmistakable message to leaders around the world—fuck with our cash and not only will we whack you and your family, but we’ll destroy your country, too. Syria has been targeted because it gets the NWO cabal on the door-step of Iran.

Most of the world’s countries have turned against the NWO banksters (research BRICS for more information). Russia, as an example, paid them in full a few years back and Putin has been a thorn in their side ever since. And just a week or so ago, Hungary threw them out. The world has come to see them as the lying, cheating thieves and mass murderers that they are. It is only in NWO controlled countries, like America, where the masses still regularly fall for the ruse.

Now these countries can’t match the military might of US Inc., so a fight is out of the question. But the flow of money, on the other hand, can be altered, manipulated or shut off. And a major step to shutting off the cash flow to the NWO cabal is doing oil deals outside the petrodollar system.

This, crusaders, is what the Syria situation is all about.

The world is trying to use currency other than dollars to drive the NWO criminals into bankruptcy and submission. At the same time, the NWO inbreds are trying to force the world to keep using their money—to ensure profits forever—and will kill people and destroy countries to get their way.

Iran is the true target. Syria provides very convenient access.

Here at home, Secretary of Hate John Kerry, representing the cabal and showing off his sub-par facelift in HD for the world to see, gave a poor speech late last week and toured the propaganda press shows over the weekend to try to sell the sheeple on more US Inc. violence.

Unable to provide specific reasons why dead civilians in Syria pose a “national security threat” to Americans, Kerry relied on name-calling (Assad is a “thug and murderer”), and emotionally charged phrases (it was an “indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons) in his sales pitch. He provided no proof that it was Syrian government forces that passed the gas, none, just claims and accusations.

Perhaps it is just me, but the claim that “Syria has gassed its own citizens” sounds a lot like the claim that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” or “Iran is minutes away from deploying a nuclear missile”. To me, claims and accusations carry much more weight when there is evidence to back them up. How about you?

What about the pictures of the victims?

Well, as it turns out, in an attempt to support the Secretary of Hate, the government goons within Central Planning circulated fake photos to reference the chemical carnage. Check that–the pictures are not fake–the photos are real–they just document the dead of Iraq in 2003, not gas victims in Syria.

But, hey—you say “to-may-to”, I say “to-mah-to”—dead people are dead people, right? Who cares that they are different victims from a different country that died from different events a decade ago.

Is this an intentional act by US Inc. to deceive the American public or just bumbling bureaucrats?

I’ll let you decide.

But it does remind me of when the propaganda press showed the innocent victim in Palestine that, after the camera man got his video shot, got up off the stretcher and walked away (LINK) or when the propaganda press used a different school to document Sandy Hook events (LINK) or when the BBC announced that Building 7 had collapsed during the 9/11 attack — almost 30 minutes before it actually did (LINK).

Using fake pictures to support a fake claim makes sense to me.

And why would the Syrian government, known for months to be pushing the paid mercenaries back, resort to chemical warfare? Why violate the supreme ruler’s “red line” and risk drawing more US Inc. resources into the fight? Assad and his merry men are winning. It is a well documented fact that they have hammered the “rebels” in cities like Aleppo, Qussair, Homs and elsewhere. Why invite more foreign intervention? This move makes no sense.

But what does make sense, especially if you are trying to topple a government and you are getting your ass kicked, is to run a false-flag operation, gas some mud-bloods, blame the other guys and then turn to the American sheeple and try to bilk them out of billions so you can step up the conflict.

You have to escalate it. The guys you are illegally funding aren’t getting the job done and it’s been a couple of years now. The longer this takes the more likely the American public will find out it is US Inc. behind this “civil war”.

It’s clear machine guns, rifles and grenades aren’t going to take down the Assad government. Obviously, larger weaponry (missiles) is needed. But, since you already sold the public on the idea that this is a Syrian “civil war”, you need an excuse to introduce the larger weapons. Even sheeple know you can’t just stick your nose into another country’s civil war. Thus, the chemical attack and cover story.

There are plenty of reports that indicate it was the “rebels” that actually used the gas. Of course, they aren’t carried by the propaganda press but if you dig deeper than Fox or CNN or CBS, you’ll find them. Indeed, Veterans Today, as well as some other online news sites, has run a series of articles drawing attention to this.

I don’t have all the answers but I offer these points for your consideration regarding Syria and why the supreme ruler and Secretary of Hate have recently started to pound their chests. Is it really about dead civilians? Is it really about a chemical attack? Or is the back story just a wee-bit more complex?

Think about these points and come to your own conclusion. Sniff around a bit. Follow your nose.

But for the record, when I inhale deeply, I smell bullshit.

GET FREE WEEKLY HEADLINE LINKS—SUBSCRIBE NOW

Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.  Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, Obama was so clever.  “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.  The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.  Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.  That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.  Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.  The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.  Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.  After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.  Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.  He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.  But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.  Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.  We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.  When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.  I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.  I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.  But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.  Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.  I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.  The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

Foreign Policy Reveals Different Strengths

Whether or not you think the GOP has a strong field, one thing is for sure.  Any of these candidates would be better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  That came across clearly from more moderate voices like Jon Huntsman in addition to the two front runners.  Overall it was a great performance by all the candidates.  The contrast between the GOP field, including Ron Paul, and Barack Obama was clear.  So, here are the winners and losers:

Mitt Romney won the debate because of his smooth ability to introduce ambiguity on some issues to give all Conservatives a cushion of comfort.  See Newt’s performance below.  Mitt also took on Ron Paul and I think Mitt won that debate.  It seems pretty clear that Al Qaida terrorists and Timothy McVeigh do not represent the same sort of threat.  In fact, I would argue that lumping McVeigh, a disgruntled anti-American government citizen attacking the system, in with the 9/11 hijackers, foreign terrorists attacking and targeting United States civilians, is a very dangerous way of looking at foreign and domestic terrorism.  I sure hope we would treat a foreign terrorist crossing our border illegally differently than a citizen radical trying to build a bomb in their basement because the IRS just sent them another tax notice.

Jon Huntsman demonstrated his firm control of foreign policy issues.  I think he overcame some fears when he affirmed our strong relationship with Israel.  Huntsman also expressed sentiments on Afghanistan that have been felt by many Conservatives who were mislabeled as “neo-cons” over the last decade.  Many Conservatives supported both wars, but do not support something for nothing nation building in nations that don’t respect us and don’t appreciate the sacrifices we have made.  Huntsman turned again and again to the economy and the failures of Obama and Congress to solve the problem.  Huntsman’s point on how we leave North Korea alone because they have a nuke, but invaded Libya after they gave up their nuclear ambitions is a great diagnosis of the inconsistency in America’s position towards nuclear ambitious countries.

Newt had a great, issue free performance.  Here is the problem.  Newt comes across hawkish, and he is far too honest.  In the end, Mitt agreed with him on long-time illegal immigrants, but Mitt said it in such a way that will be taken better by anti-illegal alien Conservatives.  Newt also hurt himself by endorsing and calling for an expansion of the Patriot act.  This could help guarantee that Ron Paulites stay home and let Obama get re-elected in 2012.  What Newt should have said was that he supported the Patriot Act, but recommends examining it for things that could be eliminated or added.  I think Newt is too straight forward on a subject that honestly Americans would prefer some ambiguity on.  Same with covert operations.  His answer regarding opening our oil resources is not new, but continues to be a very strong point for him.

Ron Paul continued to solidify his base and add some fringe Conservatives who are weary enough of the wars to want to radically change America’s relationship with the world.  For these people, Paul’s angry old man persona, scoffing and reacting to opponents’ answers, and idea that if we leave terrorists alone, they will realize the error of their ways and leave us alone, will not affect his support.  Still, Paul would make a better foreign policy President than Obama.  At least his disengagement would be total, not mixed with war hawkishness like Obama’s.

Rick Perry’s substance earned him a higher spot after this debate.  I still think his idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aid resonates with Americans.  His refusal to dabble in hypotheticals about illegals who have been here more than a quarter century is going to help him as people weed out Romney and Gingrich’s immigration comments and discover the softness there.

Herman Cain did well not to hurt himself in this debate.  He has come across as unknowledgeable on foreign policy.  In this debate he showed he has a recognizable set of foreign policy principles, although he kept things pretty vague.  He didn’t hurt himself and that is a victory for him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum comes across as a neo-con.   This debate didn’t really change that, and only a change in that perception would cause his status to change as a result of this debate.  No mistakes, but also no movement for him after this debate.  He continues to maintain that we should be paying Pakistan for friendship.

Michele Bachmann is either a career politician or has issues with comprehension.  On multiple occasions she seemed to not be able to grasp her opponent’s position.  A glaring example was when she interpreted Newt’s soft approach to long-time established illegals as some sort of call for general amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.  She played the same role in Rick Perry’s demise, but now it seems more like a desperate cry for relevance.  Rising and falling as the Social Conservative choice at this point will require superiority on the issues, not loud misunderstanding of opponents, even though that usually produces success with the general electorate.

No matter who the nominee is, what is clear from last night is that we cannot afford four more years of Obama’s foreign policy.

And that’s time

In a short hour and a half, made up of minute responses and thirty second followups, the GOP candidates once again took the stage to answer questions from semi-respectful moderators.  In a debate most looked forward to by Ron Paul fans, Paul received very little time. We have seen pretty much all there is to be seen about candidate style, and many of these questions were repeats.  So here are the winners and losers:

The Good

Mitt Romney won this debate.  His answers were calming, yet clear and determined.  He portrayed the very stature Americans are looking for in a Commander in Chief, and he highlighted American Exceptionalism.  This area is a strong suit for Mitt, and one that does not involve any sort of past flip flops or policy changes.  His answers should give him a bump among social conservatives who are inspired by terms like American Exceptionalism.

Newt at one point had to school the moderators on war versus criminal law.  In some ways this debate seemed frustrating for Newt, but that is an aspect of him his followers often like to see.  Newt brings the fight to the moderators and to the left and usually wins.  Many of his answers were right on, but others were somewhat vague.  One thing that Newt will lose points for is how loosely he called for covert operations in countries like Iran and Syria.  This is something Newt has brought up as a policy in debates and speeches in the past, but is something better left unsaid.

Jon Huntsman did well in the debate.  The question on a tradewar with China is a favorite of most media moderators because it gives them a chance to toss Huntsman an easy softball.    Foreign policy hits many of Huntsman’s strong points without touching many of the issues that conservatives hate him for.  It won’t matter though, Huntsman is done.

The Bad

Santorum did pretty well.  He has the unfortunate bad luck of being a candidate on the back end of two long wars and sharing a policy that sounds eerily like Bush’s.  On the other hand, Santorum seemed to be saying that we need to keep funding Pakistan and being their friend because they have a Nuke.  True or not, Santorum is not going to win American hearts saying implying that we must borrow from China to pay off Pakistan to be our friend.

I have a feeling that media moderators purposefully cut Paul’s debate time short on debates like this to get his supporters riled up.  Get ready, we are going to hear about that for the next week or so.  Paul didn’t do bad for most of the debate, but some of his stances are really not correct.  The idea that the United States must capture a citizen who has declared war on the United States and bring them in to face civilian court, or that non-uniformed terrorists have any sort of rights under US law is wrong and violates precedent.  Gingrich and Perry were absolutely right on those counts.  Paul’s supporters were being their typical selves in the debate as well, to the point where the mods had to admonish them to be respectful.  They are another liability of Paul’s with the overall GOP.

Herman Cain reminded me a lot of Rick Perry in recent debates.  Without 9-9-9 to fall back on, Cain was slow in responses, vague, and seemed as though he would happily defer to a future self, surrounded by knowledgeable generals and advisers.  That’s great, but that is not leadership.  In that respect, Huntsman showed up Cain, and even Gingrich, when he said if a nuke was loose in Pakistan he would secure it.  Cain really did not give a performance that screamed “I am a leader”.  Instead, each response sounded like “How can I answer this without ruining my campaign”.

The Ugly

Michele Bachmann continues to be unimpressive and unmemorable.  She scored some points rebutting Ron Paul, but seemed to spend most of the night trying to get the moderators to let her respond to other candidates.  She also seemed to get less time.  However, I will give her a great deal of credit for her answers on ways to trim military spending without hurting the military.

Rick Perry still doesn’t debate well.  And once again he found himself as the butt of several jokes, made both by the moderators, himself, and Senator Graham.  Perry’s idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aide is a great idea, but the only reason it’s his is because he got to say it first.  Gingrich and Romeny both articulated it better when Perry was done.

But allow me a Newt Gingrich moment to say this.  The real loser was Barack Obama.  The candidates made it clear, once again, that every single one of them would run foreign policy better than Obama.  Several drove home the point that Obama had a range of good choices and bad choices and made all the bad ones and none of the good ones.  The only ambivalent candidate who actually seemed to end up on Obama’s side for some things was Ron Paul.  This is one of the aspects of Newt Gingrich’s leadership because he has focused these debates on defeating Barack Obama, and when Newt sets the tone the other candidates usually follow.

%d bloggers like this: