Americas Enemies are in Washington, D.C.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to  discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable  patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the  extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”–Sun Tzu, The  Art of War

Alt-market – The definition of what makes an “enemy” may vary from person to  person. But I would say that, generally, an enemy is one who has an  active ability to do irreparable harm to you or your essential values.  He is motivated by destruction, the destruction of all that you hold  dear. He is capable and unrelenting. He is a legitimate threat. He will  not compromise. He will not waver. He will do anything to wound you. He  will not stop. He is possessed.

Americans have spent the better part of a century being told who  their enemies are with very little explanation or substantiation. We  have blindly rallied around our patriotic prerogative without knowing  the root cause of the conflict or the nature of the target we are told  to annihilate. We have been suckered into war after war, conjured by  international interests in order to lure us into accepting greater  centralization and concentrated globalism. As a culture, I’m sorry to  say, we have been used. We are a tool of unmitigated doom. We are the  loaded gun in the hand of the devil.

This paradigm has done irreparable harm to our standing in the eyes of  the peoples of the world. But until recently, it has done very little  harm to us as a society. We have allowed ourselves to be used like a  bloody club, but we have not yet felt the true pain or the true cost. We  have been insulated from consequence. However, this comfortable situation  is quickly coming to an end.

When one applies the above definition of “the enemy” to Syria, one  comes away with very little satisfaction. The Syrian government poses  absolutely no immediate threat to the United States. In fact, the civil  war that now rages within its borders has been completely fabricated by our own government. The insurgency has been funded, armed, trained  and ultimately directed by the U.S. intelligence community. Without U.S.  subversion, the civil war in Syria would not exist.

So, the question arises: If Syria is not the real enemy, who is?

I point back to the core issue. That is to say, I would examine who  pose a legitimate threat to our country and our principles. The Syrian  government under Bashar Assad clearly has no capability to threaten our  freedom, our economic stability, our social stability, or our defensive  capabilities.

There is, though, a group of people out there who do, in  fact, pose a significant threat to the American way of life on every  conceivable level. These people do not live on the other side of the  world. They do not wear foreign garb or speak another language. Most of them do  not have pigmented skin or Asian features. They look just like you and  I, and they live in Washington D.C.

If the so-called “debate” over a possible military strike in Syria  has done anything, it has certainly brought the American public’s true  enemies frothing to the surface like so much sewage. Men who posed as liberal proponents of peace not long ago now  salivate over the prospect of bloodshed. Men who once posed as fiscal  conservatives now clamor for more Federal funding to drive the U.S. war  machine. Men who claimed to represent the citizenry now ignore all calls  for reason by the public in the pursuit of global dominance.

I have warned of the considerable dangers of a war in Syria for years  — long before most people knew or cared about the Assad regime. Being  in this position has allowed me to view the escalating crisis with a  considerable amount of objectivity. In the midst of so much chaos and  confusion, if you know who stands to gain and who stands to lose, the  progression of events becomes transparent, and the strategy of the actual  enemy emerges.

So what have I observed so far?

If you want to know who has malicious intent toward our  Constitutional values, simply move your eyes away from the Mideast and  focus on our own capital. The ill will toward liberty held by the  leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties is obvious in the  Congressional support of the banker bailouts, the Patriot Acts, the  National Defense Authorization Act, the President’s domestic  assassination directives, the hands-off approach to National Security  Agency mass surveillance, etc. But even beyond these litmus tests, the  Syrian debate has unveiled numerous enemies of the American people  within our own government.

The catastrophe inherent in a Syrian strike is at least partially  known to most of the public. We are fully aware that there will be  blowback from any new strike in the Mideast (limited or unlimited), economically as well as  internationally. So if the average American with little political  experience understands the consequences of such an action, the average  politician should be more than educated on the dangers. Any  representative who blatantly ignores the calamity ahead is either very  stupid or has an agenda.

I find it fascinating that politicians and bureaucrats from both  sides of the aisle are now coming out of the woodwork to cheerlead  alongside each other for war and the state.

For those who are predominantly preoccupied with Barack Obama as the  source of all our ills, I would gladly point out that Republican leader  and House Speaker John Boehner has also thrown his support behind a Syrian strike, even before the U.N.  investigative report on Syrian chemical weapons use has been released.

In the meantime, self-proclaimed Republican stalwarts like John McCain (R-Ariz.) have argued that Obama’s “limited strike” response is “not  enough.” This is the same man, by the way, who has been instrumental in  the monetary and military support of Al Qaeda in Syria.  McCain has recently called for avid pursuit of the new Russian proposal for chemical disarmament in Syria, not because he wants to find a peaceful solution to the situation, but because he believes the deal can be used as a bargaining chip to convince Congress to VOTE FOR military force, in order to “keep pressure on Assad”.

Secretary of State John Kerry,  who not long ago ran for President on the platform of being an anti-war  Democrat, now regularly begs the American people to back further war  based on the same dubious evidence for which he once criticized the  George W. Bush Administration. In fact, Kerry has made it clear that  even if Congress votes “no” against a strike, he believes Obama has the  right to set one in motion anyway.

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), the man who openly admits in mainstream interviews that he  believes the President has the right to indefinitely detain or  assassinate American citizens without trial or oversight, has loudly  indicated his support for a war on Syria. His criticisms parallel  McCain’s in that he believes the Obama Administration should have  attacked without Congressional approval or should commit to an all-out  military shift into the region.  That is to say, he believes the goal of the White House should be invasion and regime change, not just disarmament.  Graham consistently fear mongers in the  mainstream media, often warning that without a hard, immediate strike against  Syria, catastrophe will befall Israel, and chemical and nuclear weapons will rain on America.

All I have to say to Graham is, if chemical or nuclear weapons are  used against the American people, it will be because the establishment ALLOWED it  to happen — just as it has allowed numerous attacks in the past to  occur in order to facilitate pretext for a larger war. (The Gulf of Tonkin is a fitting example considering the many similarities between the Syrian debacle and Vietnam, the only difference being that this time the establishment is throwing its support on the side of the insurgency, rather than the prevailing government).

For those out there in the movement who are hoping for reason and  logic to prevail during a Congressional debate on the Syrian issue, I  would suggest that they do not hold their breath. This vote was decided  before Obama ever allowed it to go to the Hill. The vote has been cast.  The debate is a sideshow designed to make the American people feel as if  their system of government still functions as it should. Remember, no  Congress in the history of the United States has ever refused the  request of a President to make war.

The more than 150 Congressmen who demanded a vote on the Syrian  crisis did so because they wanted to be included in the process, not  because they necessarily opposed a war. That leaves nearly 300  representatives who had NO PROBLEM whatsoever with Obama  attacking Syria unilaterally without any checks or balances. The Senate  panel that initiated the voting process on the strike plan passed the  initiative 10-7. I have no doubt that Obama has the votes to confirm the  use of force, even with all the talk of uncertainty in evidence or planning.

The Russian offer of organizing chemical disarmament has barely made a dent in the White House’s war rhetoric, as was evident in Barack Obama’s address to the nation yesterday.  When asked in an interview with NBC if he has made up his mind whether or not he will forge ahead with military action if Congress votes his proposal down, Obama stated:

“It’s fair to say that I haven’t decided…”

Putting on the airs of a Roman Emperor, Obama’s thumb remains in the neutral position over the gladiator pit of Syria, but as he clearly points out, he can give the thumbs down anytime he chooses.  If anything, the White House and the elitist machine are simply using the next few weeks (the approximate time being discussed for chemical disarmament) to establish further precedent, or conjure new atrocities, in order to garner a minimal public backing for violent action in the region.

And, let’s not forget our friendly enemies in the mainstream media.  The MSM is in rare form the past week, fabricating numerous arguments as to why the average American “just doesn’t get the Syrian situation”.  The latest disinformation campaigns seem to be revolving around generating alternative motivations for a strike –

Obama’s “red line” was crossed and we must strike in order to save face amongst our allies.

A refusal to strike Syria will “embolden Iran” and lead them to use their own WMD’s in terrorist acts (WMD’s which are still not proven to exist).

And my favorite argument:  That refusing to strike would mean “abandoning” the Syrian rebels in their war on Assad.  You know, the same rebels permeated with psychopathic Al Qaeda operatives that our government trained and funded.

The mainstream media steamroller is barreling forward, searching for ANY talking point that will hook the American populace into rationalizing an attack.  I have to say, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many pencil-necked weaklings call for so much blood.  The strategy seems to be an attempt to shift America’s attention away from the alleged chemical attack alone, and discombobulate us with multiple sales pitches of death in case Congressional support turns sour (which I doubt).

But let’s say Obama does not get his Congressional approval; as stated earlier his  office has asserted on numerous occasions that he has the authority to  trigger war regardless. A “no” vote in Washington means nothing today due to war powers granted after 9/11.  The probable scenario, though, is the most common scenario. Congress  will likely authorize the “use of limited military force” without directly  declaring war on the Assad regime. This is exactly what Congress did in  the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no evidence of  an Al Qaeda support structure and no evidence of weapons of mass  destruction, but war exploded nonetheless. Congress gave Bush a  blank check to do whatever he saw fit, and I believe Congress  will do the same for Obama.

America is being set up to look like the bad guy or the fool, but why?

Our  political leadership is devoted to the ideology of globalization, not  sovereignty or U.S prosperity. A Syrian strike places the United States  in tremendous peril, the likes of which have not been seen since the  Cuban missile crisis. Syria itself is a vacuum of suffocating calamity; a black hole  swirling in a void of economic and sociological interdependency. Where  the United States enters, so follows Iran, so follows Israel, so follows  Saudi Arabia, so follows Lebanon, so follows Jordan, so follows Egypt,  so follows Russia, so follows China and on and on.

In my analysis of Syria over the years, I have exposed this domino  effect of war as well as the possible calamities of an economic chain reaction.  Escalating conflict in Syria will eventually lead to the end of the dollar’s  world reserve status and the collapse of the U.S. financial system.  Knowing that this is the ultimate result of a strike in the region, many  people would ask WHY the White House and so many prominent  figures in Congress would be so hell-bent on setting such wheels in  motion. I would stand back from the chaos and ask what I always ask: Who  gains the most from the disaster?

The demise of American currency dominance and the degradation of the  American spirit do indeed benefit a select few. For the most part,  central banks and globalists have taken a hands-off approach to the  Syrian debacle. Perhaps that’s because doing so makes it easier for them  to survey the inevitable collapse from a distance and swoop in later as  our “saviors,” ready to rebuild the world according to their own  ideals. Having a debased and desperate U.S. populace certainly makes the  transition to total globalization and centralization much easier.

My original query was: Who is the real enemy? No matter what happens  in the coming months and years, never forget that question. Who poses  the greatest threat to our freedom: Syria or the political ghouls trying  to convince us to decimate Syria?

Who claims the power to take everything we have? Who claims the power  to take our liberty and our lives at a whim? Who claims the power to  kill innocents in our name? Who disregards the checks and balances of Constitutionalism at every turn? Who truly threatens our future and the  future of our children?

Do not be distracted by stories of foreign monsters far away when  the real monsters lurk so quietly under your bed.  Even if we can find a successful strategy  to pressure Congress into avoiding a Syrian conflict, I say remain vigilant.  America is one global hiccup away from oblivion. And if this is what the  establishment wants, they will find a way to make it happen. The threat  of continuous U.S. catastrophe will only end when the poison is removed from our  very veins, and that process of purification begins with the removal of  the criminal political structures and banking structures in Washington.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *