Your Vote is Meaningless and Laughable - The US Military/Industrial Complex and Their Paid Political Felons Only Take Care of Themselves

U.S. Foreign Policy Is Too Militarized
 
How the military became the most powerful diplomatic tool America has - and why that won't help win the fight against ISIS.

Nick Gillespie & Amanda Winkler | December 18, 2015



Does U.S. foreign policy always come down to the question of when and where to deploy the military?

It seemed that way in Tuesday night's GOP debate. While the candidates got a chance to showcase their foreign policy and diplomatic chops to the American voter, most of the time was spent bragging about who would be the more willing and able to use the military to accomplish national interests abroad. When and how did U.S. foreign policy become synonymous with military intervention?

"Ever since the beginning of the cold war," says Gordon Adams, emeritus professor of international politics at American University, "We built up a very substantial military and to some degree ever since then the instinct in American policy has been to say that the most useful tool to reach for to demonstrate American leadership, to demonstrate American commitment, to demonstrate American capacity is our military capability."

This heavy reliance on the military for diplomatic relations is actually hurting American national security, according to Adams. "As long as we imagine that we are both exceptional and indispensable in dealing with ISIS, we will fail," he says.

Adams, a former senior White House official for national security and foreign policy budgets under the Clinton administration, sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to give his thoughts on the recent GOP debate, why foreign policy has become so militarized, and why he thinks it won't help America win the fight against ISIS.

No Good Men Among The Living - How The US Became the Midwife to Islamic Terrorism

THE CORPORATE SECURITY STATE IS RIGHT BEHIND THE US SECURITY STATE

Fully 1/3 of Hezbollah Forces Fighting ISIS Have Been Killed or Injured - Surely The US Should Welcome and Appreciate Such Valiant Support

ORDERS FROM AIPAC TO US CONGA LINE

Sanction HezbollahHezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, poses a direct threat to American and Israeli security. The group dominates the Lebanese government, fights for the Assad regime, and possesses an arsenal of more than 100,000 rockets. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any terrorist group other than al-Qaeda and has carried out dozens of attacks in recent years.

The Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015 (H.R. 2297 and S.1617) aims to sanction international financial institutions that knowingly facilitate Hezbollah’s activities, including the provision of significant financial services. The legislation is authored by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in the Senate and Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) in the House of Representatives.

The important measure will force foreign financial institutions to choose between doing business with Hezbollah or the United States. Additionally, the legislation targets satellite and Internet providers that provide material support to the Hezbollah television station al-Manar.

It was passed in the House on Dec. 16 by a vote of 425-0. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on Nov. 17. The bill now awaits President Barack Obama’s signature.

President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law legislation that increases sanctions on Hezbollah, the White House said.

"This strong, bipartisan bill intensifies pressure against the Hezballah terrorist organization and provides the administration additional tools with which to target Hezbollah’s financial lifeblood," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement. 



US seeking to undercut true enemies of Daesh like Hezbollah: Barrett
 
Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:37PM

PressTv 


Press TV has conducted an interview with Kevin Barret, an editor with Veterans Today, in Madison, to discuss a bill recently approved by the US House of Representatives that would impose new sanctions on banks knowingly doing business with Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: It seems that the US obsession with Hezbollah continues. What do you put it down to in this specific case? Is it about Syria?

Barret: It is ironic that we are getting all this propaganda here in the United States that Daesh represents Muslims and therefore it is radical Islam and it poses a mortal threat to the whole world and to people in the United States. We are hearing Daesh being blamed for the San Bernardino false-flag massacre which was actually carried out by Craft International or related paramilitaries working with the deep state, but in fact they are not really interested in fighting Daesh. Hezbollah is on the ground fighting Daesh and having success, and apparently for that reason it is being targeted.

The United States has a two-pronged policy here. On the one hand, it holds Daesh up as a sort of enemy image to rally the people against this scary Islamic threat, supposedly Islamic, and on the other hand, they are pumping up Daesh and actually working against people like Hezbollah who are doing the brunt of the fighting against Daesh. So it is absolutely disgusting the hypocrisy that rules politics here in the United States and particularly the Zionist death grip on the political system; people like Sheldon Adelson, the biggest gangster in America, Meyer Lansky [’s  grandson], a thug and gangster man who makes his living through the most debauched kinds of activities, has racked up billions and billions of dollars which he is now distributing like a gangster godfather to his political thugs where ranting and raving against Islam on the one hand, and then essentially supporting Daesh and opposing the enemies of Daesh such as Hezbollah on the other.

The hypocrisy here is just staggering and I am still waiting for the day that enough Americans wake up that we are going to have a revolution in this country as soon as they realize what is really going on.

Marching on : The US Monster Surveillance State - Spying on All Americans While Ignorning the Fountainhead of Terror, Saudi Arabia

The NSA will spy on you for reading this article

By Chris Smith on Dec 16, 2015 at 7:15 AM

Security

Are you looking for ways to protect your privacy while browsing the web? Are you trying to learn how to use Tor, the browser that anonymizes your Internet traffic? Are you interested in ditching Windows for something that’s more privacy-friendly? The good news is that there are ways to do that. The bad news is that this sort of online behavior apparently triggers NSA spying, especially if you’re a foreigner.



A report from German site Tagesshau reveals that the NSA has a computer system dedicated to accessing Tor called XKeyscore. The NSA apparently digs for “deep-packet inspection” Internet users located outside of the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and other countries that comprise the Five Eyes countries that work with the NSA on surveillance programs.

Hating Windows is apparently another infraction that will get you on the short list, especially if you’re looking to install the Tails operating system, which is generally used by people looking to guard their privacy.

Reporting on Tagesshau’s findings, Boing Boing speculates that the NSA and its partners might be using these simple mass surveillance spying practices to divide Internet users into two principal categories: Those who don’t care about guarding their privacy online, and those who use services like Tor, Tails and others.

It appears that even looking for information about Tor and Tails – and potentially reading this post – will get you fingerprinted.

“I have known that this story was coming for some time now, having learned about its broad contours under embargo from a trusted source,” Boing Boing writes. “Since then, I’ve discussed it in confidence with some of the technical experts who have worked on the full set of Snowden docs, and they were as shocked as I was.

“One expert suggested that the NSA’s intention here was to separate the sheep from the goats – to split the entire population of the Internet into ‘people who have the technical know-how to be private’ and ‘people who don’t’ and then capture all the communications from the first group,” the site continues.

It’s believed that details about this NSA operation may come from a second source other than Snowden, although it’s not clear who that person is.

Even though it might sound scary to the regular user looking for online data protection, the NSA’s thinking isn’t illogical. It makes perfect sense to want to know who’s looking to hide their online activity behind things like Tor and Tails because some of the people who do it are indeed up to no good. They’re not reporters looking to protect their sources, and they’re not living in oppressed countries. Some of them are the bad guys the NSA is trying to catch, and bad guys will almost certainly want to protect all online activity with the help of these encrypted technologies.

The US Big Lie That Hezollah is a Threat to the US - Courtesy of AIPAC

Jersey Fats, John Quesadia and Caustic Florina want to get it on with Russia

Kasich: Punch Russians in the Nose; Christie: Shoot Down Russian Warplanes; Paul: Hello to WWIII

By Susan Jones | December 16, 2015 | 5:38 AM EST


(CNSNews.com) - Ohio Gov. John Kasich said when it comes to foreign policy, "you have to know how to pick and choose." One of Kasich's choices would be to punch Russia in the nose.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was even harsher: He said not only would he set up a no-fly zone over Syria, he would shoot down Russian warplanes that violated that zone.

Sen. Rand Paul's response to Christie: "Well, I think if you're in favor of World War III, you have your candidate," he said at Tuesday night's debate hosted by CNN.

Kasich, who advocates regime change in Syria, said he would not have toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein "if Saddam had not had weapons of mass destruction."

He told the debate audience that Iraq needs to be broken up into three parts -- Sunni, Shia, and Kurd -- because the current arrangement doesn't work.

"And for the Russians, frankly, it's time that we punched the Russians in the nose," Kasich said. "They've gotten away with too much in this world, and we need to stand up against them, not just there, but also in Eastern Europe where they threaten some of our most precious allies."

CNN debate moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Chris Christie, "If he U.S. imposed a no-fly zone over Syria and a Russian plane encroached, invaded that no-fly zone, would you be prepared to shoot down that Russian plane and risk war with Russia?"

"Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it," Christie replied. "A no-fly zone means a no-fly zone, Wolf. That's what it means.

"See, maybe -- maybe because I'm from New Jersey, I just have this kind of plain language hangup. But I would make very clear -- I would not (not) talk to Vladimir Putin. In fact, I would talk to Vladimir Putin a lot. But I'd say to him, 'Listen, Mr. President, there's a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.'

"And yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling that the president we have in the Oval Office is right now."

Blitzer then turned to Rand Paul, asking him to respond to Christie.

"Well, I think if you're in favor of World War III, you have your candidate, Paul said. "My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, 'Yes, I'm jumping up and down; I'm going to shoot down Russian planes.'

"Russia already flies in that airspace. It may not be something we're in love with, the fact that they're there, but they were invited by Iraq and by Syria to fly in that airspace.

"And so if we announce we're going to have a no-fly zone -- and others have said this. Hillary Clinton is also for it. It is a recipe for disaster. It's a recipe for World War III.

"We need to confront Russia from a position of strength, but we don't need to confront Russia from a point of recklessness that would lead to war," Paul said.

For the record, Carly Fiorina said "now is not the time" to be talking with Russian President Vladimir Putin. She, like Christie, advocates a no-fly zone over Syria.

"There is a time and a place for everything. There is a time and a place for talk. And there is a time and a place for action," Fiorina said.

"I know Vladimir Putin. He respects strength. He lied to our president's face; didn't bother to tell him about warplanes and troops going into Syria. We need to speak to him from a position of strength.

"So as commander in chief, I will not speak to him until we've set up that no-fly zone; until we've gathered our Sunni-Arab allies and begun to deny ISIS territory; until I've called the supreme leader of Iran and told him new deal -- new deal. We, the United States of America, are going to cut off the money flow, which we can do; which we don't need anyone's permission or collaboration to do.

"And I will not speak to him personally until we've rebuilt the 6th Fleet a little bit right under his nose; rebuilt the missile defense program in Poland right under his nose; and conducted a few military exercises in the Baltic states

Obama the Passionless

“Now we have a problem in trying to make our power credible, and Vietnam looks like the place.” 

—President John Kennedy in a June 1961 

The Empire Files - It Will Either Bankrupt Us, Kill Us or Both -- Let's Hope It Bankrupts Us First

 An excerpt from:

A Green Light for the American Empire

Written by Ron Paul

Saturday March 14, 2015
RON PAUL

...Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it’s difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won’t work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States — as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.

How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.