FOR LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM: ANTI-CORPORATIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-GLOBALIST...PRO-SOVEREIGNTY, PRO-POPULIST, PRO-FREE ENTERPRISE

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Phony "conservative" Bushcon Republicans ripped for failure to reign in Soviet-like TSA as they allow Texas anti-groping bill to die

From:
Anti-groping bill dies, leadership slammed, a memorable House sine die

(Chron.com) --

After the anti-groping bill failed to get enough support to suspend rules for final House, its tea-party-backed sponsor lambasted the GOP leadership, prompting applause and shouts from a small contingent in the gallery.

Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, said, “I’m not only fed up with the TSA and its humiliation of travelers, but I’m also fed up with phonies – especially phony politicians” who, he said, are taking credit for bills they are trying to kill...

Simpson said it is “unfortunate that this legislation has been used as political fodder by anybody to attack the President Obama administration. The TSA and its policies were initiated by the Bush administration.”

He said, “It is time that we stand up for individual rights. Not just state rights.”

And in case anyone missed his point, he made reference to “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the fable in which only a child is willing to point out the emperor parading his finery is actually not wearing anything.

“Our emperors in Texas still have clothes. However, I think they may be going through a body scan,” Simpson said.

A small contingent in the gallery erupted in applause and left, with a few shouts. One shout: “If Congress won’t protect, we’ll protect ourselves.”...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

From the U.S. to India, the rise of statist-centered liberal fascism threatens to unleash a political maelstrom like no other

From:
The Hindu Rate of Fascism

(The Chakra) -- by Ranbir Singh --

...Fascism is an amorphous term synonymous with extreme right-wing nationalist. But this again entails more problems than it clarifies. In 1944 Nobel prize winning economist FA Hayek traced the roots of fascism and especially Nazism (which he called by its original German name of “national-socialism”) back to the Left, namely Marxist and other socialist theories. The rise of racist, revanchist and ultra-nationalist groups in former communist Europe since 1989 has to a large extent vindicated this view. Hayek’s posthumous prophecy has been most pronounced in Russia where the worst levels of Nazi skinhead racial violence is only a reflection of the crude nationalism exhibited by former hardcore communists.

To this extent Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism has perhaps been the best updated version of Hayek’s analysis. In this we find that so many movements which begin as revolutionary, statist and especially socialist end up being fascist...

Goldberg also mentions how we have misunderstood totalitarianism. The image of ‘Big Brother’ always looms large in how such a state would look. But it is now clear that far from being a prophet, Orwell merely reflected the nature of his times. Nineteen Eighty-Four was written as Stalinism was a real threat and unlike Orwell other socialists and liberals, the “useful idiots” as Lenin termed such naïve idealists, would not wake up and smell the coffee.

For example Jean-Paul Sartre was so concerned about the reality of life in the USSR demoralising the proletariat in the capitalist countries, he preferred to avert his gaze until the plight of the Vietnamese boat people made it too obvious that communism really was not creating an earthly paradise. No, the prophet of totalitarianism is a title which should be awarded to Aldous Huxley. Brave New World looks benign with its addictive hedonism, notably recreational sex. But look deeper and what we find is a society of unthinking androids, lack of deep thinking, and no emotional ties of family and friends. Nobody is mourned when they die because nobody misses them. While Orwell was concerned that in his nightmare books would be banned, in Huxley’s teddy-bear vision there is no need to ban books because nobody reads them. How far does Huxley’s vision reflect modern India ? Marxist domination of academia has killed off creative thinking.

This is most obvious in the humanities where Stalinist professors create unthinking clones of themselves and then like the pigs in Animal Farm jump at the first opportunity to gain lucrative relationships with the ‘other side’, in this case the very imperialist capitalist west which they so often denounce, and get plum appointments at institutions where they can find yet more unsuspecting victims to harangue with their unlettered monologue...

Look at the majority of bollywood movies or television channels and it is the same repetitive and unimaginative mix of mind destroying hedonism usually involving scantily clad half attempts of burlesque combined with even more laughable attempts to mime cheesy tunes, taken from the latest issue of cellular vomit. Without the liberal and civic values which in western countries have counterbalanced predatory consumerism, India is subjected to a fast paced fantasy world which appeals to the rawest and most destructive forms of sensuality.

This is not inspiration but destructive escapism as India’s elite and those aspiring to join it live in a ‘brave new world’ aloof from the masses, the ‘savages’ from Huxley’s novel. As social structures loosen the former strictures of caste in its place we find not an egalitarian society, but millions of atomised individuals with nothing to buffer between them and the state. In such a potent mix dangerously romantic and organic ideas will create new bonds much tighter than the social structure which is being discarded. In a civilisation that inspired Huxley and others with its deep spirituality, a crude and uncompromising form of hedonism has become the standard reference point.

Nature abhors a vacuum and out of the atomised flotsam and bohemian chattering classes a menacing alternative awaits to take its place. In this atmosphere there is no place for the individual, for creativity, for deep thinking and for the solitude which was necessary for India to produce such great minds as in the past. Only mindless androids, human sheep and faceless characters can hope to succeed in such an environment. This is fascism Indian style and it is the diametric opposite to the values which are found in Hindu Dharma...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

In the U.S., the liberal fascists, neoliberals and neocons thought they were being so clever with their open borders and their aiding, abetting and facilitating of subversive tribal-fascist groups like the Zionists, La Raza, and the Bloods and Crips to sow revolution and displace the formerly Christian and libertarian order.

That order was mapped out in the U.S. Constitution and implemented by the Founders, and was more or less successful for nearly two centuries, but has trembled, sagged and weakened the deeper that organized Zionist Jewry has gotten its hooks into the Establishment.

But what's gone wrong for the liberal fascists is that these anarchists and tribal fascists they've cultivated and been using to wage war against the foundations of America have run amok. Obama and the Democrats have completely lost control of the Zionists and the Israel lobby; La Raza is slowly bringing the kind of anarchy and lawlessness that afflicts Mexico to California and the American Southwest; and Black gang-bangers are running out of control. (For example, Zionist Rahm Emanuel, one of the planned Jewish Commissars of the brave new liberal fascist order, lost control of the Chicago beaches to Black and Hispanic gangs so quickly at the outset of his mayorship that he had to close the beaches to everyone).

Also unplanned by the liberal fascists is the reality that the post-Christian White population, which is completely breaking down into empty materialism, consumerism, hedonism, and nihilism, is collapsing so quickly that White society won't be able to be yoked and milked for everything it's worth to keep the liberal fascist parasites and their various gangster disciples living high on the hog as planned. When the younger of these Whites finally sober up and are faced with reality, they're no doubt going to turn on their liberal fascist masters with a demonic vengeance that will rattle them to their filthy core, and possibly into the grave.

In short, the brave new world imagined by the liberal fascists is quickly turning into a national nightmare.

At this point, the only two things patriotic America has going for it is the rise of Ron Paul and his increasingly America-first-nationalistic libertarianism, and the fact that the U.S. Military is sworn to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

What that last bit means is that these liberal fascists and neocons at war with the U.S. Constitution and its libertarian nationalist foundations, in addition to the increasing tribal anarchy of their own base, may also soon be facing the guns of the U.S. Military.

Stacking the courts: Scheming neoliberal snake Soros wants to bypass voters, have liberal-gangster lawyers appoint judges

From:
George Soros Buying Judges Now?

(The New American) -- by Raven Clabough --

Of the many things in which George Soros (left) has been involved, critics now say he is working to “stack the courts.” Soros has already established a reputation for spending millions of dollars each year in support or political, social, and global issues. He is well-known for his financial ability to be a political maneuverer and therefore this latest revelation should come as no surprise.

According to Fox News, Soros’ newest priority of ‘replacing elections by judges with selection-by-committee” has now drawn the attention of critics who are accusing Soros of attempting to stack the courts.

Fox News reports:
Most non-federal judges around the country are selected by voters in elections. But some states use a process called “merit selection” in which a committee — often made up of lawyers —appoints judges to the bench instead.

Soros has spent several million dollars in the past decade in an attempt to get more states to scrap elections and adopt the merit method. Supporters say it would allow judges to focus on interpreting the law rather than on raising campaign funds and winning elections.
Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts — a group funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute, defended the latest Soros endeavor, “Merit selection would end the money race and get judges out of the fundraising business.

Despite the seemingly innocuous intent purported by Marks, critics see a more dangerous motive, that providing committees, often comprised of lawyers, would give left-wing judges the upper hand.

“The left can’t get their agenda through the legislatures anymore … so they think they can get their agenda through by taking over the courts,” explained Colleen Pero, author of a new report entitled “Hijacking Justice.”

Pero’s report is highly incriminating. It found that Soros has given $45 million over the last decade through the Open Society Institute to “a campaign to reshape the judiciary.”...

In response to Marks’ assertions, Pero highlighted a study by prominent law professors which revealed that elected judges were more independent than judges appointed by committee, and that those elected judges tended to take on a larger workload.

“We began this project with the assumption that the data would demonstrate that appointed judges are better than elected judges,” Pero remarked. “it may be that elected judges are, indeed, superior to appointed judges.”

Furthermore, Pero contends that the process of merit selection is “inherently undemocratic.”

“It would be a handful of lawyers who elect judges … with elections, the people actually have a say.”...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Related:
Libertariantoday.com file on George Soros

Judeofascism.com file on George Soros

Slick, calculating, oily minds think alike: Obama the Nixon of his generation

From:
Like Nixon, Obama Will Waste Lives to Get Reelected

(AntiWar.com) -- by Ivan Eland --

No one needs to tell the public that politicians are slick — and the ones who get elected are the oiliest. President Obama, in a recent speech announcing the phased withdraw of 33,000 U.S. surge forces from Afghanistan by September 2012, told the country that the United States had largely achieved its goals in Afghanistan and that “we are starting this drawdown from a position of strength.” The public could be forgiven for missing the real message: “We’ve lost the war, but we are declaring victory anyway and getting out.”

The reality of withdrawing 33,000 of about 100,000 troops in that country is that the president’s “counterinsurgency” strategy — the U.S. clearing areas of Taliban forces until “good government” can take hold and the Afghan forces are competent enough to take over — has failed. The strategy was designed to achieve battlefield gains that would not eradicate the Taliban but cause the group to come to the negotiating table. Although the Taliban is negotiating, it is not doing so seriously because it knows it is winning the war. If it were losing, more Taliban would be defecting to the Afghan government; so far, only 1,700 out of between 25,000 and 40,000 insurgents have done so...

Richard Nixon faced the same dilemma presiding over the lost Vietnam War. In 1971, he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from South Vietnam until Henry Kissinger reminded him that the place would likely fall apart in 1972, the year Nixon was up for reelection. To avoid this scenario, Nixon unconscionably delayed a peace settlement until 1973, thus trading more wasted American lives for his reelection.

Obama appears to be up to the same thing. A phased withdrawal of 33,000 U.S. troops before the election will push back at Republican candidates’ demands for more rapid withdrawal and signal to the conflict-fatigued American public that he is solving the problem, while leaving 70,000 forces to make sure the country doesn’t collapse before that election. Again, American lives will be needlessly lost so that a slick politician can look his best at election time...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Dishonest presidents, sweating out their deceptions: Richard Nixon, Barack Obama

A country run by snakes, lawyers and other bloodsuckers who lie through their teeth time and again to keep the blood flowing

From:
It’s ‘Kinetic,’ So Don’t Get Frenetic

Throw away your dictionary – we’re not at war in Libya
(AntiWar.com) -- by Justin Raimondo --

Explaining the Obama administration’s rationale for violating the War Powers Act by not asking Congress for authorization to attack Libya, the White House claims that what’s going on in Libya isn’t war, it’s a “kinetic military action.” This set off such a round of guffaws – even from Libya war supporters in the Democratic congressional caucus – that the administration felt compelled to send a government lawyer to Congress to elaborate on this exercise in Doublespeak. Harold Koh, the State Department’s lawyer-in-chief, explained to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that since there was no back-and-forth firing between American and Libyan forces, the Libyan intervention isn’t a real war – and therefore the President is not in violation of the War Powers Act. (No word yet on whether he’s in violation of the Constitution, which gives Congress, and not the President, the power to make war.)

This, by the way, is the same Harold Hongju Koh who once authored a legal brief [.pdf] challenging George Herbert Walker Bush’s authority to fight the first Iraq war, on the grounds that “the Constitution requires the president to consult with Congress and receive its affirmative authorization – not merely present it with faits accomplis – before engaging in war.”

Oh, but this isn’t a war – didn’t you hear me the first time? As Koh explained to the befuddled solons in his opening statement: the word “hostilities,” which “triggers” the 60-day time line imposed by the War Powers Act, is “an ambiguous term of art.” Translation: it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean – especially if that anyone is a sitting Democratic president. After all, Koh argued, the word wasn’t defined in the legislation, and there is no legislative precedent that would define it for us. Oh, and put down that dictionary – we don’t use them in ObamaWorld, which is in the same galaxy as Bizarro World. Instead, we must stick to “historical practice.”

It is precisely “historical practice” that argues against Koh’s Orwellian linguistics, because never in the history of the world has anyone ever argued that bombing and killing citizens of a foreign country isn’t war plain and simple – not even the Soviets, who were masters of Doublespeak. That didn’t deter our State Department’s legal eagle from defending the indefensible: after all, this administration is all about “change” – and yet they didn’t tell us they were changing the language and the clear meaning of words.

According to Koh, there are four factors that qualify the Libyan adventure as a “kinetic action” rather than a war, the first being that the action has “international support,” and – due to its multilateral character – transcends the need for congressional approval. That is the view taken by his boss, Hillary Clinton, who stated that the only authorization needed came from the United Nations. Koh echoed Hillary again when he said that even if the Senators disagreed with the administration’s position on the issue of authorization, they should support the Libyan war “kinetic action,” because congressional opposition only “serves Gadhafi’s’s interests.” A less dramatic way of saying, as Hillary did, “Whose side are you on?”, but just as offensive...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

What Bushcon-Obamunist, neocon-neolib sociopaths have wrought under "national security procedure”: TSA predations on 95-year-old travelers

From:
TSA "Protects" Us From 95-Year-Old Ladies Dying of Leukemia

(The New Amercian) -- by Becky Akers --

It’s hard to know which is the more infuriating, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) initial barbarity in picking on Mrs. Lena Reppert, a 95-year-old lady dying of leukemia, or its defense of this indefensible atrocity: “The [TSA] stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security.”

And the “Florida woman” should know: the TSA brutalized her as well since she accompanied her mother. Jean Weber reports that Ms. Reppert “entered the airport’s security checkpoint in a wheelchair because she was not stable enough to walk through…” Indeed, she had endured “a blood transfusion the week before, just to bolster up her strength for this travel." Healthy teens need to bolster up their strength when travelling through aviation’s gulag; how much more an ancient invalid?

Anyone who has cared for a nonagenarian knows the effort required to move such folks from the car to the doctor’s office, let alone from Florida to Michigan, “where [Ms. Reppert] was planning to move in with other relatives prior to moving into an assisted-living facility.” Had you or I encountered this duo on their odyssey, we would admire their pluck and their devotion to one another; we might open a door for Ms. Weber so she could roll her mother through it or offer to keep Ms. Reppert company while her daughter tended to their luggage.

Which are yet more reasons we don’t “work” for the TSA. It sees in such vulnerable people not love and an indomitable spirit but helpless prey, and it attacks accordingly...

Incredibly, chillingly, the TSA defended its abuse of these harmless, pitiable women while quibbling that it did not “require” Ms. Reppert to disrobe since she could have “chosen” to miss her plane. Both its cruelty and its silly, childish denials are SOP for this demonic agency. The very old, the very young, anyone ill or handicapped — the TSA’s sociopaths at the checkpoints savage the weakest among us while its sociopaths at headquarters pooh-pooh the depredations.

Far from an anomaly, Ms. Reppert and her daughter are the latest in a nauseatingly long line of older victims. There was Phyllis Dintenfass in 2004, a retired teacher who was arrested, tried, and convicted for defending herself when a female screener groped her. And Thomas Sawyer, 61, who recovered from cancer of the bladder only to board his flight crying and soaked in his own urine after the TSA’s thugs deliberately broke the seal on his stoma bag. And Nadine Hays, who tried to transport her 93-year-old mother cross-country with a cooler of snacks the TSA’s own regulations permit; its goons wrestled the cooler away from her and traumatized her mother — then called the cops on Ms. Hays. She spent a night in jail after a strip-search. And Alaskan legislator Sharon Cissna, 69 and another survivor of cancer, whom the TSA hurt and humiliated. And so many others of a certain age, not to mention the children, people suffering from mental or emotional problems, the disabled.

Frighteningly, the TSA whitewashed most of these outrages as it did its abuse of Ms. Reppert by insisting its lackeys followed "proper procedure"...MORE...LINK

Reagan foreign policy was indeed “isolationist” relative to the obnoxious, self-serving Globalism pursued by swindling neocons and Obamunists

From:
Ronald Reagan: Isolationist

(The American Conservative) -- by Jack Hunter --

Monday, June 27, 2011

Ron Paul offers greater contrast to failed Obama admin and its corrupt Washington policies than any other candidate

From:
Restore America, Paul vs Obama

(YouTube.com) -- by Rys2sense --

Who lost California to Mexico? (The Parasite Class that is destroying the rest of the country, too)

From:
Say Goodbye to Los Angeles

(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

..."Soccer is often more deeply felt than religion,” says Franklin Foer, author of “How Soccer Explains the World.” “I don’t see tribalism ever really disappearing. … People are almost hardwired to identify as groups. And … group identity always runs the risk of being chauvinistic.”

Which brings us to Saturday’s match in the fabled Rose Bowl, with 93,000 in attendance, between the United States and Mexico.

According to Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times, when the U.S. team took the field it was “smothered in boos. … Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.”

How did U.S. coach Bob Bradley respond to the reception his team received in America’s largest county? “Obviously … the support that Mexico has on a night like this makes it a home game for them.”

“A home game” for Mexico — in Pasadena?

“It’s part of something we had to deal with,” said the coach.

“I have never heard more consistent loud cheering for one team here,” wrote Plaschke, “from the air horns to the ‘Ole’ chant with each Mexico pass, all set to the soundtrack of low throbbing that began in the parking lot six hours before the game and continued long into the night.”

After the 4-2 win by Mexico, for the first time, the trophy award ceremony was held in the Rose Bowl. When the losing U.S. team was introduced, the stadium rocked again with boos.

“We’re not booing the country. We’re booing the team,” one rooter for Mexico told Plaschke. “There’s a big difference.”

But why would scores of thousands boo a defeated team after a game?

Why would spectators raise a ruckus during a national anthem, except to manifest contempt for the country whose anthem it was?

U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard credited several Mexican players with the win, but he was disgusted at how the officials conducted the ceremony awarding the Gold Cup title to Mexico.

They “should be ashamed of themselves,” said Howard. “It was a disgrace that the entire post-match ceremony was in Spanish. You can bet your (expletive) that if we were in Mexico City, it wouldn’t be all in English.”

Indeed, were U.S. fans in a Mexican town to boo, jeer and chant obscenities at a Mexican team before, during and after a match, and blow horns during the Mexican national anthem, they would be lucky to get out of the stadium alive.

What does this event, in which Plaschke estimates 80,000 fans in the Rose Bowl could not control their contempt for the U.S. team and for the U.S. national anthem, tell us?

We have within our country 12-20 million illegal aliens, with Mexico the primary source, and millions of others who may be U.S. citizens but are not truly Americans. As one fan told Plaschke, “I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be.”

Perhaps he should go back there, and let someone take his place who wants to become an American.

By 2050, according to Census figures, thanks to illegals crossing over and legalized mass immigration, the number of Hispanics in the U.S.A. will rise from today’s 50 million to 135 million.

Say goodbye to Los Angeles. Say goodbye to California...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

We can thank the Parasite Class for this, which is comprised of, on the Right, open borders corporatists and money worshippers who want to expand the size of the American consumer market to its maximum income potential and "integrate" the U.S. with Mexico, and on the Left, open borders liberals connected to statist-profiteering rackets who seek to exploit these Hispanic masses for votes and then take big chunks of the spoils they vote themselves in form of government dole outs in exchange for“administration.”

In both cases, the Parasite Class couldn’t care less about the country and its long term prospects, and is simply concerned with self-enrichment, with plans either to insulate itself in well-policed gated communities or fly coop altogether and live in luxury somewhere overseas (not that their dollars will be worth much once Weimar-style inflation sets in here).

You know, maybe the Jacobins were on to something, at least in terms of what the Ancien Régime (pre-revolutionary France's equivalent to our Parasite Class) deserved: the guillotine.

***

Hispanics and Mestizos are such a mix of Spanish and Indian heritage (with Indians themselves being descendants of those having immigrated over the Bering Strait land bridge thousands of years ago) that any question of Latinos/Hispanics being indigenous is irrelevant.

The question is: what sort of political system do these people who have flooded over the borders want to live under? If they want to live under a corrupt, Mexican/S. American style narco-terrorist system of government that is falling apart at the seams, in which kidnapping and murder are rampant, and that is increasingly run by drug gangs, all they need do is make a u-turn and head back south.

And if that’s how the Whites profiteering from the open borders agenda want to live, they can join them down there.

***

Pat Buchanan has been accused of "nativism" and hypocrisy by some because he himself is an Irish Catholic, who themselves were once targeted for being different.

But the Irish Catholics didn't set up a subversive "Ireland-first" extortion racket the way La Raza has set up a Mexican spearhead "Aztlan" extortion racket to keep the money flowing from north to south, or the way the Zionists have set up an Israel-first extortion racket.

Additionally, the Irish Catholics assimilated into proper English, and become patriotic Americans, whereas the Mexico-firsters have done neither, and the Israel firsters haven't done the latter.

America needs to domestically pursue a muscular, America-first nationalism, (what Israel-firsters and Aztlan Mexico-firsters sneer at as “nativism,”) in order to ensure her freedoms, liberty, prosperity, and very survival against the predations and designs of these dangerous subversives, who all walk a fine line with treason.

***

No need for a “police state” and no need to “persecute Mexicans.” All that need be done is follow the Constitution and apply the rule of law. Our current de facto open borders and de facto mass amnesty are both illegal.

BTW, it’s important for patriotic Americans to understand that corporatists are working hand-in-glove with statist-liberals and leftists to engineer all of the above, each for their own anti-Constitutional, self-serving reasons, with ambition, greed and psychotic power grabs at the base of both.

Please see:

Wikileaks uncovers ongoing plot hatched in Bush II era to "integrate" U.S., Mexico, Canada, overthrow respective Constitutions

***

At this point in time, huge waves of Hispanic immigrants simply won’t pursue the ethic of freedom, liberty, self-responsibility, and libertarian government enshrined by the Founders and pursued by European Americans that made the U.S. the envy of the world in terms of economics, standard of living, human rights, and upward mobility.

Yes, this is partially because recent, intellectually lazy, corrupted, or outright defective generations of Whites lost cognizance of the fact that it was the Founders’ values that were the source of our political fortune and prosperity, but digging ourselves deeper and deeper with ever more waves of those who need to liberate their own countries (and themselves) from stagnancy, corruption and tribalism only ads insult to injury, because once here, they simply vote themselves spoils, and for politicians they think will deliver.

The fact that we haven’t had a decent, competent or even genuinely patriotic president in the vein of the Founders since Reagan just goes to show how much this country has to re-learn before it is capable of educating anybody else in the virtues of liberty, freedom and self-governance.

And anyone who thinks the self-serving greed and dialectical materialism pursued by both the establishment Right and Left of the current neocon-neolib “elite” is capable of instilling any kind of virtue in even our own citizens (let alone millions of teeming immigrants swamping our shores at once) is either part of the corrupt Left-Right racket, intellectually childlike, or delusional.

***

Those who care to do a little research can find plenty of first hand accounts of Mexico descending into lawlessness, violence, narco-terrorism and near anarchy just across the border.

Or would all those countless reports be “conspiracy theories” dreamed up by “racists” and “nativists” to make Hispanics look bad?

Time to grow up and face the music: we need to assimilate those who are here, and educate brain dead liberals and neocons on why individualism, self-responsibility and self-accountability are crucial to preserving liberty, and why self-serving tribalism and collectivism are the enemies of freedom.

Everyone has to embrace the American individualist ethic, or no one will, and we can all join fascist race gangs to survive.

***

The racist, gangster-fascist culture that has afflicted Mexico has been brought into America with the large Hispanic population that is not being assimilated. Here’s an article about a federal racketeering indictment against a racist Latino gang (of the kind facilitated by La Raza — “The Race–) that systematically tried to rid a southern California town of its Blacks.

Latino Gang Tried to Rid Entire California City of Its African-American Residents

Frankly, I’m tired of liberal fascists defending and enabling tribal and racist minority groups who organize into violent, lawless and/or subversive gangs, but I guess liberal fascists and these types of gangs are all small-minded birds of a feather who love to stir racial conflict for their own ends.

***

La Raza (The Race) is a Hispanic supremacist organization with a reconquista agenda that acts as an apparatus of the Mexican government, similar to how the various components of the Israel lobby act as an apparatus of the Israeli government and Zionist agenda.

Not all Hispanics are racists, just as not all Jews are racists. But those that metaphorically exist with one foot in America and one foot Mexico or Israel, respectively, are foreign interlopers and part and parcel of the agenda of their "homeland" to co-opt American resources, political power and/or territory to serve the interests of their race at the expense of patriotic Americans.

I don't hold myself responsible for racist hate crimes committed by the Klan because I'm not a member or apparatus of the Klan, whereas many Hispanics are members of La Raza and/or act as an apparatus of the Mexican government's reconquista agenda, and indeed rebate many of their American earnings to Mexico, just as many Jewish-Americans are Zionists and thus implicated in the Zionist agenda and crimes.

I agree that our elites don't enforce immigration law, and I believe it is because they are corrupt and have been co-opted by the Globalist agenda, just as they oppose or veto UN human rights resolutions on behalf of Palestinians and send the U.S. Military to fight wars on behalf of Israel because they have been corrupted and co-opted by the Zionist agenda.

I think many of our elites are guilty of treason, I think the Israel lobby is guilty of treason, and I think La Raza is guilty of treason. I don't think ALL elites, ALL Jews or ALL Hispanic Americans are guilty of treason or harboring a racist agenda, although I admit that I find the culture of each of those groups, including that of the money-worshipping modern elites, to be bigoted against outsiders, self-serving and hostile to the general American ethic and the general American public, and exploitive of it.

I mix all these groups together because I recognize that America is slowly being picked apart, plundered and balkanized by all of these self-serving “special interests,” and unless they are dealt with summarily, the country may not last out the century as a consequence -- in which case, we ALL lose.

PS: We'll know these ethnic groups have gone a long way towards assimilating when they quit describing themselves as hyphenated-Americans.

***

We can quickly clarify who’s an ethno-fascist and who isn’t by whether or not they vote libertarian or support the concept of libertarianism in the vein of the Founders. The bigger government party they vote for, particularly as an ethnic block, the more likely they are to have fascist inclinations that they intend to pursue to eventually institutionally racist and murderous outcomes, starting with “affirmative action” and tightening the noose from there, or, say, wars for Israel and tightening the noose from there.

-------------------------

Anti-Constitutional, free will decisions made by Left-Right Empire opportunists, not the laws of nature, resulted in our current national nightmare

From:
The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

Imperial decadence: is it inevitable?
(AntiWar.com) -- by Justin Raimondo --

If we look at American foreign policy under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, what strikes the non-partisan observer is a sense of continuity – and an escalating aggressiveness.

President Clinton moved with force into Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the latter two in support of a Muslim minority that was fighting for independence against Serbia. The result: a permanent US “mission” (under NATO auspices) in both Bosnia and Kosovo, and the establishment of a de facto protectorate in Haiti. He also moved against Iraq, bombing constantly during his two terms in office and maintaining draconian sanctions that killed as many as a half a million Iraqis, mostly children and the aged.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush launched two major wars – and a worldwide covert “shadow war” – that represented a Great Leap Forward for the American Empire. We invaded Iraq, and occupied it: we invaded Afghanistan, and set up the conditions for the longest war in our history. The Bush presidency also set the stage for future interventions, ratcheting up tensions with Iran, and extending our reach into the former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, taking on Russia in the bargain.

President Obama took office as the “antiwar” candidate, criticizing the Iraq invasion while advocating an escalation of the “neglected” Afghan front. Iraq, he argued, was a “diversion” away from our central task, which was fighting terrorism (and al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan – and in Pakistan, as well. This last was an important addition to our enemies list, one that went little noticed at the time but has since loomed large in this administration’s sights, as the stealthy but steady expansionism of the frontiers of empire pushes forward...

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are making the transition to a more traditional form of imperialism, following the Roman model: setting up protectorates which are allowed to run their own affairs internally – as long as they don’t conflict with US objectives, and permit a contingent of US troops to stand guard over the frontiers of empire.

Those frontiers are being pushed ever onward, and this is clearly the goal of the Obama administration in Pakistan – the next American target – as well as Libya. Yet this is also, for Washington’s empire-builders, an era of consolidation, when the military conquests of the previous administration are to be formalized and “legalized.”

At home, too, the empire is being institutionalized, and given a formal structure, as the President defends his supremacy in the foreign policy and military realm – so far successfully. Although the Founders abhorred imperialism, and are no doubt turning in their graves over the ongoing usurpation of Congress’s authority to make war, the White House has blithely gone about its business, ignoring its congressional critics – and this has been the case since the days of Harry Truman, who sent US troops to Korea without consulting the elected representatives of the people.

A few years ago there was a discussion among foreign policy wonks about whether America should ditch its anti-imperialist heritage entirely and become an empire. I had to laugh at this “debate,” for America has been an empire in fact if not in form since the end of World War II, and is now reaching the pinnacle of its power. Which is to say: it’s downhill all the way from this point.

The American empire may be expanding, but the economic foundations on which it rests are in fatal disrepair...

Yet I don’t buy it – not the pessimism, but the “naturalism” of this Spenglerian concept of the American nation-state as a living breathing organism, ruled by the same youth-maturity-senility progression that defines the lives of individuals. States have no separate existence from the human beings that spawned them, and these individuals have free will. The pattern of imperial consolidation – “humanitarian” wars of “liberation,” followed by occupation and the installation of American garrisons in the newly-integrated provinces – is not the inevitable the result of some natural law in the evolution of great nation-states...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

I believe economic incentive played huge role in the creation of our bankrupt Empire. The pimps and pushers of Big Government knew if they created economic incentive for what amounts to a massive government program, the mechanics of the process would take care of themselves.

So on the Left, they created all manner of Big Government institutions and special interests that would ensure government growth at home; on the Right, they created the military-industrial complex, to assure aggression and growth abroad. Together, they created a massive constituency of tens of millions who together with their dependant families formed the democratic imperative to grow Empire in order to keep the Big Government Ponzi scheme going, which is where we’re at today.

It is the Left-Right, ear-whispering pimps and pushers that have to be held to accounts if we are ever to untangle this mess. A good litmus test for who this might be is anyone eroding, undermining or ridiculing the U.S. Constitution as “anachronistic,” or “outdated,” because the Constitution was explicitly designed to keep this ear-whispering Parasite Class and its predations at bay.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Don’t blame those who would cut America’s losses in Afghanistan, blame the neocons who stampeded U.S. into unnecessary wars

From:
A War the Neocons Lost

(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

In deciding to pull all of the 30,000 troops from the surge out of Afghanistan, six weeks before Election Day 2012, but only 10,000 by year’s end, President Obama has satisfied neither the generals nor the doves.

He has, however, well served his political interests.

A larger drawdown would have risked the gains made in Kandahar and Helmand and invited a revolt of the generals, some of whom might resign and denounce Obama for denying them the forces to prevail.

Sen. John McCain, citing some generals, is already saying that, with fewer troops and more missions per unit, U.S. casualties will rise.

A smaller drawdown would have enraged the left, whose support is indispensable to Obama’s winning a second term.

So, our president did what comes naturally: cut the baby in half.

Strategically, removal of 30,000 troops in 15 months means that Obama has given up all hope of victory over the Taliban. Gen. MacArthur’s dictum — “In war, there is no substitute for victory” — is inoperative in yet another American war.

Obama’s strategic goal now is the avoidance of defeat, until the election of 2012 is behind him. And by retaining 70,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan during the fighting season and political season of 2012, he has an insurance policy against a Taliban Tet-style offensive or major U.S. military reversal as voters begin to fill out absentee ballots...

Make no mistake. Obama is headed for the exit ramp, and the Karzai government and Afghan army will not succeed where that same government and army, backed by 150,000 U.S. and NATO troops, could not succeed.

McCain and the neocons will blame what is coming, a terrible day in Kabul and across Afghanistan, on those who refused to soldier on, no matter the cost in blood and treasure.

But the people who should be indicted by history are not those who, after half a trillion dollars and a decade of bleeding, decided to cut America’s losses, but those who stampeded this country into two of the longest and least necessary wars in the history of the republic...MORE...LINK

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Schizoprhenic Congress votes against Libyan war and simultaneously to continue its funding

From:
House Votes Against Libyan War — and Against Restricting Its Funding

(The New American) -- by Michael Tennant --

President Barack Obama could not ask for a more helpful “opposition” party in charge of the House of Representatives. For the second time this month House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has maneuvered to prevent Congress from demanding that Obama abide by the Constitution’s requirement that wars be initiated by the legislative branch, not the executive. Furthermore, in seeking a middle ground between the patently irreconcilable options of enforcing the Constitution and adhering to the bipartisan consensus in favor of untrammeled presidential intervention abroad, Boehner has ensured that Obama’s illegal war in Libya continues indefinitely.

Indeed, as Politico put it, the House of Representatives’ latest expression of opposition to Obama’s war is “a rebuke the White House can live with.” On Friday the House voted overwhelmingly — 295 to 123, with 70 Democrats among the 295 No voters — against a resolution supporting the Libya mission that is similar to a Senate resolution sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). An hour later, however, it also turned down a measure that would have prohibited funding of certain operations in Libya. That bill failed, 238 to 180, a victim of Boehner’s attempts at compromise.

According to The Hill, Boehner had originally intended to have the House vote on both the resolution authorizing the war and one calling for its termination. However, says the paper, “after a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday,” the House leadership replaced the anti-war resolution with a bill that merely restricted funding for the war to “support operations like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,” according to the New York Times. The watered-down resolution, which Boehner called “a sensible approach,” satisfied neither hawks nor doves — nor, for that matter, constitutionalists such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — and deservedly went down to defeat along with the pro-war resolution.

Paul, naturally, voted against the resolution supporting the war since the operation is inconsistent with the Constitution. At the same time, he also voted against the bill that would have restricted the war’s funding, pointing out that such funding is already illegal and that “instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.”...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Through the looking glass. I really don't know what to make of this other than this country's leadership has become as insane and Orwellian as was the Soviet Union was for its entire existence before finally collapsing of the weight of its own insanity.

There truly is no cure for this level of insanity other than exhaustion and collapse.

The Boomers simply dropped too much acid, and the Zionists mainlined too much political insanity into their veins, to ever recover.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Another Ron Paul opponent bites the dust: Bachman outed as an Israel-firster by...herself!

From:
Bachmann takes it to the mat– US and Israel are ‘two sides of the same coin’

(Mondoweiss) -- by annie --

On June 13th Michelle Bachman announced her presidential run. Today it is all about.... Israel.

This speech of hers could have been written by Israel's Foreign Ministry it is so over the top, such a blatant pandering to Israel interests. We're all used to candidates cementing their Israel bonafides during the election season but this coming directly on the heels of her announcement to run, these declarations-- "Most Americans recognize that Israelis and Americans are two sides of the same coin because we share the same values and the same aspirations... We even share the same exceptional mission -- to be a light to the nations" -- leave no wiggle room, none.

Notice in Bachmann's final segment, she cites Tzipi Livni's code for rising democracies where we get schooled 'democracy is about values before it is about voting'?...

Bring it on Michelle, let's talk more about Israel. Something tells me this will wear very thin with the American public...MORE...LINK

Like him or not, Wilders' acquittal on "hate speech" charges a resounding victory for European free speech over multi-cultural totalitarianism

From:
Wilders Acquitted; Free Speech Prevails in Politically-Correct Holland

(The New American) -- by Bruce Walker --

Geert Wilders (left), member of the Dutch Parliament's Party of Freedom who was criminally prosecuted for speaking out about the Islamic immigration and integration problem in the Netherlands, has been acquitted of "hate speech" crimes. During a public debate about Muslim integration and multiculturalism, Wilders had declared, “The core problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf, the Quran.” The presiding judge found that his remarks were “at the edge of what’s legally permissible,” "hurtful," "offensive," and of an “inciting character.” But the court declared that, given the context of his comments, his speech did not constitute a criminal act.

The court observed of Wilders' short 2008 film about Islam, Fitna, that “Given the film in its whole and the context of societal debate, the court finds that there is no question of inciting hate with the film.”

Wilders commented after the verdict:
It’s not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands. Fortunately you’re allowed to discuss Islam in public debate and you’re not muzzled.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone was happy with the acquittal. Aydin Akkaya, Chairman of the Council of Turks in the Netherlands, voiced his displeasure: “What surprises me is that the judge says that what’s permissible is determined by the context of societal debate. In other words, if you just find a ‘context’ you can go nuts.” Mohammed Rabbae, Chairman of the National Moroccan Council, warned of a lawsuit: “We will go to the United Nations Council for Human Rights in Geneva. The suit will be directed against the government."

Academia also quickly took sides against Wilders. Professor Leo Lucassen, Chair of the Social History Department at Leiden University, averred that the verdict “will further the inward-looking and to some extent xenophobic atmosphere in the Netherlands” and that it “fuels this idea of immigrants who are basically an alien element to the Dutch people.” Andre Krouwel of Amsterdam’s Free University called the decision a “incredible mistake” which “legalized populist rhetoric.” He warned:
Inside the Netherlands and outside, politicians will now go the same way: to the edge of what is allowed. Right-wing politicians in other countries will be able to point to the Netherlands and say, "They can say it there — why not here?"
...Geert Wilders, of course, was not lying. At worst, he was expressing a negative opinion about Islam. If Christians in Europe hailed before the courts everyone who said something negative about Christianity, then the courts would have almost no time for anything else. Politicians constantly take issue with, or even attack, the policies and beliefs of others. When people can no longer argue with others and say what they think, then there is no freedom.

But the problem goes much deeper than simply a religious issue. When Andre Krouwel attacks “right-wing politicians,” many wonder why that not hate speech directed against conservative members of government. When Leo Lucassen talks about the “inward looking and to some extent xenophobic atmosphere in the Netherlands,” is he is engaged in hate speech directed toward those Dutchmen who agree with Wilders? Liberal professors in Holland have spoken against capitalists, Catholics, and “conservatives” without prosecution. When a mullah in a Dutch mosque declares, “Death to Israel” or “Death to America,” would that be considered hate speech?

Freedom of speech won a solid victory in the Netherlands with the acquittal of Wilders. But the complaining of Muslims and academicians after the verdict demonstrates that though this battle was won, the politically-correct war is not over...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Wilders wins a resounding victory against political correctness and attempted thought and speech control
-------------------------


Chris Moore comments:

Not only the multi-cultural totalitarians and Islamic totalitarians are going to have trouble swallowing this one, but so are the Judeofascists.

Hey, anyone who can't stand the free-speech heat can get the hell out of Western civilization and go live under the Zionists, Mullahs or Mexican narco-terrorists.

Using the same tactics as their Big Government neoliberal kin use against conservatives, nasty neocons play infantile "gotcha" game against Ron Paul

From:
The Real Ron Paul on Marriage and Drugs

(The New American) -- by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. --

As of late, Ron Paul has once again been the subject of relentless criticism courtesy of Republican Party pundits.

It is his positions on marriage, “recreational” drugs, and current American foreign policy that invite, not just his detractors’ objections, but their ridicule and even their wrath. In all fairness, it is Paul’s statements in the Republican presidential primary debates — a venue, it must be admitted, that is not readily accommodating of the impassioned Texas congressman’s rather unorthodox beliefs — to which his critics speak. However, given that Paul has authored several reader-friendly books in which he elaborates on his views, if the GOP talking heads were really interested in what he thought, it is reasonable to expect that they would turn to these works.

So, what does Paul think about the aforementioned topics?

Let’s take marriage first.

When asked during the New Hampshire debate whether he would support a Constitutional amendment explicitly defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, Paul replied in the negative. He then followed up by insisting that “government” shouldn’t have anything at all to do with this institution. For this claim, he was excoriated by the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Medved who exclaimed that Paul’s position would result in an anarchic situation in which property settlements, benefits claims, and the like would be rendered impossible.

The hysteria with which Coulter and Medved responded to Paul is in keeping with the hysteria that we have come to expect from his Republican opponents. Still, so defective is their reasoning on this score that it is hard to shake the suspicion that it is, at least in part, a function of bad faith.

Paul is not alone among his colleagues and competitors in the primaries in speaking of “government” interchangeably with the federal government. In fact, all of the candidates have a tendency to do this. And considering that they are all running for the presidency, it is to be expected that this should be so. That it is the federal government’s relationship to the institution of marriage with which Paul is principally concerned is born out by the following considerations.

First, it is the office of the presidency on which he sets his sights.

Second, being the constitutionalist that he is, there can be no doubt that if Paul were president, he would discharge only that narrow set of obligations that the Constitution specifies for holders of office at the federal level. How the individual states decided to treat marriage or any other issue that falls beyond the federal government’s constitutionally delineated jurisdiction is a matter respecting which a President Paul would be indifferent.

Third, again, the issue under question is an amendment to the Constitution that would supply a formal definition of marriage. Since it was immediately upon informing us that he would not endorse this amendment that Paul asserted his wish to see government remove itself from the marriage business altogether, anyone with any sensitivity to the context of this exchange should be able to recognize that “the government” to which he refers is the federal government...MORE...LINK

Liberal fascist mainstream media seeks to shred U.S. Constitution and its legal protections of citizens and their freedoms as racist and outdated

From:
Time Magazine Cover Story Asks: Does the Constitution Still Matter?

(The New American) -- by Joe Wolverton, II --

The cover of the July 4, 2011 issue of Time magazine depicts a shredded Constitution superimposed with the question: “Does it still matter?” The tone of the cover article makes Time’s answer to that question obvious.

Richard Stengel is the author of the piece and his opening paragraph presents the thesis that he carries on throughout the rest of the story: "Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga."

The point, one made incessantly by those interested in unfastening the republic from its constitutional moorings, is that while the Constitution is an admirable document, it is dated and has served its purpose. Advocates of this position do not see how a document written over 200 years ago can adequately govern a modern country. Or, as Stengel restates his point in the third sentence of the very next paragraph: “Since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think.”

What Stengel and those of similar mind fail to appreciate is that the principles of government laid out in the Constitution were already “outdated” in 1787. For example, the Constitution’s core concepts of separation of powers and federalism were already well-established features of republican governments in Greece and Rome.

In light of this fact, why did the generation of men who lived at the time of the framing of the Constitution (including those who disagreed with its ratification) not disparage those ancient concepts as being “out of touch” with the needs of an 18th-century population, separated from the people of ancient Rome and Greece by over a millennium?

They didn’t make that point because, unlike Time magazine, they understood that those principles of political philosophy were timeless and the statesmen of antiquity advocating those principles were men of sound understanding and not given to being tossed about by the ever shifting winds of popular opinion. To build the Constitution of the United States upon a foundation as solid and reliable as those that supported the exemplary republics of Rome and Greece was an act of unquestioned good sense, regardless of how old those principles were.

Finally, the article makes the point that regardless of how noble some of the freedoms protected by the Constitution may be (speech, assembly, and religion), Americans must remember, lest they put too much faith in the Constitution, that it was written by men who “were not gods and were not infallible.” In fact, these men were so far from divine that they owned slaves, denied women the right to vote, and agreed to the “crazy” idea that “South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California.” So, before you join with the Tea Party and its “almost fanatical focus on the founding document,” you should recognize the depravity of the men who drafted it...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Makeup-wearing Managing Editor Richard Stengel is spearheading Time Magazine's liberal fascist war against the U.S. Constitution. In truly Orwellian fashion, Stengel was once CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Lying, self-serving neocon swindlers plunder U.S. and bankrupt American people under guise of "national security" and fighting "evil"

From:
What’s a Neoconservative?

(The American Conservative) -- by Jack Hunter --

Liberal fascism: statist-liberal mainstream media joins War Street Journal to torpedo Ron Paul in favor of Huntsman

From:
Media Distorts Facts on Paul, Huntsman and Afghan War

(The New American) -- by Alex Newman --

Activists slammed a series of media pieces that blatantly misrepresented the facts about Republican presidential contenders Rep. Ron Paul and former Utah Governor and Obama appointee Jon Huntsman (left) regarding the war in Afghanistan.

Among the culprits were the Wall Street Journal, Politico.com, The Atlantic, and Esquire magazine. The inaccuracies ranged from obvious fact errors to subtle distortions. But they didn’t go unnoticed.

In a piece for the DailyPaul.com, a website supporting the liberty-minded Republican Ron Paul, a blogger called out two of the worst offenders: Politico.com, a website that covers politics, and the men’s magazine, Esquire. The blog post highlighting the errors sparked dozens of comments from outraged and dismayed Paul supporters, who said they had dealt with years of “establishment-media” distortions and bias against the constitutionalist GOP candidate.

In the first piece, “senior political reporter” Maggie Haberman of Politico made an obviously false claim that anyone who follows American politics would instantly recognize. “The shift away from positions calling for military engagement,” she wrote, is “most clearly articulated by Jon Huntsman so far among the current candidates, with his call for a clear troop drawn-down from Afghanistan.”

In fact, Ron Paul has articulated the non-interventionist position far more clearly for years, including calls to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. “I'd bring them home as quickly as possible, and I'd get them out of Iraq as well," Paul said during a recent presidential debate. "Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there.” Paul’s long-held positions have been consistently articulated for decades in books, speeches and even on the floor of the House of Representatives.

By contrast, “moderate” Jon Huntsman has been anything but clear regarding his position on basically everything — and especially Afghanistan and foreign intervention. "You're going to have to leave behind some presence, probably not 100,000 or 120,000 troops, but some presence," Huntsman said during an interview with CNN in mid-June. After officially announcing his candidacy earlier this week, he told reporters that he did not have “specifics” for a withdrawal plan.

The second inaccurate article cited in the blog post came from writer Chris Jones of Esquire magazine, who absurdly claimed in an “exclusive” that Huntsman “has already begun to distinguish himself in a crowded field by becoming the first to call for a rapid withdrawal of U.S troops from Afghanistan.”

Again, anybody who has followed politics at all knows Rep. Paul has been calling for a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan since well before the 2008 presidential election. Former New Mexico Governor and fellow 2012 GOP candidate Gary Johnson has been issuing similar calls since long-before most GOP voters had even heard of Huntsman.

Furious Paul supporters flooded the two reporters and their employers with e-mails and phone calls demanding corrections. But as of June 23, none had been issued...MORE...LINK

Radical, warlike neocon McCain's promiscuous interventionism the antithesis of Reagan/Buchanan sane and sensible conservatism

From:
McCain shows his promiscuous interventionism

(The News Tribune) -- by George Will --

WASHINGTON — Elevating the fallacy of the false alternative to a foreign policy, John McCain and a few others believe Republicans who oppose U.S. intervention in Libya’s civil war – and who think a decade of warfare in Afghanistan is enough – are isolationists.

This is less a thought than a flight from thinking, which involves making sensible distinctions.

Last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” McCain warned that the GOP has always had “an isolation strain.” He calls it “the Pat Buchanan wing,” which he contrasts with “the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world.” Rather a lot turns on the meaning of “stand up for.”

Between wishing success to people fighting for freedom, and sending in the Marines (or the drones), there is as much middle ground for temperate people as there is between Buchanan, a sort of come-home-America conservative, and McCain, a promiscuous interventionist.

When asked his response to those, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who say there was no vital U.S. interest at stake when the Libya intervention began, McCain said: “Our interests are our values” and “our values are that we don’t want people needlessly slaughtered by the thousands,” as Moammar Gadhafi seemed to threaten to do, “if we can prevent such activity.”

Under the McCain Doctrine, America’s military would have just begun to fight, and would never stop. Americans are, however, war weary – which is a good thing: What kind of people would they be if they were not?

U.S. involvement in World War II lasted 1,346 days. U.S. fighting in Afghanistan reached that milestone six years ago (June 14, 2005). America is fighting there, in Iraq, in western Pakistan, in Yemen and in Libya.

Where next? Under the McCain Doctrine, wherever U.S. “values” are affronted – and those who demur from this global crusade are isolationists, akin to those who, 70 years ago, thought broad oceans and placid neighbors guaranteed America’s security from Hitler and Japan...

Regarding Libya, McCain on Sunday said, “I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today.” Wondering is speculation; we know this:

When a terrorist attack that killed 241 Marines and other troops taught Reagan the folly of deploying them at a Beirut airport with a vague mission and dangerous rules of engagement, he was strong enough to reverse this intervention in a civil war.

Would that he had heeded a freshman congressman from Arizona who opposed the House resolution endorsing the intervention. But, then, the McCain of 1983 was, by the standards of the McCain of 2011, an isolationist. George Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Is Washington bombing Libya for oil, or out of misguided “humanitarianism”? Both, and it's all part and parcel of the un-American, Globalist agenda

(LibertarianToday.com) -- by Chris Moore --

There's an interesting exchange taking place about why the U.S. is participating in the bombing of Libya between self-deceiving liberals, as epitomized by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com, on one hand, and self-deceiving libertarians, as epitomized by Shikha Dalmia over at Reason magazine on the other.

The question: Is oil the primary motive behind Obama's participation and support of what is clearly a regime change agenda and war of aggression in Libya, or is it motivated by humanitarianism?

Greenwald says oil, Dalmia says misguided humanitarianism.

Both are right as far as they go, and yet wrong, because they fail to assemble the pieces of the puzzle together into the full picture.

Let's start with Greenwald:

When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force. We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West. That's not even a debatable proposition at this point...

After almost three months of fighting and bombing -- when we're so far from the original justifications and commitments that they're barely a distant memory -- is there anyone who still believes that humanitarian concerns are what brought us and other Western powers to the war in Libya? Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose? If (as is quite possible) the new regime turns out to be as oppressive as Gaddafi but far more subservient to Western corporations (like, say, our good Saudi friends), does anyone think we're going to care in the slightest or (at most) do anything other than pay occasional lip service to protesting it? Does anyone think we're going to care about The Libyan People if they're being oppressed or brutalized by a reliably pro-Western successor to Gaddafi?
Counters Dalmia:
Greenwald rests his case on a rather tendentious reading of a single Washington Post story revealing that lately, Gadhafi had been demanding bigger up-front payments from Western countries for drilling rights and greater profit-sharing. This allegedly offers proof that the United States wages wars “not for humanitarian or freedom-spreading purposes, but rather to exploit the resources of other nations for its own large corporations.”

The idea that oil lust drives America’s Middle East policy is a perennial—and tired—saw invoked by U.S. critics both at home and abroad. But why, then, does America keep spurning this oil through sanctions on hostile regimes? In the decade between the two Iraq wars, America wouldn’t let Saddam Hussein sell any oil except for food. Washington’s sanctions on Iranian oil are costing America $38 billion to $76 billion annually in lost revenue. And America had sworn off Libyan oil until Gadhafi abandoned plans to develop weapons of mass destruction and compensated the victims of the Lockerbie terrorist bombing.

That we are after Libya’s oil is particularly untenable for the simple reason that Libya is only a bit player in the world oil market. It is not even among our top 15 crude oil suppliers. The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels a day and Libya produces 1.7 million barrels for the whole globe. America lost 1 million barrels a day during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the U.S. economy barely hiccuped.

Launching an unpopular war that has already cost the U.S. $700 million at a time of record deficits and debt in order to protect such paltry supplies seems too dumb even for an Ivy League president—especially since this oil won’t do Gadhafi much good if he refuses to sell it to the West, where half the planet’s oil consumers reside. Nor does it make sense that we want to replace Gadhafi because he’ll cut us off from Libya’s future oil reserves, which are admittedly considerable. That’s because the best expertise to exploit these reserves actually resides in the West, which is why Western companies, including American, have the bulk of drilling contracts in Libya right now. Gadhafi threatened to hand these contracts to India, China and Brazil—but after we attacked him. Indeed, if we wanted only to promote our corporate interest, coddling him would be a far better strategy.
Dalmia says the reason that left-wing factions of the anti-war movement want to pin the blame on oil is because that motive dovetails with their ideological contempt for capitalism:
The antiwar camp likes the greed rationale because it wants to blame America’s seemingly endless quest for war on the inherent logic of its system. But the truth is that the Bush administration had its own reasons for engaging in optional wars and the Obama administration has its own. To pin every war on the greed of corporate capitalism has the virtue of parsimony, but it is false. Greed is arguably more a force for timidity than belligerence in the world.

It might be disconcerting that the road to global hell is being paved not by our greed but our good intentions. But building a solid case against war will require us to admit just that. We don’t serve the cause of peace in Libya or elsewhere by making this all about oil all the time.
So Greenwald says "our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests," and Dalia says no, misplaced "good intentions" are why we're bombing Libya.

But both arguments fall short out of omission. The real reasons Washington is bombing Libya, (and still occupying large swaths of the Middle East), are both ideological (per Dalia) and material (per Greenwald) but conjoined, and are each part and parcel of the larger neoliberal-neocon Globalism and Zionist agendas, which go together hand in glove, and are the primary motivating factors behind the over-arching Mideast/North Africa policy.

Neolib-neocon Globalism is both ideological and economic, similar to communism or fascism (of which, indeed, it is an approximate synthesis).

The push for oil imperialism and maintenance of the petro dollar monopoly is but one economic component of Globalism, just as the push for maintenance of the dollar as world reserve currency and maintenance of the Fed's domination of the global money supply (which is part of what is keeping the hollowed out, U.S. casino economy from totally collapsing) is another. Together, they might be described as an agenda of dollar hegemony, which is necessary to the maintenance of the larger policy of economic Keynesianism, which is essentially a Ponzi scheme that maintains a currency is worth whatever everyone can be convinced, or coercively made to agree, it is worth, and so long as that worth is established and enforced, money and credit can be generated hand over fist and used to finance and pursue whatever agenda the vanguard establishment in control of the currency and the printing presses sees feet, and buy off competing factions.

The agenda currently be pursued by this corrupt elite is aggressive, "humanitarian" liberal internationalism (we must bomb to advance democracy and protect women and children) with a subtext that is cultural (we must also bomb to advance cultural liberalism such as gay rights, women's liberation, secularism, etc.)

Most of this, of course, is mere window dressing fashioned by the neolib-neocon architects and eaten up by the complicit (many of whom have convinced themselves that Washington is in earnest) to mask over the craven Keynesian economic motives at the base of the entire program. Nonetheless, this misplaced belief in the humanitarian imperative is "real" to the extent that many of those who dwell within the comfortable confines of the false consciousness created by the Washington establishment and its mainstream media lackeys truly believe the cover story to be true, and are rarely, if ever, exposed to the objective truth outside the establishment-maintained bubble.

Another phony humanitarian subtext protected by the Washington establishment and mainstream media, and a key component of Globalism, is Zionism, which might be said to be the cultural glue that holds the Globalist enterprise together.

Culturally, Zionism appeals to Judeo-Christian (a conflation that’s pure myth and contrary to traditional Christianity) conceit and bigotry on the establishment Right, and to Judeophile multicultural (the Jews are an “endangered species,” that are like a “canary in the coal mine” in terms of our tolerance for “vulnerable minorities”) conceit and self-righteousness on the establishment Left. Hence the interests and agenda of organized Jewry (Zionism) become the cultural, compassionate, progressive casus-belli (both explicit and implicit) for the corrupt establishment of the post-Christian, post-Western civilization, brave new American elite that are today using the U.S. as the vessel or Trojan horse of their neocon-neoliberal Globalist ideology.

“God blesses those that bless Israel” chants the greedy, self-serving, neocon Right in bed with Zionist Jewry. “History demands social justice for the vulnerable, including Jewry” chants the greedy, self-serving, neolib Left, also in bed with Zionist Jewry. Meanwhile, the lot of them continue to get richer and richer, while the truly vulnerable and downtrodden in America and across the world being parasitically exploited, manipulated, and plundered by the Globalist agenda and its Keynesian, crony capitalist and crony socialist-serving Ponzi scheme, get poorer and poorer.

Liberal elite and mainstream media enable, enourage Black gang assaults on Whites, Asians

From:
America's New Racism

(The New American) -- by Walter Williams --

...Born in 1936, I've lived through some of our openly racist history, which has included racist insults, beatings and lynchings. Tuskegee Institute records show that between the years 1880 and 1951, 3,437 blacks and 1,293 whites were lynched. I recall my cousins and me being chased out of Fishtown and Grays Ferry, two predominantly Irish Philadelphia neighborhoods, in the 1940s, not stopping until we reached a predominantly black North or South Philly neighborhood.

Today all that has changed. Most racist assaults are committed by blacks. What's worse is there are blacks, still alive, who lived through the times of lynching, Jim Crow laws, and open racism who remain silent in the face of it.

Last year, four black Skidmore College students yelled racial slurs while they beat up a white man because he was dining with a black man. Skidmore College's first response was to offer counseling to one of the black students charged with the crime. In 2009, a black Columbia University professor assaulted a white woman during a heated argument about race relations. According to interviews and court records obtained and reported by Denver's ABC affiliate (12/4/2009), black gangs roamed downtown Denver verbally venting their hatred for white victims before assaulting and robbing them during a four-month crime wave. Earlier this year, four black girls beat a white girl at a McDonald's, and the victim suffered a seizure. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing families. According to the NBC affiliate there (6/8/2011), a gang of black teens stormed a city bus, attacked white victims and ran off with their belongings.

Racist black attacks are not only against whites but also against Asians. In San Francisco, five blacks beat an 83-year-old Chinese man to death. They threw a 57-year-old woman off a train platform. Two black Oakland teenagers assaulted a 59-year-old Chinese man; the punching knocked him to the ground, killing him. At Philly's South Philadelphia High School, Asian students report that black students routinely pelt them with food and beat, punch and kick them in school hallways and bathrooms as they hurl racial epithets such as "Hey, Chinese!" and "Yo, Dragon Ball!" The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund charged the School District of Philadelphia with "deliberate indifference" toward black victimization of Asian students.

In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators. If it were white racist gangs randomly attacking blacks, the mainstream media would have no hesitation reporting the race of the perps. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons. Chicago Tribune Editor Gerould Kern recently said that the paper's reason for censorship was to "guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion."

These racist attacks can, at least in part, be attributed to the black elite, who have a vested interest in racial paranoia. And that includes a President who has spent years aligned with people who have promoted racial grievance and polarization and appointed an Attorney General who has accused us of being "a nation of cowards" on matters of race and has refused to prosecute black thugs who gathered at a Philadelphia voting site in blatant violation of federal voter intimidation laws...MORE...LINK

Sick statist liberals and "national security" neocons want to expand their perverted TSA grope troops into ever more intrusive sectors of society

From:
TSA Searches Expand as Opposition Mounts

(The New American) -- by Alex Newman --

As travelers and state governments across America fight back against invasive screening by the Transportation Security Administration at airports, the TSA is actually expanding its operations covering busses, trains, ships, ferries, subways, and even highways. But critics, who say the methods are unconstitutional and often constitute sexual assault, are up in arms.

A popular movement that began picking up steam last year called for a boycott of air travel until the routine violations of Fourth Amendment rights were halted. “We will not be abused simply for the privilege of purchasing your services,” a group known as We Won’t Fly notes on its website. “We are eager to fly again, but only when this invasive threat has been contained.”

But now, that might be a moot point. Americans are increasingly likely to be subjected to groping, document checks, and the so-called “porno” naked body scanners no matter how they choose to travel.

Roving bands of TSA workers have been swarming bus stations and other transportation hubs since late 2005. But recently, the TSA has been expanding its use of what it dubs “Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response” (VIPR) teams nationwide. In fact, they are quickly becoming ubiquitous.

“The teams provide a random, announced, high-visibility surge into a transit agency, in addition to enhancing agency resources during special events,” the TSA explains on its website. As early as 2007, the agency threatened to “expand the VIPR concept beyond the rail sector to other forms of mass transit.”

In a bizarre show of force last week, the agency conducted what might have been one of its largest VIPR operations to date. According to a report in the Marietta Times, the exercise involved Blackhawk helicopters, airplanes, “waterborne and surface teams,” and more, covering over 5,000 square miles. The military and the FBI participated, too, as did numerous state and local law enforcement agencies. And it’s about to get worse.

TSA boss John Pistole, whom columnist Becky Akers referred to as “the pervert most responsible for the agency’s sexual violations of passengers,” is now seeking to massively increase the budget for “VIPR” programs. Testifying before Congress earlier this month, Pistole explained that his 25 teams had performed more than 8,000 “operations” during the last year.

But more are needed to “deter” terrorists, he insists. The agency’s 2012 budget request asks taxpayers to fund another 12 VIPR teams. In 2009, the 10 existing bands of roaming TSA workers were costing Americans $30 million. If Pistole gets his way, the 37 squads will be charging taxpayers almost $110 million next year...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Parasitic Left-Right Keynesian elite determined to keep their murderous Ponzi scheme afloat through perpetual war and plunder...of Mideast AND America

From:
The War Against ‘Isolationism’

The empire strikes back
(AntiWar.com) -- by Justin Raimondo --

Yesterday’s radicalism is today’s conventional wisdom – and nothing underscores this truism more than the current foreign policy debate. Remember way back when neoconservatives were calling for “draining the swamp” of the Middle East, George W. Bush was hailing the advent of a “global democratic revolution” to be led by the US, and anyone who dissented was marginalized as part of what Andrew Sullivan called a pro-terrorist “fifth column”? Those were heady days for the War Party, which was still enjoying the momentum of the post-9/11 rage that sucked us into two major wars simultaneously. It was also before the Great Meltdown of 2008, when the biggest pillars of the American economy creaked, cracked, and nearly collapsed of their own weight.

As a great songwriter put it a couple of decades ago: the times, they are a’changing.

A Pew poll taken a couple of years ago in which respondents were asked whether the US should “mind its own business” showed a huge disparity between elite and hoi polloi opinion on the matter, with the elites saying “No, no, a thousand times no!” and the plebeians answering “Heck yeah!” I suspect elite opinion hasn’t changed much: among the general public, however, recent polls show an even more overwhelming popular consensus in favor of non-intervention, including one taken by The Hill newspaper which records a whopping 72 percent saying “the United States is fighting in too many places,” and a mere 16 percent saying “the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level.” (Twelve percent weren’t sure.)...

For the first time since the 1970s, the American ruling class is frightened to death that its global empire is in danger of being subverted on the home front by an “isolationist” movement, and elite pundits are up in arms. Liberal columnist Richard Cohen writes that the President should leave “as few as possible” troops in Afghanistan, but then avers:

“The trouble with recommending such a course is that it conforms to the foreign policy views of almost all the Republican presidential candidates. Their position regarding Afghanistan is, however, just a piece of their wholesale embrace of Herbert Hoover Republicanism. They would turn the country inward – what Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham characterize as isolationism – while also adopting Hoover’s disastrous economic policy. Not satisfied with a recession, they would cut government spending and bring on a depression..."

Our anti-Hooverites are devout Keynesians: they believe government spending can lift America out of its economic depression, and this is the largely unacknowledged motive behind elite liberal support for our failed foreign policy of global intervention. Because military spending is indeed government spending, and, in the Keynesian mindset, the more the merrier.

For years, the US has poured its resources into making itself into the military arsenal of the world, while our traditional industries have atrophied. At a time when the rest of the economy is sliding into the abyss, the military-industrial complex is doing just fine, thank you. US military operations abroad, and the billions we ship overseas in “foreign aid,” may impoverish most of us – but some people are profiting, particularly US exporters. If our role as world policeman is abolished, or even cut back, that means, in the short term, more Americans on the ever-lengthening unemployment line.

Our elites have neither the will, nor the intention, of shrinking the US presence in the world: they are far too invested, politically and psychologically, in the idea that Washington is and must remain the center of the known universe. Within the limits of the District of Columbia, the virtue of humility is nearly unknown: indeed, it is considered a vice. Rather than admit defeat, they are willing to risk whatever political consequences might follow from their stubborn hubris, confident that they’ve rigged the political system sufficiently to render the popular revolt against interventionism impotent.

How it will end is anybody’s guess, but mine is this: our elites, like those in the Middle East (and now Europe), are underestimating the rage boiling beneath the surface of everyday life in America. Smugly complacent, they scold the people for succumbing to “isolationism” and assure them that they – the “experts” – know best how to solve the world’s problems … when they can’t even solve the problems we are confronting here at home...MORE...LINK

Showdown looms: states-rights vs. Obama's neo-Soviet agenda as neocon Perry finally relents to poplar demand for “no federal groping” legislation

From:
TSA Showdown a Watershed Moment in Battle For Freedom

(Infowars) -- by Paul Joseph Watson --

A bill that would criminalize invasive TSA pat downs in Texas has risen like a phoenix from the flames, with Governor Rick Perry being forced to include the item on the agenda for the current special session of the legislature, setting the stage for what could potentially become a watershed moment in the battle to peel back a federal power grab that has characterized the advance of big government.

Despite initially shirking responsibility by erroneously claiming that the bill did not have enough support to pass, Governor Perry was forced to place the item on the special session agenda yesterday, meaning TSA workers could face a year in jail or a $4,000 fine if they “touch the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person, even through that person’s clothing for the purpose of granting access to a building or a form of transportation,” according to the text of the legislation...

Absent the dirty tricks that shot down the progress of the legislation the first time around, the bill should have no problems in getting enough votes to be passed – the majority of state Senators support SB 29, with a number still undecided and just two against. The schedule for the special session is due to run until June 30, but Perry also has the authority to extend this deadline.

The real test will be how the federal government reacts to the passage of the legislation, a response which is likely to be characterized by two separate arguments.

One – the feds will simply claim that the bill is superseded by the Supremacy Clause of the US constitution, arguing that states cannot regulate the federal government, and will order TSA goons to continue groping Americans. This will kick start a massive states’ rights battle, but TSA workers will still be reticent to abuse their power for fear of lawsuits. However, if they pursue this route, the feds won’t have a leg to stand on. The Supremacy Clause merely states that the Constitution is supreme, not that the authority of the government is supreme. Indeed, if anything the Supremacy Clause works in favor of the anti-pat down bill because it reinforces the protections guaranteed by the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Two – the government will adopt an altogether more aggressive approach and repeat their threats of financial terrorism by resolving to impose a federal blockade to prevent flights operating out of Texas airports. This tactic was used to kill HB 1937 before it could even reach the Senate last month following the circulation of a letter written by DoJ Attorneys that threatened to cancel all commercial flights in the state. The power of the federal government to impose a de facto “no fly zone” over Texas is non-existent. If this is attempted, Texas airports could simply replace all TSA workers with private screeners and give the feds a symbolic middle finger. What’s more likely to happen is some kind of compromise deal, but TSA agents would still be less likely to carry out grope downs for fear of lawsuits.

Years of growing outrage over TSA grope-downs and naked body scanners has culminated in this momentous showdown. The outcome of this fight will determine the course of this issue for years to come, and will shape whether the TSA becomes a literal occupying army in a Sovietized America, or whether the organization itself and the Homeland Security takeover in general withers and dies...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Pretty-boy Perry stalled for his Washington neocon string-pullers for as long as possible, but finally relented to the "Don't mess with Texas" locals ready to get out their pitchforks

Populist uprising against war has shamelessly opportunistic elites dissembling, backpedaling on their neolib-neocon, militant liberal internationalism

From:
For Obama, the Politics of War Are Tricky

(New York Times) -- by MICHAEL D. SHEAR --

...1. His base. The president’s top advisers often remind his supporters that Mr. Obama promised to withdraw from Iraq during his 2008 campaign, not from Afghanistan. Still, many of the president’s staunchest supporters saw him generally as an antiwar candidate and were surprised by his willingness in 2009 to expand the war there dramatically.

At last week’s Netroots Nation, a gathering of liberals in Minneapolis, Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was confronted directly with questions about Afghanistan.

“What will it take to get through to the White House that we want the war ended?” one questioner asked. Mr. Pfeiffer promised that an announcement about the beginning of a withdrawal would be coming soon. But the question for Mr. Obama’s liberal supporters is whether the size of that withdrawal will be large enough.

The liberal complaints are also coming from Congress, where Democratic lawmakers like Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have tried repeatedly — and with little success — to force the government to speed up the pace of America’s withdrawal from the Afghanistan war.

“The question is not whether we can afford to leave, the question is can we afford to stay, and I submit we cannot,” Mr. Kucinich said during a debate over the issue in March.

2. His Republican rivals. In December 2009, Mr. Obama was praised by most of his potential rivals for his decision to broaden the war in Afghanistan and increase the troop presence, with the notable exception of Representative Ron Paul, who has long opposed such interventions. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who is widely considered the front-runner for the Republican nomination, said at the time that Mr. Obama had made “the right decision” about the war.

“And, by the way, you’re noting that Republicans are not making this a political football,” Mr. Romney said on CNN at the time. “Republicans are saying, ‘Yeah, he’s done the right thing here.’”

But Mr. Romney, now an official candidate, appears to have shifted his view of the war. During a debate last week in New Hampshire, Mr. Romney said that troop decisions should be based on military realities, but he also indicated a desire to see the conflict end.

“I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation,” Mr. Romney said in comments that have earned him the ire of some conservatives. “Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”

That view is also echoed by Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, who is expected to enter the Republican presidential race on Tuesday. Mr. Huntsman has said he envisions a small contingent of American troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism, but says the bulk of the forces should come home. “It’s a tribal state, and it always will be,” he told Esquire magazine. “Whether we like it or not, whenever we withdraw from Afghanistan, whether it’s now or years from now, we’ll have an incendiary situation. … Should we stay and play traffic cop? I don’t think that serves our strategic interests.”

Those comments by Mr. Obama’s potential rivals could increase the pressure on the president to announce a larger withdrawal this week...MORE...LINK