Neoconservatism is nothing more than an agenda for military imperialism; anything else is just posturing.
“Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a League of Honor.” – Woodrow Wilson speaking of the communist Bolshevik Revolution in the soon to be Soviet Union, April 2, 1917. Who would have thought, Communist Russia: A Beacon of Freedom
I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets…We would not put boots on the ground…our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive…I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress…I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.
In essence, Obama is ready to strike Syrian targets at any time, promises that we won’t be committing troops to Syria, and will seek authorization from Congress for the use of force, but claims he doesn’t really need this authorization.His claims that he doesn’t need Congressional authorization is exceedingly ridiculous and what’s more, he bases this claim, in part, on his own precedent in Libya in 2011! Another thing that stands out from his press release is that he mentions that the mission would not be time-sensitive, ie. Obama admits Syria poses no imminent threat to us (which should be exceedingly obvious).
Let’s remember this statement when we commit thousands of troops to Syria because the situation “is more complicated than we expected,” specifically because of our needless foreign intervention in the first place. Let us remember this like we remember presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s statement from December 20th, 2007 when he said:
the President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
When a politician get’s caught in outright lies like Barack Obama has, they must be put to task for it.
According to a new DoD training manual, people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”
“The document defines extremists as ‘a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.’” Then, it goes on to say that “Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” So, terrorists are people who seek to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights, but potential terrorists are those who talk of individual liberties and making the world a better place? The lengths to which the government and hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center will go to present propaganda as truth are astonishing.
Equally astonishing is the mention of our Founding Fathers as extremist groups, on par with terrorists. It says “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
This is another example of a long string of propaganda by the government to discredit liberty-loving individuals and organizations and brand them as radical extremists who are likely to commit terrorism. (see here, here, here and here). The government wants nothing more than to expand its power over its citizens by maliciously branding large domestic groups as terrorists or potential terrorists so as to create a non-existent terrorist threat in our own backyard. This is how they can justify and get away with spying on hundreds of millions of Americans communications; they create a “terrorist threat” where there is none, and then usurp vast swaths of extra-Constitutional powers to deal with this “unprecedented” threat that doesn’t even exist in the first place. Then, when they falsely claim that the non-existent threat is getting worse, they build off of previously unconstitutional and immoral laws as precedent for their new grasps at power that are viciously destructive of our civil liberties, but are okay because we could not have these civil liberties at all if they weren’t protecting us. The old adage about liberty and security is being turned on its head; it now reads ‘We cannot have any liberties without total security.’ We must be forced to be free. What a load of rubbish.