WE WHO DARE

SAY NO TO WAR!

FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM

"WAR IS A RACKET!"

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket. #1 : We must take the profit out of war. # 2 : We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war. # 3 : We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes."

-- Major General Smedley Butler --

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

Written and spoken by Michael Rivero. The written version is here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...

Video by Zane Henry.

This video is in the public domain. The producers have waived their copyright to this video.
Listen to a post production conversation between the producers by clicking on this mp3: https://soundcloud.com/eonitao-state/...

You are welcome to make copies and to distribute this video freely. A free downloader is available here: http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/products/...

You might need this CD burner application (because the above application might be a little buggy) http://www.2download.co/cdburnerxp.ht...

If you have a PC you can use the above link (download the software first) to download it and burn it to a DVD and it is easy to do it. It is for your friends that don't have a computer and may have a DVD player instead or to give out to the public as a form of activism.

If you have a Mac you need a Mac compatible YouTube downloader and you will have to use iMovie or somtn to do it. If you have any trouble you may write to me or search YouTube for tech answers.

If you would rather have someone do it for you go here for DVDs (really affordable): http://www.dollardvdprojectliberty.com 

LINK:

The Federal Reserve

BANKS RULE THE WORLD

Daniel Davis, Matthew Hoh, and Danny Sjursen reflect on America’s war in Afghanistan in light of the Washington Post’s publishing of a trove of formerly confidential documents on the war. The report, which is being hailed as this generations Pentagon Papers, details the ways officials in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations have lied about the progress being made in Afghanistan and the need to keep troops there. Even though lots of people like Davis, Hoh, and Sjursen have been speaking out for years about America’s forever wars, they say that it’s embarrassing for top brass to admit that lower level officers could see strategic failures that the war planners could not—and so voices like theirs mostly just don’t get heard. At some point all three guests had moments that convinced them they couldn’t keep contributing to this lost cause in good conscience, and have since striven to show the world what’s really going on. We need to bring back a healthy skepticism, they say, of the idea that America’s military is a wise force for good in the world. (bold emphasis added)

SHOW NOTES:

https://scotthorton.org/interviews/12-10-19-davis-hoh-and-sjursen-reflect-on-the-war-in-afghanistan/

MORE:

https://www.fff.org/2019/12/09/a-pentagon-paradise-built-on-lies/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/afghanistan-lies-by-all-presidents/
https://original.antiwar.com/danny_sjursen/2019/12/10/i-knew-the-war-in-afghanistan-was-a-lie/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac5D6og9Z54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OYD7ovu1xQ
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xgVlq3gIAKs/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zS_Q5D_e4gs/
http://lookintoit.org/Troops-Protect-Government-Drug-Dealing.html
http://lookintoit.org/Pawns-On-The-Chessboard.html 

LINK: AFGHANISTAN

WHO: 24.4 Million in Yemen Need Humanitarian Assistance, Jan 18, 2019

"This support to the Saudi-UAE effort to wage this war in Yemen, though, is not legitimate. It's illegal. It was started by the Obama administration and continued and emphasized by the Trump administration. It's illegal. It's brutal."

-- Col. Larry Wilkerson --
Most of Congress "Likes War" and Opposes Ending US Support for Saudi War in Yemen.
TheRealNews, Published on Nov 6, 2017

“A lot of people at least the corporate media, the western media, the establishment media - whatever you want to call it - tend to tell us that this is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran...Is that true?” [Rick Sanchez]

It’s not to the extent that they talk about it at all. MSNBC ignored this conflict for two years as Fair showed. But, now that they are talking about it; what they need to point out is that the Houthis have been winning for two reasons: One is that they actually recommandeered billions of dollars of weapons the US supplied the deposed and dead dictator Saleh. And worked along side the Yemeni army which was formerly supplied by the US not Iran. Iran is supplying some political and media support but not the weapons that our government and the Saudis claim.  So the idea of a proxy war is false. The Houthis are an endogenous nationalistic resistance force that is fighting against a puppet government that poses an existential threat to them!” [Max Blumenthal]

--Rick Sanchez & Max Blumenthal--
The ABC’s of the War in Yemen with Max Blumenthal. RT, Nov1, 2018

"The UN embargo/blockade against Yemen and the Yemenis violates Genocide Convention article II (e): Deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

-- Prof. Francis A Boyle --
YEMEN: A Genocidal War Against Children and Civilians Sanctioned by the UN, US, UK & NATO

"Boyle explained that the Saudis and their allies in the Gulf Arab Emirates wanted to establish full control over the entire Arabian peninsula and also of the choke point region at the head of the Persian, or Arabian Gulf through which all oil exports, including those of Iran and Iraq were shipped by sea. 'They want to control the entire Saudi Peninsula, all its resources, and the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait through which all the oil and gas to Europe must pass,' he said."

-- Vanessa Beeley, Journalist --
YEMEN: “Saudis, Emiratis and USA are Inflicting a War of Genocide Against the Houthis" - Prof. Francis Boyle

Whitney Webb Interview The Ignored Yemen Genocide:
"18.4 Million People Are Starving To Death"
The Last American Vagabond Published on Nov 1, 2018

LINK: YEMEN 

THE TRUMP JONES DECEPTION 2 Under the rubric of Zionism, the dispossession of Palestinians and annexation of their land has for decades been hidden in plain sight, along with Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Though tourism flows in steadily to "The Holy Land," masking these egregious past and present events from scrutiny, has been and is nothing short of Orwellian. The Zionist state of Israel is a totalitarian state, whose ideologues' sentiments match those advocating world government. As Rev. Chuck Baldwin exclaims, "For all intents and purposes, the Globalist agenda (the New World Order, call it what you will) and the Zionist agenda, are one and the same." The Trump Jones Deception 2, demonstrates this fact, and the way in which both Donald Trump and Alex Jones are a part of it. https://israel.lookintoit.org https://war.lookintoit.org PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE. Uncompressed Version Here: ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@look-into-it:f/TRUMPJONES-DECEPTION2:e ------------ BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/video/xBbfqb3qmU1m/ THE INTERNET ARCHIVE: https://archive.org/details/the-trump-jones-deception-2 GORF TUBE: https://gorf.tube/w/bnrbzb4HCpw3RR42gQQN9Y

"What do I think this is going to lead to? Well, now this is going to give Trump the excuse for not leaving Syria in spite of the fact that most of ISIS has been relegated to pockets in the desert and there is no reason for the US troops to be there. In fact two of them were killed recently, so now this chemical attack is going to provide the perfect excuse to stay in Syria for longer. Is it going to lead to a wider regional war?…Possibly. Anything can happen at this point because it’s very easy to spark a world war if Russia feels that it’s being threatened it might attack.

…Well basically the way you have to see it is that France, Turkey, and the US are a bunch of vultures that are trying to pick off the corpse of what they believe to be a dead Syria. They are trying to basically divide the areas of control. France had its eyes on Manbij and turkey has its eyes on Manbij, cause they have this deal they want to make with the US that only everything east of the Euphrates belongs to their Kurdish proxies, and everything west of the Euphrates in the north of Syria is supposed to belong to Turkey. And France is kind of trying to carve out its own chunk. Of course at the end of the day Syria is alive. The military is strong. And the Syrian president has said that the entirety of Syria is going to be liberated.

So the idea that any of those forces are going to stay and takeover a piece of Syria is a pipe dream. And it will lead to death and WAR and destruction. Already two US troops have been killed…this is sadly you know only the beginning and for what reason?…For Syrian oil? The US has plenty of oil. It’s not about wanting more oil. It’s about making sure that Syria can’t control and use its oil to rebuild because that’s going to threaten Israel. At the end of the day, this is really just about Israel, and protecting Israeli interests."

-- Maram Susli, aka Mimi al-Laham, aka Syrian Girl --

What Just Happened, And Who Is Really Responsible? [video] WeAreChange Published on Apr 9, 2018

LINK: SYRIA

_____SYRIA_____

-------------------------
2017
-------------------------

Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack A ‘False Flag’

------------------------------------
2013...replaying presently 2017
-------------------------------------

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-story-that-could-derail-attack-on-syria/

THE PUBLIC IS WAKING UP TO THE GLOBALISTS 

***STAY VIGILANT***

Ron Paul: Obama Has Started ‘Immoral and Illegal’ War in Iraq and Syria
Obama’s new wars in Iraq and Syria are totally immoral as well as illegal under US and international law, Ron Paul said

by Daniel McAdams | Lew Rockwell Blog | September 28, 2014

Obama’s new wars in Iraq and Syria are totally immoral as well as illegal under US and international law, Ron Paul told RT’s Abby Martin yesterday. The idea that US force will solve the problem is also mistaken, he said. “US action will increase the violence,” rather than reduce it, he added.

Said Dr. Paul about US involvement in the war against ISIS:

“Why should someone 6,000 miles away, that has been stirring this pot for so long, be the group that is going to bring everyone together and organize the fight?”

The fearmongers who have terrified many Americans into supporting another war in the Middle East are “not concerned with the defense of America,” said Ron Paul. But the weapons manufacturers are making out very well, with the US bombing its own weapons that have fallen into the hands of ISIS.

Watch the whole interview here:

Trump’s policy unstable, depends on who’s advising him at any moment

 - Ron Paul -

-------------------------
2017
-------------------------

Published on Apr 14, 2017

Syria got hit first. Now, the US readies a preemptive strike against North Korea. The sudden shift in foreign policy – a reversal from campaign pledges to hawkish moves – came as a surprise for many Trump supporters. And it's caused relations with Russia to hit their lowest point yet. Despite America’s top diplomat traveling to Moscow for talks, it seems more differences than common ground were established. So what drives Trump’s ambition overseas? And is the new administration simply following in Obama’s footsteps? We ask three-time US presidential candidate and former Congressman Ron Paul on SophieCo.

The Lunacy of Obama’s Intervention Against ISIS

Published on Sep 19, 2014

Scott Horton makes a compelling case against the U.S. campaign against ISIS. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
http://www.TomWoodsRadio.com
http://www.TomWoods.com
http://www.ScottHorton.org
http://www.SupportingListeners.com
http://www.RonPaulHomeschool.com
http://www.TomWoodsHomeschool.com
http://www.LibertyClassroom.com 

SIR! NO SIR!

In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one expected, least of all those in it.  Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile.  And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement against the war in Vietnam.

http://www.sirnosir.com/the_film/synopsis.html

http://www.infowars.com/military-revolt-against-obamas-attack-on-syria/ 

 [ AL-QAEDA EXPOSED!! ]

Obama Now Global Head of Alqaeda!

LINK: Pawns On The Chessboard

I  R  A  Q
From The Grave They Plead Wake Up!

Charles Thomas 'Charlie' McGrath Jr.
1969-2016
Obituary

Published on Jun 13, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCT19W0evG0
http://wideawakenews.com/donate.html

ATTACHED
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

WAR IS A RACKET

From a Veteran: Why YOU Should NOT Join The Military 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo-SbTNrw5Y

Hrodebert tjern
Published on Sep 14, 2018

My own reasons behind why you should NOT join the military.

My Views do not represent any group and are solely my own from experience and understanding of world events. I no longer serve the Military and I am no longer loyal to my government. I am not a "Pacifist" I merely believe our Young people should not be involved in wars that only benefit a few filthy rotten individuals.

If you like, like - if you dislike, dislike - if you want to see more or have any questions let me know, if this gets any views i may do more videos.

Most of all thanks for watching and always remember; PEACE IS PATRIOTIC

Links:  Pawns On The Chessboard , MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX , SYRIA , NATO , WE WHO DARE SAY NO TO WAR! , FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM , U.S. Military Killing Its Own Troops! , Obama Orders Children Murdered!!

We Who Dared to Say No to War | Thomas E. Woods. Jr.

Jeffrey Tucker interviews Tom Woods on the topic of Tom's anthology (edited with Murray Polner), 'We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now.'

Recorded in Auburn, Alabama, at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 21 July 2010.

https://mises.org/store/We-Who-Dared-to-Say-No-to-War-P539.aspx

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/09/thomas-woods/we-who-dared-to-say-no-to-war/

We Who Dared to Say No to War uncovers some of the forgotten but compelling body of work from the American antiwar tradition—speeches, articles, poetry, book excerpts, political cartoons, and more—from people throughout our history who have opposed war. Beginning with the War of 1812, these selections cover every major American war up to the present and come from both the left and the right, from religious and secular viewpoints. There are many surprises, including a forgotten letter from a Christian theologian urging Confederate President Jefferson Davis to exempt Christians from the draft and a speech by Abraham Lincoln opposing the 1848 Mexican War. Among others, Daniel Webster, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Grover Cleveland, Eugene Debs, Robert Taft, Paul Craig Roberts, Patrick Buchanan, and Country Joe and the Fish make an appearance. This first-ever anthology of American antiwar writing offers the full range of the subject’s richness and variety.

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

It is important to separate hunting down terrorists who attack our country and deserve justice (which Ron Paul is 100% for), and not confuse justice with occupying entire countries for a decade under the guise of the "War on Terror" or "Spreading Democracy". Terrorists are individuals and small groups, so why are we picking fights with entire nations? BILLIONS for Defense, NOT A PENNY for Empire.

This speech is called "Imagine" and it was given by Ron Paul on March 11, 2009. The original text of the talk is below:

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

CREDITS:
Voice and Music was done by Jeremy Hoop
Video animation was done by Nicholas Bozman and MysteryBox. http://mysterybox.us 

 
Full Disclosure: What the Media Isn't Telling You About War in Syria

 Get engaged right now http://www.benswann.com

Soldiers Please Listen 

To be confronted with the fact that you are about to be ordered to commit an atrocity must be extremely uncomfortable. But the consequences of avoiding that confrontation are unacceptable.

-------------------
Follow me on...
Facebook: http://facebook.com/StormCloudsGathering
Twitter: http://twitter.com/collapseupdates
My other youtube channel http://youtube.com/scgWalks
-------------------
To see how we got into this situation and the real reason why Iran is going to be attacked please watch: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-r...
-------------------
The music for this video is original (created specifically for this video).
-------------------
"Soldiers Please Listen" and "The Road to World War 3" can now be downloaded for free at the following link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jvs3ajoz5s...

You can access this folder without having a dropbox account, but if you do decide to setup a free account use this link to set up your account http://db.tt/pqh9sC0Y and my account will be granted more free space to use so that I can upload more videos and materials.
-------------------

Some references:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/wor...
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/382685/
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext....
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/chi...
Oil reserves by country (Iran is 3rd):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene...

"Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama’s alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You’re more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it."

http://www.infowars.com/military-revolt-against-obamas-attack-on-syria/

(click for enlargement)

http://www.infowars.com/military-revolt-against-obamas-attack-on-syria/ 

The Chain of Obedience

 The death squads and concentration camps of history were never staffed by rebels and dissidents. They were were run by those who followed the rules.

http://www.docurama.com/docurama/sir-no-sir/

Buy It, Spread It.

"The fact that governments lie is generally accepted today, but World War I was the first global conflict in which millions of young men were sacrificed for hidden causes. They did not die to save civilization; they were killed for profit and in the hopes of establishing a one-world government."

- Jim Macgregor, Gerry Docherty -
Prolonging the Agony:
How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by
Three-and-a-Half Year

Watch All Three Videos & More Here: General Summary/Crash Course

The Mullen Minute: Declaration of War Power

What’s So Important About a Declaration of War?
May 7, 2011 By Tom Mullen

http://www.tommullen.net/featured/whats-so-important-about-a-declaration-of-war/ 

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul insists that the U.S. government shouldn’t go to war without a declaration of war. His son Rand has also taken this position, as have several libertarian-leaning Tea Party candidates. According to the U.S. Constitution, the congress is invested with the power to declare war. These constitutionalists say that this declaration should be a requirement before military action is authorized.

I’m not sure that this is resonating with those that are unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure that it is agreeable to the Congress that he utilizes the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president “asking permission” from the Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially considering H.J. Res. 114 (October 16, 2002). With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?

The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a “declaration” has nothing to do with “permission.” Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something that already exists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing that the United States is already at war.

The intent of the declaration of war power is for the government to have an adjudication process for war analogous to a criminal trial for domestic crimes. Evidence must be presented that the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States. The Congress must deliberate on that evidence and then vote on whether or not a state of war exists. The actual declaration of war is analogous to a conviction at a criminal trial. The Congress issues the “verdict” and the president is called upon to employ the military. To wage war without a declaration of war is akin to a lynching: there has been no finding of guilt before force has been employed in response.

Herein lies the difference between H.J. Res. 114 and a declaration of war. In order for President Bush to have obtained a declaration of war against Iraq, he would have had to present his case that Iraq had already committed overt acts of war against the United States. Like a prosecutor, he would have had to convince the “jury” (Congress) that Iraq was guilty – not of “possessing weapons of mass destruction” but of having already aggressed against the United States. Obviously, he would not have been able to do this. In fact, the absence of any overt acts of war by the nations in question is the reason that there were no declarations of war against Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, or any other nation that the U.S. government has waged war against since WWII.

The declaration of war power requires the government to obey the law of nature that that no individual or group may initiate force against another. It ensures that before the executive launches a military action against another nation, a separate body deliberates on evidence and agrees that said nation has been an aggressor. Only then is waging war justified.

This interpretation is supported by every declaration of war in U.S. history. Here are two examples.

When James Polk asked Congress to declare war on Mexico in 1846, he said,

“But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war. [emphasis added]

As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country. . . .

In further vindication of our rights and defense of our territory, I invoke the prompt action of Congress to recognize the existence of the war, and to place at the disposition of the Executive the means of prosecuting the war with vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace.”[1] [emphasis added]

After reviewing Polk’s request, Congress issued the following declaration of war,

“Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of enabling the government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination…”[2] [emphasis added]

Note the italicized words. The state of war already exists because of the act of the Republic of Mexico.

Americans are probably most familiar with the last occasion upon which the United States declared war. In what may have been the only constitutional act of his entire presidency, President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan during this famous speech:

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific…Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”[3] [full text of speech here]

In response, Congress resolved,

“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”[4]

Every other past declaration of war in U.S. history follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that war already exists. It then directs the president to use the military to end the war.

Had this constitutional process been followed, the United States would not have been involved in the wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, or Afghanistan. The declaration of war power ensures that the U.S. government never initiates force, but only uses the military to defend its citizens against an aggressor.

Following the constitution on this point would have kept the United States out of every war since WWII and prevented the U.S. government from running up a large portion of its unresolvable debt. Abiding the law of nature is not only moral, but cost-effective.

During the South Carolina Republican Primary Debate on May 5, Herman Cain articulated his position on the government’s war powers. He stated that, as president, he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met. 1. There was a clear objective. 2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question. 3. There was a clear path to victory.

While his comments clearly titillated the audience panel interviewed after the debate, one must recognize that Adolph Hitler’s wars would have been justified on this basis. Are those the only criteria upon which the U.S. government should base its decision to go to war? How about, “They attacked us?” That should be the one and only reason.

Going to war without a declaration of war not only represents aggression against the nation in question, but against every U.S. taxpayer as well. The only argument that can be made for taxing a free people is that taxation is necessary to underwrite protection of their lives, liberties, and properties. The only way that they can be compelled to pay for a war is if a state of war exists between them and another nation. To tax them for a war fought for other reasons, including defending people other than themselves, is to aggress against them. Once the government is allowed to do that, it is time to stop calling the United States “the land of the free.”

LINK:

FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM

What Anti-War Movement? - Left/Right Politics and the War Agenda 

 SUPPORT BOILINGFROGSPOST.COM: http://ur1.ca/g527g
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=8653

As we examined last week on The Eyeopener, the fraudulent left/right political divide has been used to keep the people divided against each other even as it is used to dupe the public into supporting the very same political agenda through puppet administration after puppet administration. Perhaps nowhere is this process of divide and rule quite so transparent as it is in the so-called "anti-war" movement of the last decade.

Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007

Mike Krieger
Liberty Blitzkrieg
August 29, 2013

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: The President does not have 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.

- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007 (full text here)

Ok, so Obama lied again…what’s new. Well what’s new is that launching missiles into Syria right now could lead to a much wider global conflagration, i.e. World War III. I don’t think anybody wants that. Or do they? It actually seems as if the sociopaths in charge of these United States DO want this, and therefore we must do everything we can to prevent it from happening.

Not only is it key to inform people how ridiculous it is to say a chemical weapons attack is a reason for war when the U.S. government itself aided Saddam Hussein in chemical warfare in the 1980′s, but we must also explain to people that use of force in Syria is entirely unconstitutional.

While candidate Obama clearly understood this, President Obama is suffering from another case of chronic constitutional amnesia, a condition he developed on or around January 19, 2009. This maniac, who we call President, is suddenly parading around like this war is his to start. As if he is some sort of Emperor. Well it is not, and he is not.

Somehow the Big O, our precious “constitutional scholar,” must have skipped over Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If you need a reminder, here it goes:

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Got that Barry? Go to Congress.

In Liberty,
Mike

This article was posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 5:37 am

Tags: government corruption, war

 SUCH ENORMOUS FLIP-FLOPPING PROVES PRESIDENTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PUPPETS!

LINK:

FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM

Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda.

Why Must We Declare War?

August 30, 2008 By Tom Mullen

 http://www.tommullen.net/featured/why-must-we-declare-war/

In May of 2003, the United States invaded Iraq without a formal declaration of war. While there has been spirited debate about the justification for the war, there has been relatively little discussion about the lack of a formal declaration of war by Congress. When it has been brought up by libertarians and strict constitutionalists, the general argument against concern over this “formality” has been to point out H.J. Res. 114 (October 16, 2002), wherein Congress authorized the use of military force. The substance of the argument boils down to, “Congress authorized the president to use military force, so what is the difference between that and a declaration of war?

As we will see, there is a fundamental difference between a declaration of war and an authorization to use force. In fact, it is a distinction of enormous importance, for the former is the rightful defense of liberty by a free people, and the latter the unjustified initiation of aggression by an autocratic state. The implications reach to the very heart of our republic, calling into question our morality, our freedom, and our national sovereignty.

To understand this requires an understanding of what the founding fathers meant when they granted war powers to Congress. The founders based their ideas on government firmly upon the Enlightenment philosophers, who gave us our traditions of liberty. While war is popularly thought of as the active use of military force – the battles, skirmishes, airstrikes, invasions, etc. – these, properly understood, are not war. Rather, there is a state of war, separate from the actual fighting, that was clearly defined by the Enlightenment philosophers. This “state of war” must exist before military force is justified.

John Locke devotes an entire chapter to The State of War in his Second Treatise on Civil Government. In it, he writes,

“Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject.”[1]

So, according to Locke, the state of war can arise by either an aggressor using force, or declaring the intention to use force. In either case, the relationship between the two parties has changed from a state of nature, or a state of civil society (depending upon whether or not they live under a civil government), to a state of war. Thus, the state of war begins not with the first pitched battle or airstrike, but can begin merely by the aggressor declaring his intent to initiate force. War is a state, or a relationship, that exists totally apart from the physical act of fighting. Fighting or military action is actually a result of, or a response to, the state of war. The use of force is only justified in defense, when a state of war exists. He also writes,

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”[2]

While Locke is arguably the most direct philosophical influence on the founding fathers, other Enlightenment writers also view the state of war as a condition, or a relationship separate from any tangible use of force. Thomas Hobbes writes,

“For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.”[3]

While making an argument concerning conquests, Rousseau also recognizes that the state of war is a condition or relationship between two parties that exists outside of the actual fighting,

“First: because, in the first case, the right of conquest, being no right in itself, could not serve as a foundation on which to build any other; the victor and the vanquished people still remained with respect to each other in the state of war, unless the vanquished, restored to the full possession of their liberty, voluntarily made choice of the victor for their chief.”[4]

Interestingly, Rousseau argues here that the state of war can continue after the fighting has ceased, as in his example of a conquered people still under the power of their conqueror.

Clearly, the Enlightenment philosophers recognized that the state of war was a condition or a relationship between two parties, separate and distinct from the martial actions that the parties take as a result. The state of war begins with the use of force or the declared intention to use force by an aggressor, and gives the other party the right to use lethal force to defend itself. Thus, in the tradition of liberty, the use of force is justified in defense when a man or a nation recognizes that an aggressor has put itself in a state of war with that man or nation.[5] The state of war can also persist after the fighting ceases if the conditions which created it still exist.

This was the context in which the founding fathers gave power to Congress to declare war. It was not the power to initiate a war, which is never justified, but the power to officially recognize that a state of war already exists, and that force is therefore justified. This interpretation is supported by every request by a United States President for Congress to declare war, and every resolution of Congress to do so. James Madison was the first U.S. President to request that Congress declare war – against Great Britain in 1812. In his request, he said,

“We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.”[6]

When Congress declared war upon Great Britain in 1812, the resolution reads,

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.”[7]

Here we find a clear distinction between the state of war, which Madison argues already exists, and the commencement of the use of military force. Similarly, when James Polk asked Congress to declare war on Mexico in 1846, he said,

“But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war.
As war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country. . . .
In further vindication of our rights and defense of our territory, I invoke the prompt action of Congress to recognize the existence of the war, and to place at the disposition of the Executive the means of prosecuting the war with vigor, and thus hastening the restoration of peace.”[8]

The official declaration reads,

“Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That for the purpose of enabling the government of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination…”[9]

Both presidential requests and subsequent official declarations of war by Congress support that a state of war existed before the United States commenced planned military operations. In each case, the president makes his case for why the enemy nation has been the aggressor, and why he believes a state of war already exists, and requests that Congress formally declare it. In requesting a declaration of war with Spain, President McKinley states,

“I now recommend the adoption of a joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, that the definition of the international status of the United States as a belligerent power may be made known and the assertion of all its rights in the conduct of a public war may be assured.”[10]

Congress’ official declaration not only recognizes that the war already exists, but actually specifies the date on which the state of war commenced,

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First. That war be, and the same is hereby declared to exist, and that war has existed since the twenty-first day of April, anno Domini eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, including said day, between the United States of American and the Kingdom of Spain.”[11]

Here, not only does Congress recognize that a state of war already exists, before the onset of planned military operations, but actually indicates the exact day on which the state of war began, taking the time to specify “including said day,” so that no mistake can be made about when the two nations entered a state of war.

President Wilson, in requesting a declaration of war with Germany in 1917, stated,

“…I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German government to be in fact nothing less than war against the government and people of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it; and that it take immediate steps, not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense but also to exert all its power and employ all its resources to bring the government of the German Empire to terms and end the war.”[12]

The official declaration reads,

“Whereas the Imperial German Government has committed repeated acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government which has been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces…”[13]

Here, Congress emphasizes that not only does the state of war exist, but that it has been “thrust upon” the United States by the acts of war committed by Germany. Thus, the official declaration not only recognizes the existence of the war but takes pains to officially identify Germany as the aggressor.

Finally, in President Roosevelt’s request for a declaration of war on Japan, he says,

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”[14]

In response, Congress resolves,

“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”[15]

After the United States declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the United States, and the United States subsequently declared war on Germany, consistent with Locke’s premise that a state of war exists once an aggressor declares his intent to initiate force.

I have devoted the space to include each of these passages to demonstrate the consistency with which past requests and declarations of war have demonstrated the principle that a state of war must exist before planned military action is justified.

In the interest of brevity I have included in the passages from the presidential requests only the language where they specifically ask for Congress to declare war. It is equally important to note that in each case where a president requested a declaration of war, he preceded his request with a statement of the overt acts or the formal declarations of the aggressor nation that supported his belief that a state of war existed. This can be verified by simply going back and reviewing the entire text of each request for a declaration.

So, what conclusions can be drawn from this evidence, and what relevance does this have to the invasion of Iraq and other military operations that the United States has undertaken without a declaration of war?

First, there is the moral question. Was the invasion of Iraq justified? In the five wars that the United States fought under a formal declaration of war, the justification rested upon a president “making a case” that a state of war already existed between the United States and the nation in question. The president presented evidence, in the form of a list of overt acts or a declaration by the aggressor nation, supporting his claim that a state of war existed. Congress then deliberated on the evidence, and cast a vote that supported a formal declaration that, in fact, the United States was already at war. Certainly, there have been arguments made in the cases of each of the five declared wars that either the state of war did not truly exist or that it was instigated by the United States. However, the fact remains that both the executive and legislative branches followed a constitutional process that was far more than a formality or vestige left over from earlier, courtlier ages.

However, in the case of the war with Iraq, as in the Korean and Viet Nam wars, that process did not occur. Specifically in the case of Iraq, the dialogue was shifted away from whether or not a state of war existed to a debate about whether or not Iraq posed a threat to the security of the United States. That debate still rages today. However, in the context of the previous declared wars and the meaning behind the declarative powers granted to Congress, this debate is irrelevant. No interpretation of the Enlightenment philosophy or of the U.S. Constitution justifies military action merely on the basis of another nation representing a threat. As they did in the Korean and Viet Nam wars, the United States used military force when no state of war existed, thereby becoming, by definition, the aggressor.

Why is a declaration of war a fundamentally crucial issue? Obviously, President Bush would not have been able to request a declaration of war with Iraq. There were no overt acts of aggression by Iraq against the United States for him to cite as his evidence of a state of war. Neither was there a declaration by Iraq of their intention to use force against the United States. Quite the contrary, Saddam Hussein repeatedly denied his country’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and even invited President Bush to a conference in an attempt to avoid military conflict (President Bush declined). Hussein all but declared a state of “non-war” with the United States, so there was no case to be made for a state of war based upon a declaration of intent by an aggressor. Had the United States government held itself to the standard set by the Constitution and close to two hundred years of precedent, no war with Iraq could have occurred. Equally valid arguments can be made for the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.

The moral case is even more damning when considering the “insurgency” which is still raging in Iraq, especially in the context of the Rousseau passage above. According to Rousseau, a state of war exists even after the cessation of fighting until “the vanquished, restored to the full possession of their liberty, voluntarily made choice of the victor for their chief.” Philosophically, the Iraqi insurgents have every right to go on killing Americans, their conqueror, until they are both restored to full possession of their liberty and have voluntarily chosen the United States, or the government that the United States installs, as their rightful government. Thus, the United States finds itself entangled in a war in which it is the aggressor and which can only end at the discretion of the people of Iraq, including the “insurgents.” We have seen similar results in two previous, undeclared wars. In Viet Nam, we left in disgrace. In Korea, we are still there, almost sixty years later. Perhaps there is a correlation between moral justification and success.

Second, there is a lingering question regarding sovereignty related to undeclared wars. Since the establishment of the United Nations, the United States has not declared war, yet has been almost continuously involved in military operations, almost exclusively under the auspices of U.N. resolutions. Another passage in Locke may speak directly to this.

“To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men’s putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power.”[16]

The moral argument notwithstanding, there is the further question of whether the United States still has the right to declare war. By recognizing the United Nations as a world governing power, is it not true that, as Locke puts it, there is now always “an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal?” If the United Nations has any authority whatsoever, then by its own traditions of liberty, the United States has surrendered its right to declare war, even when it determines that a state of war does indeed exist. Certainly, this is a consideration that is beyond the imagination of most of its citizenry, but the evidence seems to indicate that it is nevertheless true. The implications of this are indeed foreboding when considering a United States of the future, in a world where it is no longer the undisputed military power that it is now, perhaps as a result of an economic decline that may be in its first stages already.

Finally, there is the question of an undeclared war’s implications for the liberty of the people. Certainly, the founders granted the federal government war powers out of recognized necessity. They lived, as we do, in a world where an aggressor nation could threaten the security of even a free, non-aggressive state. However, they granted those powers for the specific purpose of defense against aggression, including the power to declare war as a means to determine if a state of war existed. The declaration of war process provided a litmus test of whether or not military action was justified. Even in a volunteer army, an undeclared war exploits the solemn trust placed in civilian leaders by the brave soldiers that defend that nation. However, the United States has twice, in Korea and Viet Nam, compelled civilians to join the army and fight. Moreover, it is not just the soldiers that war places at risk. Indeed, civilian casualties in Iraq far outweigh those of soldiers on either side. In decades past, the United States has been insulated from civilian casualties because of its remoteness from the countries in which it has waged war. However, the 21st century has already shown us that remoteness no longer provides that insulation. Given the direct risk to U.S. citizens that war involves, does the United States government have the right to wage an undeclared war? Are a people really free when they can be put at risk and into debt by their government in the absence of a true state of war?

Tom Mullen

[1] John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), Chapter III.19 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm
[2] John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), Chapter III.18 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm
[3] Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Chapter XIII http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#CHAPTERXV
[4] WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF INEQUALITY AMONG MEN, AND IS IT AUTHORISED BY NATURAL LAW? Part II http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm
[5] That the definition of the state of war applies not only to individuals, but to states as well is made clear by Locke in later chapters.
[6] http://www.sagehistory.net/jeffersonjackson/documents/MadisonWarMessage.htm
[7] Twelfth Congress Sess. 1, Ch. 102 http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/GBritain1812.pdf
[8] http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/mexdec.htm
[9] Twenty-Ninth Congress Sess. I Ch. 16 http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Mexico1846.pdf
[10] http://www.spanamwar.com/McKinleywardec.htm
[11] Fifty-fifth Congress Sess. II. Ch. 189 http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Spain1898.pdf
[12] http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/
[13] Sixty-Fifth Congress Ch. 1 http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Germany1917.pdf
[14] http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrpearlharbor.htm
[15] Seventy-seventh Congress Sess. 1 Ch. 561 http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/historical/Japan1941.pdf
[16] John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), Chapter III.18 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr03.htm
- See more at: http://www.tommullen.net/featured/why-must-we-declare-war/#sthash.1DxZQ6El.dpuf

Laurence M. Vance at FFF Conference 2008, 1 of 6

 Laurence M. Vance on "Christianity and War" at the Future of Freedom Foundation's http://fff.org Restoring the Republic, 2008.

Laurence M. Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

Playlist of Vance's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

Laurence M. Vance at FFF Conference 2008, 2 of 6

 Laurence M. Vance on "Christianity and War" at the Future of Freedom Foundation's http://fff.org Restoring the Republic, 2008.

Laurence M. Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

Playlist of Vance's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

Laurence M. Vance at FFF Conference 2008, 3 of 6

 Laurence M. Vance on "Christianity and War" at the Future of Freedom Foundation's http://fff.org Restoring the Republic, 2008.

Laurence M. Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

Playlist of Vance's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

Laurence M. Vance at FFF Conference 2008, 4 of 6 

 Laurence M. Vance on "Christianity and War" at the Future of Freedom Foundation's http://fff.org Restoring the Republic, 2008.

Laurence M. Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

Playlist of Vance's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

Laurence M. Vance at FFF Conference 2008, 5 of 6 

 Laurence M. Vance on "Christianity and War" at the Future of Freedom Foundation's http://fff.org Restoring the Republic, 2008.

Laurence M. Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

Playlist of Vance's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

Laurence M. Vance at FFF Conference 2008, 6 of 6 

 Laurence M. Vance on "Christianity and War" at the Future of Freedom Foundation's http://fff.org Restoring the Republic, 2008.

Laurence M. Vance holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics.

Playlist of Vance's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...

Authors Forum: "Christianity and War" | Laurence M. Vance

Listen to "Christianity and WAR" on Spreaker.

Laurence M. Vance discusses his book "Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State" at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's 2008 Austrian Scholars Conference, the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian School, held annually at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. http://mises.org

 

Listen to "Dr King - Why I Oppose The War In Vietnam" on Spreaker.

Ron Paul's New Ad: "Secure America's Borders Now"

The United States has troops in 135 countries

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Antigua Argentina Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Cote D’lvoire Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji

Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Mali Malta Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua

Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Sierra Leone Singapore Slovenia Spain South Africa South Korea Sri Lanka Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

U.S. TROOPS AROUND THE WORLD COSTING US TRILLIONS YET AMERICA'S BORDERS ARE VIRTUALLY WIDE-OPEN?!

??????????????????????????????

LINK: American Border Debacle

The U.S. Global Empire

There is a new empire in town, and its global presence is increasing every day.

By Laurence M. Vance

March 16, 2004

The kingdom of Alexander the Great reached all the way to the borders of India. The Roman Empire controlled the Celtic regions of Northern Europe and all of the Hellenized states that bordered the Mediterranean. The Mongol Empire, which was the largest contiguous empire in history, stretched from Southeast Asia to Europe. The Byzantine Empire spanned the years 395 to 1453. In the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire stretched from the Persian Gulf in the east to Hungary in the northwest; and from Egypt in the south to the Caucasus in the north. At the height of its dominion, the British Empire included almost a quarter of the world’s population.

Nothing, however, compares to the U.S. global empire. What makes U.S. hegemony unique is that it consists, not of control over great land masses or population centers, but of a global presence unlike that of any other country in history.

The extent of the U.S. global empire is almost incalculable. The latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense states that the Department’s physical assets consist of "more than 600,000 individual buildings and structures, at more than 6,000 locations, on more than 30 million acres." The exact number of locations is then given as 6,702 — divided into large installations (115), medium installations (115), and small installations/locations (6,472). This classification can be deceiving, however, because installations are only classified as small if they have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of less than $800 million.

Although most of these locations are in the continental United States, 96 of them are in U.S. territories around the globe, and 702 of them are in foreign countries. But as Chalmers Johnson has documented, the figure of 702 foreign military installations is too low, for it does not include installations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. Johnson estimates that an honest count would be closer to 1,000.

The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Antigua Argentina Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belgium Belize Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chad Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Cote D’lvoire Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji

Finland France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Guatemala Guinea Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Mali Malta Mexico Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua

Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Sierra Leone Singapore Slovenia Spain South Africa South Korea Sri Lanka Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

This means that the United States has troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries. The average American could probably not locate half of these 135 countries on a map.

To this list could be added regions like the Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia, Gibraltar, and the Atlantic Ocean island of St. Helena, all still controlled by Great Britain, but not considered sovereign countries. Greenland is also home to U.S. troops, but is technically part of Denmark. Troops in two other regions, Kosovo and Hong Kong, might also be included here, but the DOD’s "Personnel Strengths" document includes U.S. troops in Kosovo under Serbia and U.S. troops in Hong Kong under China.

Possessions of the United States like Guam, Johnston Atoll, Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands are likewise home to U.S. troops. Guam has over 3,200.

Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany. At the time the most recent "Personnel Strengths" was released by the government (September 30, 2003), there were 183,002 troops deployed to Iraq, an unspecified number of which came from U.S. forces in Germany and Italy. The total number of troops deployed abroad as of that date was 252,764, not including U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States. Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377. This means that 17.6 percent of U.S. military forces were deployed on foreign soil, and certainly over 25 percent if U.S. troops in Iraq from the United States were included. But regardless of how many troops we have in each country, having troops in 135 countries is 135 countries too many.

The U. S. global empire — an empire that Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Genghis Khan, Suleiman the Magnificent, Justinian, and King George V would be proud of.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. Visit his website.

Laurence M. Vance Archives

DON'T BE A PAWN IN THEIR NWO GAME

UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON - RESEARCH :

USMC MAJOR GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER

LINK: 

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing!

The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world’s largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia. ...The second reason the US military remains in Afghanistan long after the world has forgotten even who the mysterious Osama bin Laden and his alleged Al Qaeda terrorist organization is or even if they exist, is as a pretext to build a permanent US military strike force with a series of permanent US airbases across Afghanistan. The aim of those bases is not to eradicate any Al Qaeda cells that may have survived in the caves of Tora Bora, or to eradicate a mythical “Taliban” which at this point according to eyewitness reports is made up overwhelmingly of local ordinary Afghanis fighting to rid their land once more of occupier armies as they did in the 1980’s against the Russians.

*Fake Drug War Starts @ 3:03*

LINK:

Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing

FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Ever since its inception there have been those who have warned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, far from offering a simple "collective security" pact to ensure the integrity of its member nations' borders, would in fact be used as an offensive tool of imperial adventurism and conquest. Since the NATO-led Kosovo bombing campaign of 1999 at the very least, those fears have appeared more and more justified.

Since that time, NATO has continued to take a lead role in more and more overtly offensive campaigns of aggression in theatre after theatre. By now it is commonly understood to be an extension of the Pentagon itself, a convenient international military instrument for Washington to wield whenever the pretense of an international consensus cannot be achieved at the UN Security Council. -- James Corbett

NATO is the first attempt in history to establish an aggressive global military formation, one which currently includes a third of the nations of the world either as members or partners, has members and partners on five continents and has conducted active operations on four, with the potential to expand its reach into the remaining two where it has not yet officially intruded itself...As NATO continues to expand across the globe through a series of partnerships, initiatives and dialogues, what was once a collective security agreement is increasingly becoming a global military strike force capable of bombarding, invading and occupying countries anywhere in the world.

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/about/ 

LINK: NATO

Criminal governments armed Isis/Al-qaeda with weapons, including estimated 20,000 missiles to steal, kill, and to destroy for a New World Order.

LINKS :

BENGHAZIGATE

C.I.A.

N.W.O.

ISIS/ALQAEDA

Obama Now Global Head of Alqaeda!

Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing

U.S. Military Killing Its Own Troops!

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM

BANKS RULE THE WORLD

The Federal Reserve

The Obama Deception

Road to World Government

Don't Trust Mainstream Media

Seal Team 6 Was Executed

Total Despotism in America

The Fake War On Terror

The United Nations

False Flag Event

NATO

War Has Been A Racket For Quite Some Time...

The Best Enemies
Money Can Buy

An Interview with Professor Antony C. Sutton

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING HERE :

https://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1917-1930

The business of lending blood money is one of the most thoroughly sordid, cold blooded, and criminal acts that were ever carried on, to any considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending money to slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of their plunder. And theman who loans money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave and murder their own people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen.

With mountains of documentation, mostly from government and corporate sources, Sutton shows that Soviet military technology is heavily dependent on U.S. and allied gifts, "peaceful trade" and exchange programs. We've built for, sold, traded, or given outright to the Communists everything from copper wiring and military trucks to tank technology, missile guidance technology, and computers - even the Space Shuttle.

Background on Professor Antony C. Sutton

Antony C. Sutton — Feb. 14, 1925 - June 17, 2002 Antony Sutton has been persecuted but never prosecuted for his research and subsequent publishing of his findings. His mainstream career was shattered by his devotion towards uncovering the truth. In 1968, his Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by The Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Sutton showed how the Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying the North Vietnamese the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance.

Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard said in his book, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America's Future (Simon & Schuster;1984): "In his three-volume detailed account of Soviet Purchases of Western Equipment and Technology . . . [Antony] Sutton comes to conclusions that are uncomfortable for many businessmen and economists. For this reason his work tends to be either dismissed out of hand as 'extreme' or, more often, simply ignored."

The report was too much and Sutton's career as a well-paid member of the academic establishment was under attack and he was told that he "would not survive".

His work led him to more questions than answers. "Why had the US built-up it's enemy? Why did the US build-up the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts?"

Sutton, following his leads, proceeded to research and write his three outstanding books on Wall Street, FDR, the Rise of Hitler, and The Bolshevik Revolution. Then, someone sent Antony a membership list of Skull and Bones and "a picture jumped out". And what a picture! A multigenerational foreign-based secret society with fingers in all kinds of pies and roots going back to 'Illuminati' influences in 1830's Germany.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING HERE :

https://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1917-1930

http://www.antonysutton.com/suttonbibliography.html 

Warmonger Red Alert WW3!!

The hypno-induced psychotic public can't even hear the war drums any more, no matter how loud. WW3 Conditioning Complete -- They Won't See It Coming.  The Shadow Controllers Emerge Through Obama's Hypocritical Militarism

Obama Orders Children Murdered!!

As Obama grandstands and uses the Sandy Hook crisis to, in the words of Eric Holder "brainwash the public" that guns are bad and the cause of violent crime and misery, We decided to show just a few of the documented cases of drone attacks that he personally ordered where children were killed. Drone attack after drone attack you will see the real face of the Globalists. This man does not care about children he cares about disarming the American people to bring in a totalitarian government.

MORE: Obama Orders Children Murdered!! 

Calling Out The Hypocritical, War-Loving Left

For much of the last decade, the left participated in activism and protests condemning the Bush administration's wars of aggression, and calling for the President's impeachment. Now that it is a Democrat in the White House, however, these self-same activists are suddenly shying away from impeachment as a way to stop the American war machine. Find out more about the movement to impeach Obama -- and its opponents in the phoney "anti-war" left -- in this week's GRTV Backgrounder.

Americans Sick and Tired of Wars for the Global Elite

Establishment apologists step up to dismiss
George Washington’s warning

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 13, 2014

A poll released earlier this week reveals Americans are following the advice of George Washington and Ron Paul that the United States should mind its own business and avoid getting involved in the Ukraine crisis.

Obama at odds with the American people he supposedly represents.

“The poll reflects a war-weary American public that is still very reticent to get involved in international conflicts,” reports The Washington Post. “The American people were similarly opposed to military intervention in Syria last year, despite President Obama calling for the use of force and seeking congressional approval for action.”

56 percent of respondents to a Pew Research poll said the United States government and military should “not get too involved in the situation,” while 8 percent said the U.S. should consider “military options.” 29 percent said the Obama administration needs to take a “firm stand” against Russia’s supposed incursion into Ukraine.

On Wednesday it was reported Ukraine had conducted a surveillance flight over its border with Russia under the 1992 Open Skies treaty. The flight confirmed Russia has not amassed its military on the border. The coup government in Kyiv claims Russia moved 220,000 troops, 1,800 tanks and 400 helicopters on its eastern border.

Arizona Republican Senator John McCain told Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week he did “not see a military option” in Ukraine “and it’s tragic.” He said the United States has not attacked Russia due to Obama’s “feckless” foreign policy and because the administration has “been near delusional in thinking that the Cold War was over.”

Despite McCain’s reproof, Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier this month the administration would be open to using the military against Russia in Ukraine. “The hope of the U.S. and everybody in the world is not to see this escalate into a military confrontation,” he said.

David Brooks, writing for The New York Times on Monday, lamented the war weariness of the American people. He characterized it as Americans believing “that the U.S. should be less engaged in world affairs” and no longer interested in helping “solve the world’s problems.” Always the establishment apologist, Brooks said Americans “have lost faith in the idea that American political and military institutions can do much to shape the world. American opinion is marked by an amazing sense of limitation — that there are severe restrictions on what political and military efforts can do.”

Brooks did not provide specific examples how “political and military efforts” shaped Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In Libya, for instance, political chaos following the invasion by the United States and NATO in 2011 has paralyzed the country and may result in its break up. Brooks did not bother to mention the niggling fact the participation of the United States in the military effort resulted in an estimated 30,000 dead people. Iraq also faces disintegration along political, ethnic and religious lines.

“Brooks uses the words ‘should be less engaged’ instead of ‘mind its own business’ which is the language that Pew used. But hey, it’s David Brooks. His job is to make government stench come off as potpourri,” writes Chris Rossini.

George W. Bush characterized millions of Americans opposed to the invasion of Iraq as little more than a “focus group” and the Obama administration, despite pledges to the contrary and withered olive branches, has continued the Bush neocon agenda more or less uninterrupted as the script appearing on Obama’s teleprompter demands. McCain and Kerry may talk about militarily confronting a nuclear super power over minor issues in Russia’s backyard, but military action is becoming increasingly circumscribed for the establishment as Americans voice their distaste for endless war.

This article was posted: Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 11:35 am

Hidden Motives Behind the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

 The untold story behind the crisis is that this is an energy tug of war being fought between Russia and the west, with Ukraine caught in the middle.

LINKS:

NATO

International Monetary Fund

Propaganda History

MORE: NATO

LINK : MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Selling The War

LINKS :

Media Controllers

Media Controllers2

Media Controllers3

PROPAGANDA IN GAMES, MOVIES, MEDIA

As the U.S. economy remains on a consistent downward spiral, one thing the U.S. Government is never shy to invest endless cash in is the Pentagon. Which - on its end -- is pumping millions of dollars into luring in the young population of America into enrolling into the military. RT's Anastasia Churkina looks at some of those mesmerizing techniques, and what kind of effect they have had on those fit to serve.

MORE: Propagandizing Through Games

Psywar

This film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the elitist theory of democracy and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.

Includes original interviews with a number of dissident scholars including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Peter Phillips (Project Censored), John Stauber (PR Watch), Christopher Simpson (The Science of Coercion) and others.

A deep, richly illustrated study of the nature and history of propaganda, featuring some of the world's most insightful critics, Psywar exposes the propaganda system, providing crucial background and insight into the control of information and thought.

MORE:

Propaganda History

Slave Mentality

SOTU Cory Remsburg Standing Ovation, Embarassing For Congress

Ben Swann talks about the standing ovation given to Army Ranger Cory Remsburg during President Obama's SOTU address. Swann points out that Congress and President may be clapping for Remsburg but are doing nothing to actually honor veterans.

5-minute video: US ‘leaders’ JOKE about OBVIOUS War Crimes, war lies, war murders: Arrest them 

Washington’s Blog
February 9, 2014

5-minute video courtesy Realist Report

In this 5-minute video, Presidents Bush and Obama, Secretary of State and presidential-hopeful Ms. Clinton, presidential-hopeful has-been John McCain, and former Secretary of State and Bush family friend James Baker all joke about:

• OBVIOUS unlawful US wars,

• all began on lies known to be false as they were told, 

• their psychopathic lack of empathy about US-led wars that have killed ~30 million human beings since World War 2; more than killed by fascist Nazis.

These psychopaths mock our veterans by allowing their growing homelessness and suicides, despite obvious solutions available for everyone’s full-employment and health care.

These criminals continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression since the US invaded Mexico; despite Abraham Lincoln’s powerfully accurate rhetoric of President Polk’s lies to steal half of Mexico at the expense of US military and Mexican civilian lives. The most decorated US Marine general in his day also warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars for US oligarch plunder.

What can we do as American free citizens, with a tremendous heritage to speak against our own government when they violate basic lawful behavior?

Easy: arrest them for the OBVIOUS War Crimes.

Then arrest their bankster friends for crimes equally OBVIOUS for massive fraud and looting.

And then arrest their lying corporate media pals who “cover” these lies and crimes from us.

Speak now, or forever hold back from peace, justice, and truth.

This article was posted: Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:36 am

LINK: An Open Letter to America's Pastors

Once again the US invokes false flag attacks
and outright lies to stoke the flames of war

Sec. State Kerry Prepares WMD Pretext Ahead of Syria Attack
http://www.infowars.com/sec-state-ker...

Once again the US invokes false flag attacks and outright lies to stoke the flames of war. John "Lurch" Kerry gave a speech today that is going to lead us to WW3. Channeling Colin Powell, Dubya and the Kuwaiti Incubator Girl, "Lurch" the ketchup baron laid out a series of lies and falsehoods about the Syrian government to justify more military action in that region. Of course "Lurch" said they will never be able to find proof of who carried out the attack.

The military industrial complex is going into over drive as two large wars and numerous covert ops around the world are not enough satisfy our satanic overlords. They want more blood more dead kids and Al-Qaeda outposts in every middle eastern country. It's time to call the government puppets out, they are liars.

Here is an analysis from Alex Jones -- Spread it far and wide. Here is the video proof straight from the liars mouths. Don't say you didn't know, don't say you weren't warned, don't enlist in their foreign wars of aggression. Speak out and be prepared for more false flag attacks, more lies and calls for war. Chemical weapons attacks are just the beginning.

Flashback: Yahoo Uncovered Syria Chemical Weapon False Flag in January
http://www.infowars.com/flashback-yah... 

MORE: U.S. Military Killing Its Own Troops!

Ron Paul: Why Are We On The Side Of Al-Qaeda In Syria?

 Former Rep. Ron Paul, (R-Texas), argues the U.S. should stay out of Syria.

LINKS:

Ron Paul: Syria Chemical Attack A ‘False Flag’

[ AL-QAEDA EXPOSED!! ]

NATO

C.I.A.

Breaking: Obama Orders Secret Nuke Transfer!

Alex Jones and Anthony Gucciardi lay out how the Syrian false flag narrative has blown up in Obama's face.
Exclusive: High Level Source Confirms Secret US Nuclear Warhead Transfer
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-hig...

A high level source inside the military has now confirmed to us that Dyess Air Force base is actively moving nuclear warheads to the East Coast of the United States in a secret transfer that has no paper trail.
According to the high level military source, who has a strong record of continually being proven correct in deep military activity, the Dyess Air Force Commander authorized unknown parties to transfer the nuclear warheads to an unknown location that has been reported to be South Carolina, where the warheads will then be picked up and potentially utilized.

 LINK : RAND Corporation

War and Collateral Damage

While Americans elect leaders whom they trust are honest, truthful and really care about the kids they send to kill for our country, Decade after decade the sordid side of our history — that our elected officials lie us into war with stunning and embarrassing regularity and are little concerned about the harm to innocent civilians, much less to members of our own military.

In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as "population control". This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller's intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and WAR.

LINKS:

War and Collateral Damage

Bilderberg Group

RAND Corporation

World War III Is Over

(If You Want It)

Corbett Report Extras
Published on Dec 6, 2017
FULL LECTURE: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=24001

We may be looking at the echoes of WWI, but we are no mere shadows consigned to observe the events taking place around us. We are conscious actors with the ability to give our identities over to the next "great" war cause, or to retain our humanity and refuse to give in. And make no mistake: your choice does make a difference.

This is an excerpt from "Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next 'Great' War," delivered at the Open Mind Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in September 2017. Please watch or listen to the full lecture at corbettreport.com.

Debunking
A Century of War Lies

corbettreport
Published on Aug 6, 2018
TRANSCRIPT AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/warlies/

In the modern age of democracy and volunteer armies, a pretense for war is required to rally the nation around the flag and motivate the public to fight. That is why every major conflict is now accompanied by its own particular bodyguard of lies. From false flag attacks to dehumanization of the "enemy," here are all the examples you'll need to help debunk a century of war lies.

REACH OUT TO OTHERS

[Help Educate Family And Friends With This Page And The Links Below]

MORE:

 MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX | WE WHO DARE SAY NO TO WAR | War and Collateral Damage | U.S. Military Killing Its Own Troops! | Seal Team 6 Was Executed | Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing | Subverting The Public | FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM | Depopulation Agenda | Depopulating The Third World! | War On Terror | [ AL-QAEDA EXPOSED!! ] | Obama Now Global Head of Alqaeda! | Road to World Government | Asleep at the Switch | Bilderberg Group | RAND Corporation | N.W.O. | I.R.S. | F.B.I. | NATO | American Border Debacle

<< Previous    [1]  2    Next >>