DEMOCRATS: THEY VOTE FOR ENGLESS GLOBAL WAR AND NO WALL TO DEFEND AMERICA FROM THE NARCOMEXX DRUG CARTELS!
Threats to the United States now at a Whole New Level
It turns out that nations do not stumble into wars and conflict. Wars are generally the result of globalist forces with ulterior motives or political leaders who seek to shore up and protect their political position by demonizing a target, like Russia, and then rallying the people’s support around the enemy of that target, like Ukraine, in the name of patriotism and American interests.
The American people are wising up after spending $8 trillion over some twenty years in the so-called war against terror in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan -- protracted engagements that cost lives and ended in failure, often creating resentment from the native people we were purportedly trying to help. In 2001, the year of 9/11 that triggered the war on terror, total U.S. national debt stood at about $3.4 trillion. Today U.S. national debt has grown by 10-fold to $34 trillion.
The permanent elite in Washington recently assured the American people (with no discussion or accounting for costs) that the U.S. military could fund and prevail in a two-front war -- one against Russia in the European theater to defend Ukraine; and the second against China in the Pacific theater to defend Taiwan.
That was until the Middle East blew up on October 7th, thrusting the United States into a new kind of war with multiple fronts. Radical Muslim jihadis never conceded that 9/11 would be the final attack on the United States. In fact, the Iranian mullahs and Hezb’allah have stated repeatedly that they seek to inflict death and destruction on both Israel and America on a mass-casualty scale never seen before.
The American people are also finally wising up about the harm that globalists at the U.N., the international banking cabal and the World Economic Forum have already wrought in Europe with their replacement migration policies that induced European nations to open the doors to immigration from Middle Eastern and North African countries. As a result, the population of Muslims increased 16-fold -- to about 30 million, spread out across most European and Scandinavian countries with disastrous social costs -- bringing cultural and political division, riots, and crime.
The open-border policy of the Biden regime is effectively advancing in the United States what the replacement migration policies accomplished in Europe, which is to pave the way for the New World Order, by breaking down identification with and affection for the nation-state.
Among the eight million migrants from dozens of countries who have swarmed across the U.S. southern border during the nearly three years of the Biden administration, there are a good number of radical Islamists from terrorist hotbeds in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Hezb’allah from Venezuela, and both Chinese PLA special forces, and Chinese military age single men. If only one percent of the eight million migrants who have arrived in Biden’s first three years are radicalized America-haters, that would be 80,000 people who could wreak havoc in the United States.
FBI director Christopher Wray recently confirmed that America is now in a new and unprecedented time of risk and danger. He publicly stated, “The reality is that the terrorism threat has been elevated throughout 2023, but the ongoing war in the Middle East has raised the threat of an attack against Americans in the United States to a whole other level.”
Recently, Sohaib Abuayyash, a Jordanian who originally came to the U.S. years ago on a Palestinian passport, was arrested in Houston on Oct. 19, after investigators said he had been "conducting physical training" and "trained with weapons to possibly commit an attack.” In a recent candid testimony before congress, FBI director Wray described Abuayyash as a man who had been "studying how to build bombs and posted online about his support for killing Jews."
It’s noteworthy that Venezuela pumps in more migrants to the U.S. than any other country. Most of these migrants come to the U.S. to escape poverty and find more opportunity, but another small portion have different motivations. Hezb’allah, a Shiite terrorist group controlled and funded by Iran, became well-entrenched in Venezuela during the radical socialist regime of Hugo Chavez. Hezb’allah influence in Venezuela has continued to grow under the successor Maduro regime, with the hewing of a vast infrastructure within Venezuela for its criminal activities, including drug trafficking, money laundering, and illicit smuggling.
The recent surge of Chinese males crossing the border into the U.S. border suggests disciplined land-based military operations may be in the offing. Recently Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) reported that “10,000-plus” Chinese nationals have been apprehended in fiscal 2023, a massive 300% increase from the year earlier.
It is well-known that the U.S. electric grid can be shut down for years by an EMP attack or by destroying just nine critical nodes. Just fifteen years ago spies from China and Russia were found on a mission to map the U.S. power grid -- its infrastructure and nodes. So, it’s essential to deploy the American military to protect the American electric grid -- now.
FBI director Wray recently acknowledged that, “There is no doubt that the greatest long-term threat to our nation’s… national security is that posed by the Chinese communist government,” He described the scope this way: “We’ve now reached the point where the FBI is opening a new China-related counterintelligence case about every 10 hours. Of the nearly 5,000 active FBI counterintelligence cases currently underway across the country, almost half are related to China.”
Domestic security policy recommendations by the U.S. intelligence agencies used to be shaped by a five to ten-year forward look of where threats were heading. No more. It’s all happening very fast, right now.
But it is not too late to save America. The deep-state plan may include allowing terrorist attacks in the U.S. homeland to justify the imposition of a lockdown and then a shutdown of the November 2024 election. That is unequivocally not an option. America has lived through many wars, including the Civil War, which brought unprecedented destruction to the southern states -- and we never considered delaying or cancelling elections. Instead, we must use the opportunity of troubled times to defend the homeland and ensure we have honest elections no matter what the circumstances.
Scott Powell is senior fellow at Discovery Institute, and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. His recent book, Rediscovering America, was #1 Amazon New Release in the history genre for eight weeks. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637581599). Reach him at scottp@discovery.org
Image: Library of Congress
War Effects
The Israel-Gaza War is having strong effects we did not expect and - so far - not having effects we expected. One of the first results was exposure of the wreckage of the American education system for all to see. Suddenly the success of a 50-year campaign to convert the U.S. school system, top to bottom, into a political weapon cannot be ignored. Concomitant with that are the results of mass indiscriminant migration, and DEI policies eroding cultural coherence and administrative competence.
All this also exposes one of the mysteries of American politics: The Democratic Party, to which most Jews belong and vote for, is fundamentally anti-Semitic. (The other great mystery is why most Black Americans vote for Democrats - the party that championed slavery, fought to preserve it as the Confederacy, created the Ku Klux Klan and preserved Jim Crow segregation well into the 20th century.)
These unforeseen results are fundamental, dramatic, disruptive, and will be long-lasting.
What is also surprising is that the war has had little effect on oil price, supply, or demand. The international, Brent, oil price has been lingering between $85 and $90 per barrel. A Middle East war generally has immediate effects on oil prices. Not this one - yet.
Neither Israel nor Gaza are significant oil producers, but Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are all proxies for Iran. Hezbollah and the Houthis have fired missiles into Israel, but have not launched a major offensive. Some missiles and drone attacks have been directed against U.S. bases in Syria and Iraq, presumably directed by Iran, with limited U.S. retaliation. The U.S. has not responded in strength.
The Biden Administration has a history, following the Obama Administration lead, of accommodating and appeasing Iran. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen continues to make a fool of herself claiming the sanctions against Iranian oil production are still in place, as if she were not aware the Biden Administration does not enforce them. Iran continues to export 1.2 to 1.4 million barrels per day (mb/d), allowing it to fund its proxy terror/paramilitary organizations.
The Saudis, with their friends in the Emirates, have not taken a strong stand regarding the Hamas attack and the war. One gets the impression they have decided to take a seat in the bleachers and to see who wins although they are rooting for their choice: the US.
Saudi actions and statements show they are not much concerned about who wins the Israel-Gaza conflict. They are well aware the major contest is between the U.S. and Iran as to who will run the Middle East and, by extension, the world trading system. They have also shown they are aware the consistently incompetent Biden Administration may not even realize the contest is crucial.
Before the war, the Saudis were in late stages of three-way negotiations with Israel and the U.S. to recognize and establish diplomatic relations with Israel in exchange for renewed U.S. guarantees of their security and a civilian nuclear power program.
Iran is a deep long-term enemy of the Saudis. The Saudis have made it clear they would like to see strong, assertive U.S. anti-Iran action. They have issued statements on their desire to continue the negotiations, which were underway with Israel. They have intercepted Houthi missiles. The leader of Hezbollah made a speech Friday threatening Israel and the U.S. and blaming the U.S. for the Gaza War. He referred to the “Axis of Resistance” of Iranian proxies blessedly working against Israel. The next day Saudi Prince Abdulrahman bin Mosaad issued a strong statement repudiating the speech and labeling it all lies.
Based on current and past actions, however, the Saudis evidently have little confidence in a forceful, effective U.S. action against Iran and its proxies. The U.S. State Department sent a tweet to Israel urging them not to retaliate while the Oct. 7 attacks were still in progress. It lets Iran make $3 billion per month selling oil. The news is full of Blinken pitifully pleading for a “humanitarian pause,” effectively an Israeli surrender. The Crown Prince recently kept Secretary of State Blinken waiting hours, overnight, for a meeting. The Prince showed up the next morning for an evening meeting. The message there: We would like to work with you, but we need to see some strength and we realize that, maybe, we need to wait to see the results of the next U.S. election. At one point, the Saudis seemed to have hedged their bets and agreed to a rapprochement with Iran negotiated by China, but have now rejected that.
The world is using about 103 million barrels per day (mb/d) of oil. The three largest producers are the United States (13.2 mb/d), Russia (10.4 mb/d, so much for the sanctions), and Saudi Arabia 910 mb/d).
According to an interview with Amin Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco, in London recently, Saudi Arabia is willing to make the investment to establish and maintain a surplus production capacity because that gives them an outsized influence on oil markets and prices. They can adjust rates to move prices. They currently maintain a spare capacity of about 2 mb/d which they intend to expand to 3 mb/d within the next year. They intend to expand their market clout. Whether they come out of this Middle East confrontation on the side of the U.S. or Iran has critical implications.
As noted, the Obama Administration initiated the program of Iran appeasement. Obama, the closet Muslim, is now publicly advocating for further appeasement with a ceasefire. He seems to be pulling the strings of the Biden group. If the Biden Administration succeeds in continuing to appease Iran until Iran achieves Middle East dominance, one must wonder if is deliberate Administration policy.
The Saudis are quite likely to conclude the U.S. is too far gone and, albeit reluctantly, align themselves with Iran and, by extension, with China, Russia, and the BRICS group. That will end U.S. and European dominance of world trade and re-align world trade, political, military, and financial relationships and quite possibly de-dollarize international trade. The BRICS will usurp Saudi capability and manipulate oil prices upward to destroy the U.S. and European economies.
The U.S., the West, free markets and trade, and democracy need strong forceful anti-Iran U.S. leadership and they need it now. The Saudis know that. U.S. leadership may well be forfeited by the Biden Administration, either deliberately or by incompetence.
2008: Hillary Clinton Warned ‘If I Am the President, We Will Attack Iran’ to Defend Israel
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned in 2008 that she was prepared to “obliterate” Iran if it produced a nuclear weapon and promised to retaliate if the country launched a nuclear attack on Israel.
Clips of Clinton’s rhetoric resurfaced after social media users protested President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani which resulted in retaliatory airstrikes from Iran on Tuesday night.
The hashtag #IvotedforHillaryClinton trended on Twitter on Wednesday morning, a trend that Clinton participated in with a taunting gif.
8,057 people are talking about this
But Clinton may have forgotten her own hawkish rhetoric during the 2008 primary.
Ahead of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary that April, Hillary Clinton was asked by Good Morning America what she would do if Israel was attacked by Iran.
“If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?” Clinton said in an interview with then-host Chris Cuomo. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. That’s what we will do. There is no safe haven.”
She also warned that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, the United States had the power to “totally obliterate” the country.
“Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she said.
She admitted that her comment was “terrible” but said it was important to “deter” Iran from attacking Israel.
“That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic,” she added.
At the time, Sen. Barack Obama criticized Clinton for sounding like a warmonger.
“It’s not the language we need right now, and I think it’s language reflective of George Bush,” Obama said in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press afterwards.
After he was elected president, Obama pursued a policy of appeasement with Iran after appointing Clinton as Secretary of State. But Clinton left the administration prior to Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, leaving Secretary of State John Kerry to complete the deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment