Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Two-Way Mirror

While listening to what passes as "news" on the radio this morning, one nugget mentioned was that Hilary Clinton holds a substantial lead over Barack Obama in polls among Democrats. On the Republican front, Mitt Romney has a slight edge over Rudy Giuliani. No mention, of course, was made of Dr. Ron Paul.

In the last off-year elections, voters, especially Democrat voters, crowed about the changes the new Democrat-majority Congress would bring. In fact, nothing changed. Troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan remained the same. Support for Israel's aggressions was completely upheld. The economy continued its decline. The subprime mortgage market lurched toward disaster. And nothing was done to remove the fellow who would be King, nor his cohorts, who are currently infesting the White House. Nothing; no arguments, no actions to countermand his "signing orders", and no impeachment. Proof once again (as if needed) that, as Alabama Gov. George Wallace said back in 1968, "There's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two parties. I'd say the reason is, there aren't two parties.

The military-industrial-commercial-political matrix which is Washington, DC has taken many years to reach the point of interlocking operation. In his departure speech of 1961, President Eisenhower warned us to keep restraints on this network:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
So many people, so many organizations, so many private groups are on the take from government coffers that they are literally dependent upon unrelenting, massive corruption for their continued existence. "Our" President & Co. have borrowed even our great-grandchildren into debt slavery.

We are spending a BILLION dollars, which we don't have and are forced to borrow from China, Japan and other countries, every week to sustain their 'clever plan' in Iraq.

We attacked Iraq, so we are told, because, on the face of it, Hussein attacked Kuwait and so was a "threat to democracy in the Middle East". Kuwait is nothing close to a democratic nation. He moved troops because he was given the green light by April Glaspie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. It was a perfect excuse to start the war for control, planned since 1996.

The Iraq invasion was actually undertaken for four primary reasons.

First, Hussein had threatened to switch the basis for Iraqi oil-pricing from dollars to euros. In the opinion of the Treasury Dept., this would have triggered a ripple effect across the Arabic nations which would have further debased the dollar worldwide and destroyed its position as the world basis currency, held since the Bretton-Woods Conference. The banksters, whose interest payments would evaporate, would not have that happen. Ironically, the United Arab Emirates, or U.A.E., just did exactly that, but we apparently can't afford to attack them.

Second, Iraq (along with Iran, Kuwait and U.A.E.) was a major provider of oil to China and, to a lesser extent, Japan. Neoconservatives believed that one key to preventing those nations from calling in our massive debt was to regulate their accessibility to MidEast oil.

Third, our destruction of the country would produce massively lucrative, long-term "reconstruction" contracts for such upstanding entities as Cheney's "former" outfit, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, tied to Bush, Sr.

And fourth, perhaps most important to certain factions, destabilizing Iraq would prevent any possibility of further organized attacks against Israel by Baghdad. There has never been any real plan to rebuild Iraq, nor to re-stabilize it, which has led to the "war without end" scenario touted by the criminals on Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, Halliburton subsidiaries are, right now, building four huge military command centers ("Contingency Operating Bases") in various locations there, to consolidate control of the country.

Back in the Democrat Party, none, not one, of their candidates has a serious plan for ending the hostilities in Iraq. Nor will any even mention withdrawal from Afghanistan; that country was attacked and placed under occupation to "find Osama bin Laden". In fact, the CIA targeted Afghanistan after the Taliban decided to end or seriously curtail opium production. Much of the CIA's covert budget relies on drug-sale money, and so does operation of much of the entire U.S. economic process. So shortly after we invaded, Bush 'decided' to allow the opium crop to be harvested. And a few years later, the crop had reached record levels. All coincidental, of course.

Of all the major-party puppet-heads now running for office, not a single one will seemingly do anything to benefit the American people, nor return us to a Constitutional government. Only Dr. Ron Paul has resoundingly spoken out in opposition to unConstitutional wars, overarching Federal involvement in state business, illegal infringement upon Congressional processes by the Presidency, and so forth. Because of this, along with the mainstream media's submission-position as a mouthpiece for the two-party system, Dr. Paul is constantly treated as a persona non grata, a curious wacko with suspect ideas who shouldn't even be considered. For that reason alone, people should examine his politics positively.

Dr. Paul will very likely not get the nomination of the Republican Party, of which he is a nominal member. Apart from his proposed assaults on the old-boy system, he is running by denouncing and destroying the position of the Republicans currently in power. Therefore, to run for the Presidency, he must become a third-party candidate; the last of those to win was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The major parties will do whatever they can to prevent him showing up on national ballots.

So, as we ponder the course of the United States over the next year, I will predict just one thing: If either of the major-parties' final candidates win the Presidency, this country will face irreversible, permanent meltdown. The economy will spiral into hyperinflation, the borders will become completely open with NAU, the wars will spread to every non-jewish nation in the Middle East, and we will become open to true, and truly awful, terrorist attacks.

Dr. Ron Paul is certainly not perfect, and may not be "the answer", but at least he is not part of "the problem".

No comments: