Ever since the campaign for election 2016 began, the “left” in America was viciously criticizing almost anything that now President Donald Trump did. Sometimes they would exaggerate his actions to give the impression that he was doing something absolutely horrible when in reality he was doing almost nothing at all, such as when Trump placed a temporary ban on immigration from a handful of select Muslim-majority nations that have been on a US terrorist watch list for years.
All of that changed with this most recent, aggressive military attack on Syria. These same fierce critics immediately pledged their support of his actions and called for him to increase more aggressive strikes. Their sentiments were encouraged by US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s statements in which she aggressively attacked Russia at the UN:
US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said nothing “is off the table” when it comes to imposing tougher sanctions on Russia and Iran in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN.
“We’re calling (Russia and Iran) out,” Haley told “State of the Union” anchor Jake Tapper. “But I don’t think anything is off the table at this point. I think what you’re going to see is strong leadership. You’re going to continue to see the United States act when we need to act.”
Haley’s comments came after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told lawmakers he would look into stepping up sanctions on both countries, whose leadership supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who US officials say is responsible for a chemical weapons attack against civilians last week.
In response to that attack, President Donald Trump ordered a US military strike against a Syrian air base where the attack is thought to have originated.
Haley: No political solution in Syria with Assad in power
But the Russians are denying that Assad had anything to do with the chemical attack. A spokesman for the Russian defense ministry said the US had no proof of chemical weapons at the air base.
Haley disagreed, telling Tapper that the US government has evidence.
“What we’ve seen is, you know, in our meetings this week, we were told of the evidence,” she said. “We saw the evidence. The President saw the evidence. All of that is naturally classified. And I’m sure when they can declassify that, they will.”
Haley also reiterated her warning at the UN the day after the US strike.
“I was trying to give warning and notice to the members of the Security Council and the international community that (Trump) won’t stop here,” she said Sunday, adding. “If he needs to do more, he will do more.”
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who is visiting Moscow this week to meet with his Russian counterparts, said Sunday he plans to ask them about their commitment to ensuring Syria has no chemical weapons.
“Yes, that will part of the discussions when I visit Moscow next week is to call upon Foreign Minister (Sergey) Lavrov and the Russian government to fulfill the obligation it made to the international community when it agreed to be the guarantor of the elimination of the chemical weapons,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week.” “And why Russia has not been able to achieve that is unclear to me. I don’t draw conclusions of complicity at all, but clearly they’ve been incompetent and perhaps they’ve just simply been out-maneuvered by the Syrians.”
Haley echoed his comments in somewhat harsher tones on “State of the Union.” Asked whether she thought Russia was trying to help Assad cover up the use of chemical weapons, Haley said either Moscow knew Assad had weapons that would be used or they were “played for fools by Assad and kept in the dark.”
“So they now have to answer for this,” she said. “How can they with a straight face cover for Assad, because if they’re covering for Assad, then what are they really saying? They’re saying by covering for Assad that they knew that it was there, or they were incompetent by having chemical weapons there in the first place. (source)
I remember the buildup to the Iraq War/Persian Gulf II in the news media from shortly after September 11th, 2001 until the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq in 2003. I did not support the war at all. In fact at the time I was actively protesting the plans by then President George W. Bush/Bush II to invade Iraq under the influence of what was then said and later conclusively proven to be directed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George H. W. Bush, and their friends at Halliburton/KBR and other major industrial and banking interests.
The protests continued leading up to and after the war. However, I remember that the largest of these protests happened on February 15th, 2003. I was one of thousands of people worldwide protesting the impending invasion throughout a myriad of countries around the world. Billed as the largest protest ever, it is estimated that up to 50 million people worldwide took to the streets and demanded that the USA do not engage in a unilateral aggressive invasion, or what we called a “preemptive strike,” against Saddam Hussein based on the lies that Colin Powell was told to present to the UN.
Much has been said about the February 15th protests. Some people say they were successful. Some say they were not. Either way, I don’t believe they made any difference because the fact is that America invaded Iraq nevertheless and the subsequent destruction of that nation soon afterwards followed.
I stayed active in protesting the war, but I moved away from this because many of the others who were protesting supported other ideas I found questionable at best. The biggest area which I found myself at odds with was their treatment of Islam and the Muslim issue. Even at that point, I had already been studying Islam for six years, and I understood Islamic theology and knew that Islam is evil. At the same time, I also found myself drawn more to the “conservative” movement in politics, as they were much friendlier to criticism of Islam and seemed to have a more realistic and honest view of politics.
One of my earliest memories of the conservative movement (at this point I was in college) was that I was speaking to a woman who was very active in these causes. She was older than I and had done a good amount of work with and for some notable people, including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. This woman and I were discussing the American Invasion of Iraq, and she said that only a true conservative could support the Iraq war, and anybody who opposed it was not a true conservative. I remember being taken aback at this statement and thinking about it, since it did not seem right.
Allen West
Again, just like with my involvement with the liberal movement, the conservative movement had its particular quirks. However, what concerned me from an early stage was how the conservatives seemed to mirror the child-like worship that the liberals had of major political or social figures and pledge their unwavering and blind commitment to causes or persons simply because they were associated with a particular cause or idea. In the conservative movement, one of the memories which stands out most to me was a speech given in 2008 in which I remember watching with great surprise as Chris Gaubatz (son of David Gaubatz) shout and encourage an auditorium of people listening to a speech by Allen West at CPAC to chants of “Allen West for President.” Keep in mind this was Allen West’s first speech at a CPAC and the only reason people were cheering him on was because of his speech being critical of Islam.
I remember standing back in that room and watching the people in a trance-like state of worship before him. It was surreal, and it was at that moment I first saw with my own eyes what has been called “the madness of crowds“, and how masses of otherwise individuals can be swept up in a frenzy to act and do things they normally would not.
Now these experiences I had took place over the course of two presidencies- Bush II and Obama- and which both saw the two respective “sides” in politics hold majority positions in government. I was likewise on both sides at some point- during the Bush administration I was affiliated with the liberals, and with the Obama administration I was affiliated with the conservatives. I have seen and understood the positions of both sides. In general, even today, I would be still affiliated with the “conservative” side because the positions which the liberals hold are outrageous and asinine. As radio talk show host Michael Savage has said many times, liberalism is a mental disorder– and it is, because there has to be something seriously wrong with a person to persist in consciously supporting a political party which promotes murdering infants, self-mutilating ones’ genitals, exhorbitant taxes, socialized medicine, eugenics, and the robbing of people with means simply because they have more as some kind of “right.”
But are the “conservatives” any better? Yes, certainly in obvious ways and among the common people especially. However, I speak of at the essence of the movement as a philosophical entity in comparison to the “liberals.” For instance, one notices that the further one ascends in politics and social circles, the closer all of these people are to each other so much that they function as members of one giant club with their political distinctions are nonexistent. Once the proverbial curtains on the show that is the American political arena close and the lights are turned out, the people who identify as leaders of either side- conservative or liberal- all go out together for fancy steak dinners and drinks as though there never was an issue.
This might not seem like a major issue. After all, people who are enemies can be cordial with each other and even move in similar, if not the same circles. However, this is not the issue in itself. It is the repeated, prolonged closeness which these people have with each other and how it always overlaps in the same areas. It is not the act, but the frequency, consistency, and intensity of the acts. Take for example a man and a woman. Men and women can see each other and spend time with each other in public. This does not mean per se that they are dating. However, if one sees the same man and woman together frequently, in a consistent situation, with a clear attraction (intensity) between the two, one can likely assume there is something more going on than just passing the time with each other.
In the meantime, the followers of either side argue publicly about who said or did something that is superficially offensive to the either sides. Liberals protest when “conservatives” are in charge, and conservatives protest when “liberals” are in charge. They insult each other publicly, argue, and throw rhetoric at each other which, while even if it is true, does little more than further create a divide among the rabble on either side. While the nation burns with anger about a particular issue and the “peasants” are fighting, their rulers of either opposing side are enjoying cocktails and watching the ensuing madness.
Nero fiddling while Rome burns, or the modern relationship between many politicians and their owner to the public
Now absolute truth exists, and so does right and wrong. It is the duty of all Christians to seek and pursue truth for the sake of truth because that is what we are commanded to do by God. This includes all fields of life, not excepting politics. However, the pursuit of truth involves self-examination and sometimes, changing one’s views because they may be wrong. Yet in many societies, people often operate on patterns devoid of any actual reason or truth but are believed and followed because the people are told and collectively believe that it makes you a “good person.” This substitution of truth as understood to mean “having a socially acceptable view in my group” applies throughout time and culture but is of particular interest for the United States because of the speed at which the society moves in comparison to most societies throughout human history. This and in combination with the diverse nature of the different peoples which come and still are coming the USA and have settled here and mixed with population as well as the extensive technological means of manipulation that exist (many of which were perfected in the USA), America is a nation where if one sits back and watches society as one would observe flock of animals and then asks a few questions, one can see how those in power in American society have been able to exploit with leverage the natural weaknesses of human society and culture so to convince people to accept grave evils they previously would not have accepted as something good in just a matter of a short time.
Referring back to the above February 15th, 2003 protests, I can tell you with confidence that >90% of those people who participated in these marches in the USA were against the “conservative” President Bush but then went out and voted Obama into office twice- for the 2008 and 2012 terms. These same people who railed against “American invasion of sovereign nations,” “blood for oil,” and “not in my name”, all people who were self-described “peaceniks” that wanted to stop the “interventionist” policies of George W. Bush- all things which I likewise oppose because they are objective, moral evils- suddenly found themselves supporting the exact same policies because “their man”, Barack Hussein Obama, was now “in charge.” Their previous principles did not matter to them- all that mattered was the raw pursuit of power which they supported through positions for “their group” that were associated with being a “good person.” Their principle was power and whatever means it took to acquire that, for which they say the opposition to the war and the “rich” people as their means to achieve their ends, even though they were never against either.
The music video for System of a Down’s Boom! which was done about the February 15th, 2003 protests. While much of what they say in the video is factually accurate, the majority of these people supported Obama doing the same and worse things that Bush did. The reason was not because they were per se morally opposed to the acts as they are intrinsically evil, but because it was somebody else dropping the bombs and not them. As far as most of the people in the higher levels of power are concerned the policies remain the same, but it is for the general public to squabble between sides as a distractions. This applies equally to both sides because the issue is not about being on the “right team” in terms of a human sense, but rather in terms of one of divine truth.
Likewise, I cannot say any different about the “conservatives.” After Obama was elected, the conservative opposition mobilized and began their legitimate criticism of Obama’s evil policies. This is not withstanding that many of the policies which they suddenly opposed they were wholly in favor of merely a few years ago when “their man” President Bush was in office because, echoing the words I heard at CPAC above, that is what “good conservatives” support. Obama’s questionable birth certificate, his Muslim associations, his questionable business deals, his wars of aggression in the Middle East toppling legitimate governments and replacing them with terrorists, his responsibility for the genocide of Christians in Iraq, his support of homosexuality- these are all positions that “conservatives” viciously attacked and in so far as the reasons they gave to attack, their logic was correct.
But again, as I mentioned earlier, why were the “conservatives”- especially the “vulgar masses” arguing in public for their positions- attacking Obama? Was it because he was truly engaged in committing many evils? Certainly nobody can deny this, so up to a point the answer is yes. However, when it comes to the philosophical reasons for standing against Obama, they are no different than the “liberals” because their opposition was based upon their lack of having the outward appearance of power. I say this because as mentioned above, the people of both parties are all friends and work so close with each other both in their public and private lives that even a simple person can show this is more than natural overlap due to being associated with similar levels of power, but is because they all work with and support each other because they are all friends.
Both sides have an unquenchable lust to acquire raw power in order to control the common people because they view themselves as superior and think they can direct the lives of others. The liberals use economic and class difference as their approach. The conservatives use ethnicity and patriotic sentiment as their approach. Yet the liberals do not care about economics or class, and the conservatives do not care about ethnicity or patriotism when power is concerned, and this becomes more pronounced the higher one ascends in either circle the more one realizes there never was a difference between either, as it was all an illusion.
Liars all around.
This past election with Donald Trump has just proven how the deep the dichotomy between “liberal” and “conservative” is. Trump was historically a liberal, but in the light of the past election and noted by his many speeches, promises, and even actions, he said that he would be different than the “liberal” Hillary Clinton. Trump came without having a political background and in light of the clear weakness and corruption of all the candidates on either side, Trump was the logically preferrable choice. Yet from what I am seeing with Trump’s actions now, my opinion has evolved. If his recent actions are an indicator of future expectations, I expect him to be as bad as and possibly worse than Obama. Two things have put me in this direction.
The first is the provocation of Russia through aggressively attacking Syria. As I mentioned in my recent article about Trump, his actions are an outright betrayal of the Christians because it was Asad who was defending them and who was supported by the Christians. The fact that Trump would talk about stopping ISIS and then outright attack the very people fighting against ISIS in light of his campaign promise is bald-faced betrayal. Politicians lie and do not keep promises all the time, but as with the example with a man and a woman sitting together, the issue here is the intensity and extend of the issue. This was a blatant, shameless betrayal against and attack on the people who supported Trump. This is far worse than Obama not just in that his attack was worse and more direct than anything that Obama ever did, but that Obama’s expectations were clear. You might have disliked Obama’s positions and found them detestable, but as with most liberals, they are at least honest about and proud of their detestable views. What Trump did was to commit an act of outright betrayal, and now he is worsening the situation by provoking the Chinese by having his administration make threats against North Korea.
The second is the secrecy surrounding his administration, which is again worse than Obama. Yes, it is true that Obama was terrible and broke many promises and did many things in secret, but Trump is showing himself to be secretive on a level that is comparable to a dictator in a third-world country. For example, what is the precise role of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner in his administration? What about Kushner’s questionable, Clintonesque real estate deals with the Chinese government? Why is nothing being reported at all about Kushner’s supposed right-hand-man Avi Berkowitz, who appears to be a very interesting person from a very interesting family? Why do both of these people, including Ivanka’s Middle Eastern Secretary Dina Powell all have major connections to Goldman Sachs in a way that seems very similar to Huma Abedin’s connections to Hillary Clinton? What about Kushner’s brother Joshua Kushner’s connections to Hillary Clinton as well as with Russian billionaire and gangster Roman Abramovich and his ties to President Putin? Why is Trump now refusing to release the visitor logs for the White House, something that Obama never did?:
The National Security Archive, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University have all filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) calling for the release of the logs.
The suit has formally been filed against the Department of Homeland Security, as the organizations say the Secret Service has not provided the log information despite FOIA requests.
“We hoped that the Trump administration would follow the precedent of the Obama administration and continue to release visitor logs, but unfortunately they have not,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement.
“Given the many issues we have already seen in this White House with conflicts of interest, outside influence, and potential ethics violations, transparency is more important than ever, so we had no choice but to sue.”
The three groups are asking not only for the records of who is visiting the White House, but for records that show who is meeting the president at his private properties in New York and Florida.
The more one looks at the political situation surround the Trump administration, the more one see that this is not an issue of “liberal versus conservative,” but that just like with Bush, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, there is a series of policies being directed against the country and the world by certain elites in American industry and finance, and this elite, who all run in the same circles and go to the same restaurants, do not care at all about the people. They encourage them to fight between each other and to fight over meaningless “controversies” of the day while they are able to continue with their lives and increasing their wealth and power while the rest of us are too distracted or incapacitated to function.
Make no mistake, a world war is being started between the USA and Russia by President Trump. He will betray true believers among the “conservatives” just as Obama betrayed true believers among the “liberals,” and on either side it is only the delusional who will continue to support him and his actions in light of all of this. These elites do not have friends or enemies, but only the common pursuit of exploiting who they may to advance themselves, fighting between each other but ultimately all striving together for the same end.
In light of the impeding World War III, in the movie Wargames with Matthew Broadrick. The premise of the movie is that a teenager computer geek accidentally hacks into the nuclear football through a military wargame simulator and unintentionally starts World War III. As the movie ends, he is unable to stop the war and the bombs begin to fly between the USSR (the movie was made in 1983) and the USA, and in all scenarios that play out the computer finally reaches a verdict on the “winner,” which there is one. The computer then ends with the eerie phrase as to how to win the game, “the way to win is not to play.”
Trump has been given his chance along with much of the rest of the conservative movement today. Likewise can be said for the liberals. The issue is not about who is “right” or “wrong,” as both sides have no value on truth but solely on the acquisition of power. Both would take the USA into a war with Russia because both are operating on the same plan and principles, just with slightly different ends in mind. There is no regard for truth.
At this point in American history, at least with the political situation today, the way to win is most likely not to play on either side, but to side with God and His Faith, for at the end of the day, this is a war in which both sides will unite against Christ because they never supported Him anyway.