The Real Reasons the Warmongers Want Trump Out—They Want War
On Thursday, we presented our analysis of the shameless impeachment charade which occurred Wednesday in the House of Representatives. We emphasized that which passed by mostly unnoticed, as being its most significant event.
Two State Department bureaucrats, George Kent and William A Taylor, inculcated with the British imperial view of the world, defended that view as being central to the entire post-war “order,” and portrayed the President of the United States as a bumbling uninformed character who would topple that glorious order solely for some personal gain. One of them, George Kent, went so far as to portray the neo-Nazi thugs used by the British and the Obama Administration to conduct the 2013-2014 coup in Ukraine, as equivalent to the Minutemen of our Revolution, and U.S. aid to keep the war in Ukraine going, as in the tradition of Lafayette and von Steuben. Then, within one paragraph, Kent was praising his old professor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger as the paragons of virtue— whose 21st Century doppelgangers were the key State Department witnesses now testifying against the President.
Democrats fell all over themselves in fawning praise of this “legacy.” Republicans were afraid to touch it; most of the Senators who will vote on the President’s impeachment are up to their ears in supporting it. Ukraine’s viability for years to come has been ruined in a blood-soaked ethnic cleansing occurring in the Donbas in the wake of the 2014 coup, conducted by neo-Nazis. Most of the thousands lost were citizens of Eastern Ukraine of Russian heritage and inclinations. Yet, Adam Schiff, George Kent, and William Taylor lied outright about this, portraying the dead as brave Ukrainians fighting Russia. Our State Department calls the coup and the ensuing war in Eastern Ukraine the “Revolution of Dignity.” Kissinger and Brzezinski together are guilty of more war crimes and genocides than perhaps anyone in the 20th Century, and in doing so they created many of the axiomatic views of the world propounded enthusiastically by Kent and Taylor yesterday, to the applause of House Democrats. As Senator Rand Paul will tell you, he, like the President, is an island of one in the Senate when it comes to issues of war and peace. For those who confidently predict that impeachment will die in the Senate—have you looked at your Senators’ contributors lately, or the sins that can be dredged up from their past life, to spring in a moment of crisis? Do you understand whom you are actually fighting?
Tucker Carlson ventured out to take this on directly in his show Wednesday, putting up clips of Donald Trump speaking during 2016 and saying, simply, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we all got along with Russia?” That, and the fevered opposition to it by those who cling to the past, and to their own graft in the intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus, constitute the real battle lines in the ongoing coup, Carlson said. Donald Trump promised to end the permanent warfare state; his voters voted for him to do that. But, Tucker then fell into his stupid rants about China.
Nonetheless, on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, once again struggling to keep her dentures in her mouth and noting that she could no longer chew gum, instantaneously confirmed exactly what Carlson had said. “Trump is an agent of Putin,” she told her press availability Thursday, explaining what impeachment has been and is all about. Ray McGovern, in an article in Consortium News, presented a short and accurate sketch of U.S. and British perfidy in Ukraine, the policy which the two idiots who testified yesterday are responsible for enforcing. He neglected to note the obvious point: that pursuit of the policy outlined by Kent, Ukrainian membership in NATO is a hair-trigger for the nuclear war, which could annihilate us all.
The process undertaken in the House to date is rigged in ways not stated so far. There will be more “bombshell” surprises, since we are witnessing an internal coup, with the British and their U.S. intelligence community allies determined to unseat this President by waging war from within the Administration. As Mark Zaid, the so-called whistleblower’s attorney said in his infamous texts, when one internal seditionist falls, “two will rise in their place.” And the biggest potential surprise is something neither the Republican or Democratic partisans understand— the dynamic within the world’s physical economy which appears to be approaching another boundary condition, at least as perceived by the Bank of England’s Mark Carney, and others who propose a bankers’ dictatorship to handle the coming new collapse.
Lyndon LaRouche said the economy will fail because it is not a productive economy by design; it is incapable of reproducing itself at the higher levels necessary for sustained growth, which requires leaps in productivity. He said in a memo in October of 2001, “I understand how a systemic collapse unfolds, as opposed to a stock-market prediction, which every idiot likes to talk about. Idiots say, Why don’t you make a prediction? A statistical prediction. I say I don’t make predictions. I make forecasts which are based on the systemic characteristics and the boundary conditions within which the system operates.” The President’s most effective flank on this entire matter is found in the Four Laws for Economic Recovery set forth by LaRouche to address a collapse of the world system. Those same Four Laws, if undertaken as organizing principles by Donald Trump, would flank the entire coup apparatus, because sustainable economic recovery and growth would be underway. Educating and organizing for this must be our highest priority now.
Source:
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.
Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.
As NPR's Tom Bowman tells Morning Edition co-host, Renee Montagne, Eisenhower used the speech to warn about "the immense military establishment" that had joined with "a large arms industry."
Here's an excerpt:
"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."
Since then, the phrase has become a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion.
YouTube
Eisenhower gave the address after completing two terms in office; it was just days before the new president, John F. Kennedy, would be sworn in.
Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas -- such as building hospitals and schools.
Bowman says that in the speech, Eisenhower also spoke as someone who had seen the horror and lingering sadness of war, saying that "we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
Another concern, Bowman says, was the possibility that as the military and the arms industry gained power, they would be a threat to democracy, with civilians losing control of the military-industrial complex.
In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
The difference, Bowman says, is that before the late 1950s, companies such as Ford built everything from jeeps to bombers -- then went back to building cars. But that changed after the Korean War.
Bowman says that it's important to note that during the Cold War, the U.S. military didn't draw down its troops like it did after World War II.
"It kept a large standing army after the Korean War," he says.
America's new reliance on sophisticated weapons technology also helped bring about what Bowman calls "a technology race with the Soviets."
And that meant that weapons manufacturing became more specialized.
"So [for] a company like Ford, going from cars to jeeps is one thing; cars to missiles is quite another," Bowman says.
In an effort to control the expansion of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower consistently sought to cut the Pentagon's budget.
The former general wanted a budget the country could afford, Bowman, says. He upset all the military services with his budget cuts, especially the Air Force.
Citing another quote from Eisenhower -- this one from another speech on military spending -- Bowman says, "The jet plane that roars overhead costs three-quarters of a million dollars. That’s more than a man will make in his lifetime. What world can afford this kind of thing for long?"
In today's government, Eisenhower has a fan in his fellow Kansan Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- who keeps a portrait of the former general in his office at the Pentagon, Bowman says.
Speaking at the Eisenhower Library last year, Gates talked about America's insatiable appetite for more and more weapons:
"Does the number of warships we have and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined -- 11 of which are our partners and allies?
Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?
These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today."
But, Bowman says, it has only become more difficult to control the size of the nation's military industry.
First, "there are only a handful of defense giants," he says, "which means you can't shop around for a better price."
And companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are also adept at both lobbying and marketing to promote their interests.
Bowman says, "they also spread the jobs around the country, to lock in political support."
Gates has also discussed the difficulty of cutting military spending:
"What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon, and out."
Bowman says that some industry observers believe that "the one thing that could create that political will is the nation's huge deficit." Only that might force cuts in the overall defense budget.
Source:
Eisenhower's Warning Still Challenges A NationJan. 16, 2011
When TV Changed Politics: Adlai Stevenson Vs. IkeOct. 15, 2008
Martin Luther King and Three U.S. PresidentsJan. 21, 2008
Remembering Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' SpeechDec. 8, 2003
Eisenhower SpeechJan. 14, 2001
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato (429-347 BC)
Note: We at The Liberty Tree cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of this information.
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, Me We and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
LibertygroupFreedom
The Patriot is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Ike's Warning Of Military Expansion, 50 Years Later
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.
Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.
As NPR's Tom Bowman tells Morning Edition co-host, Renee Montagne, Eisenhower used the speech to warn about "the immense military establishment" that had joined with "a large arms industry."
Here's an excerpt:
"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."
Since then, the phrase has become a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion.
YouTube
Eisenhower gave the address after completing two terms in office; it was just days before the new president, John F. Kennedy, would be sworn in.
Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas -- such as building hospitals and schools.
Bowman says that in the speech, Eisenhower also spoke as someone who had seen the horror and lingering sadness of war, saying that "we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
Another concern, Bowman says, was the possibility that as the military and the arms industry gained power, they would be a threat to democracy, with civilians losing control of the military-industrial complex.
In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
The difference, Bowman says, is that before the late 1950s, companies such as Ford built everything from jeeps to bombers -- then went back to building cars. But that changed after the Korean War.
Bowman says that it's important to note that during the Cold War, the U.S. military didn't draw down its troops like it did after World War II.
"It kept a large standing army after the Korean War," he says.
America's new reliance on sophisticated weapons technology also helped bring about what Bowman calls "a technology race with the Soviets."
And that meant that weapons manufacturing became more specialized.
"So [for] a company like Ford, going from cars to jeeps is one thing; cars to missiles is quite another," Bowman says.
In an effort to control the expansion of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower consistently sought to cut the Pentagon's budget.
The former general wanted a budget the country could afford, Bowman, says. He upset all the military services with his budget cuts, especially the Air Force.
Citing another quote from Eisenhower -- this one from another speech on military spending -- Bowman says, "The jet plane that roars overhead costs three-quarters of a million dollars. That’s more than a man will make in his lifetime. What world can afford this kind of thing for long?"
In today's government, Eisenhower has a fan in his fellow Kansan Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- who keeps a portrait of the former general in his office at the Pentagon, Bowman says.
Speaking at the Eisenhower Library last year, Gates talked about America's insatiable appetite for more and more weapons:
"Does the number of warships we have and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined -- 11 of which are our partners and allies?
Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?
These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today."
But, Bowman says, it has only become more difficult to control the size of the nation's military industry.
First, "there are only a handful of defense giants," he says, "which means you can't shop around for a better price."
And companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are also adept at both lobbying and marketing to promote their interests.
Bowman says, "they also spread the jobs around the country, to lock in political support."
Gates has also discussed the difficulty of cutting military spending:
"What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon, and out."
Bowman says that some industry observers believe that "the one thing that could create that political will is the nation's huge deficit." Only that might force cuts in the overall defense budget.
Source:
Eisenhower's Warning Still Challenges A NationJan. 16, 2011
When TV Changed Politics: Adlai Stevenson Vs. IkeOct. 15, 2008
Martin Luther King and Three U.S. PresidentsJan. 21, 2008
Remembering Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' SpeechDec. 8, 2003
Eisenhower SpeechJan. 14, 2001
Share your thoughts with the world by posting a message on the Liberty Tree.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato (429-347 BC)
TRY THE LIBERTY TREE AD-FREE
"FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"
and is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, In God we trust
Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy
NEVER FORGET THE SACRIFICES
BY OUR VETERANS Note: We at The Liberty Tree cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability, and accuracy of this information.
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, Me We and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
LibertygroupFreedom 
The Patriot is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.
Knowledge Is Power - Information Is Liberating: The Liberty Tree is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.
Big Tech has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share with your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you
Please share… Like many other fact-oriented bloggers, we've been exiled from Facebook as well as other "mainstream" social sites.
We will continue to search for alternative sites, some of which have already been compromised, in order to deliver our message and urge all of those who want facts, not spin and/or censorship, to do so as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment