MAYBE NEXT TIME….

Kunstler becomes more like the people of TBP every day. He now scorns the NYT. He thinks Obama is a feckless idiot. He hates bankers. He sees through the lies of the warmongers. He loves gold. If we could only get him to like NASCAR.

Gassy Politics

By Jim Kunstler

First: Paul Sabin’s stupid op-ed in The New York Times Saturday shows how intellectually bankrupt and pusillanimous the “newspaper of record” has become, in step with the depraved and decadent empire whose record-keeper it supposedly pretends to be. Sabin is flame-keeper for the theories of the late cornucopian demi-god Julian Simon, a business school professor whose great idea stokes the wishful thinking that has overtaken a class of American leaders who ought to know better, and spread through the public they serve like a fungal infection of the brain. The core of Julian Simon’s great idea is that material resources don’t matter; human ingenuity will overcome all limits.

Maybe that’s a temporarily comforting thought for leaders in business, media, and politics, who don’t want to face the realities of peak resources and climate change, but it guarantees a harsher economic outcome since the wishful public will do nothing to prepare for the very different terms of daily living that are already shoving them into hardship and desperation.

Julian Simon, who died in 1998, is best remembered now for a bet he made in 1980 with biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. The bet was supposed to determine whether the converging difficulties of our time should be taken seriously. The two men picked a menu of commodity metals and bet whether the price would rise or fall by 1990. Ehrlich bet that scarcity would drive the price up; Simon bet that they would go down. Simon won the bet only for temporary circumstantial reasons, namely that the last great discoveries of cheap, easy-to-get oil ramped into full production by the mid-1980s and pushed a final orgy of global industrial development until 2008, when things really started falling apart. By then, Julian Simon has been dead for a decade.

Simon’s idea lives on in the wishful thinking around shale oil and gas, which have led the American public and their leaders to believe that we’re in an “energy renaissance” that will lead to “energy independence.” Just the other day, Senator John McCain made the inexcusably dumb remark that the US is now a net oil exporter. This is a man who ran for president five years ago, talking completely out of his ass.

Now oil is well over $100 a barrel, a price that the American economy, as currently configured, cannot endure. That price is crushing the kind of activity we have depended on lately: the house-building and lending rackets associated with the creation of suburban sprawl. $100 oil is especially corrosive to the problems of capital formation, because without more racket-driven “growth,” we can neither generate new credit, nor pay the interest on old credit. We’ve used accounting fraud in banking and government to cover up this failed equation. But it has only led to greater deformities in markets and a general fiasco in the management of money all around the world, and it is spinning out of control right now. If these conditions were to crash the global economy and the price of everything fell in a deflationary depression, with oil back under $60 a barrel — then it would not pay enough to frack the shale rock, or drill miles under the ocean, or do any of the very expensive operations of what’s called unconventional oil recovery.

native advertising

For The New York Times to keep hauling out the sorry-ass figure of Julian Simon to “prove” a specious and dangerous point surely shows the limits of one thing: intelligence in the media. Because of that and other related failures in the transmission of ideas, this is now a nation that cannot construct a coherent narrative about what is happening to it.

Now, second: Syria. The world has pretty much lined up against President Obama’s proposal to issue a cruise missile spanking to Syria for supposedly gassing its own citizens. Nobody thinks this is a good idea, some for reasons of tactical advantage and some on the idea’s basic merit, or lack of. Mr. Obama pulled his punch over a week ago by standing down and taking the issue to congress for approval. I’m convinced he did that because he would have been impeached for launching an overt act of war — despite similar actions by his recent predecessors. The proposed spanking was a bad idea from the start. There was no visible threat to the national interest from Syria’s bad behavior within its own borders. The gas attack was a terrible act of depravity, but firing missiles into Syria wasn’t going to bring back the dead. It was only going to cause more death. There’s no advantage to the US for supporting either side in the Syrian civil war. The spread or deepening of any kind of disorder in that region will threaten a critical portion of America’s oil imports.

In the background of this, things are becoming unstuck in the seriously ill and constipated realm of international banking. The aforementioned deformities caused by central bank interventions, market manipulations, Too Big To Fail carry-trade rackets, and misreporting of financial data have begun to shred currencies in nations at the margin (India, Brazil, Indonesia) and that illness may prove contagious. The global economy depends on some basic faith that major financial institutions are sound, and that they trade in sound instruments that represent real wealth. That is all being called into question now, and how long will it be before a general paralysis freezes the entire letters-of-credit system that underlies global commerce?

The Syria soap opera has also managed to upstage the imminent mud-wrestling match between congress and the executive branch over the national debt limit and related matters of government spending. These problems appear for now to be completely intractable. If the government overcomes the latest version of this recurring dilemma, it will only be due to generating even more layers of accounting fraud to an already well-papered piñata that is just waiting to be smashed. While this goes on, the American public gets pushed deeper and deeper into a financial abyss, haunted by re-po men, lying bank officers, verminous lawyers, and chiseling hospital administrators.

All this is a recipe for a political explosion. What happens if the US Government starts gassing its own citizens? It happened in 1967. That one only made people cry. Maybe next time, they’ll use a different kind of gas.

QUOTES OF THE DAY

“History offers no guarantees. If America plunges into an era of depression or violence which by then has not lifted, we will likely look back on the 1990s as the decade when we valued all the wrong things and made all the wrong choices.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning

“The seasons of time offer no guarantees. For modern societies, no less than for all forms of life, transformative change is discontinuous. For what seems an eternity, history goes nowhere – and then it suddenly flings us forward across some vast chaos that defies any mortal effort to plan our way there. The Fourth Turning will try our souls – and the saecular rhythm tells us that much will depend on how we face up to that trial. The saeculum does not reveal whether the story will have a happy ending, but it does tell us how and when our choices will make a difference.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning

“Don’t think you can escape the Fourth Turning the way you might today distance yourself from news, national politics, or even taxes you don’t feel like paying. History warns that a Crisis will reshape the basic social and economic environment that you now take for granted. The Fourth Turning necessitates the death and rebirth of the social order. It is the ultimate rite of passage for an entire people, requiring a luminal state of sheer chaos whose nature and duration no one can predict in advance.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning

“The risk of catastrophe will be very high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule. If there is a war, it is likely to be one of maximum risk and effort – in other words, a total war. Every Fourth Turning has registered an upward ratchet in the technology of destruction, and in mankind’s willingness to use it.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning

WAR CRIMINALS & LIARS

The truth will set you free.

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

Paul Craig Roberts

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouth? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36117.htm ^[1]

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

The despicable John Kerry knows that he is lying. Here is the American Secretary of State, and obama, the puppet president, knowingly lying to the world. There is not a shred of integrity in the US government. No respect for truth, justice, morality or human life. Here are two people so evil that they want to repeat in Syria what the bush war criminals did in Iraq.

How can the American people and their representatives in Congress tolerate these extraordinary criminals? Why are not obama and John Kerry impeached? The obama regime has every quality of Nazi Germany and Stasi Communist Germany, only that the obama regime is worse. The obama regime spies on the entire world and lies about it. The obama regime is fully engaged in killing people in seven countries, a murderous rampage that not even Hitler attempted.

Whether the criminal obama regime can purchase the collaboration of Congress and the European puppet states in a transparent war crime will soon be decided. The decision will determine the fate of the world.

As for facts, the report released to the UN by the Russian government concludes that the weapons used in chemical attacks in Syria are similar to the weapons in the hands of al-Nusra and are different from the weapons known to be possessed by Syria. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36116.htm ^[2]

The obama regime has released no evidence to the UN. This is because the criminal regime has no evidence, only made up fairy tales.

If the obama regime had any evidence, the evidence would have been released to British Prime Minister david cameron to enable him to carry the vote of Parliament. In the absence of evidence, cameron had to admit to Parliament that he had no evidence, only a belief that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. Parliament told Washington’s puppet that the British people were not going to war on the basis of the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated belief.

Are the American people and the rest of the world just going to stand there, sucking their thumbs, while a new Nazi State rises in Washington?

Congress must vote down the war and make it clear to obama that if he defies the constitutional power of Congress he will be impeached.

If the US Congress is too corrupt or incompetent to do its duty, the rest of the world must join the UN General Secretary and the President of Russia and declare that unilateral military aggression by the US government is a war crime, and that the war criminal US government will be isolated in the international community. Any of its members caught traveling abroad will be arrested and turned over to the Hague for trial.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

NEW POLL

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

News• Syria• News• ISSUE 49•36• Sep 5, 2013

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”

“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.

Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.

Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.

When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”

“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”

CULTURAL DECAY

Fred should see the roll down gates and barred windows in West Philly to confirm his description of a culture in decay.

Surrender in the Culture Wars

It All Over, Don´t it?

September, 5, 2013

By Fred Reed

http://www.fredoneverything.net/

How the hell did it happen?

I lived, 1951 to 1956, aged six to eleven, in the Arlington suburbs of Washington and, ´56 to´57, in smalltown Athens, Alabama, and eighth grade through high school in rural King George County, Virginia, graduating in 1964. Another country. Another world. What happened?

The Arlington of then was entirely white, peopled largely by men several years back from World War Two, enjoying the fantastic surge in prosperity following the war. The dominant culture, the only culture, was that of Reader´s Digest, clean cut, honest, and confident. We watched the Mousketeers, all soap and good manners. We joined the Boy Scouts, and were told to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. We were, at least sorta, most of those. Pornography meant monitoring the advance of Annette Funicello´s bustline.

At age eight I walked every morning the perhaps six blocks to Robert E. Lee Elementary School, alone. Why not? There was nothing to be afraid of. My friends and I rode to Westover, the shopping center on Washington Boulevard, and left our bikes on the sidewalk for hours while we read comic books in the drug store. Why not? Nobody stole bikes. My family never locked the doors of the house. Why should we? There weren´t any burglars.

And in summer evenings thirty kids, girls and boys, played hide-and-seek across several blocks, and parents didn´t give it a thought. Why should they? It was safe. We were the dominant culture, the only culture, and we didn´t do pederasty, engage in gang attacks, or muggings, or drive fast on kid-littered streets. It wasn´t our way. If we had suffered a natural disaster, no one would have looted. It wasn´t what we did.

I´m not sure what would have happened if a gang of high-schoolers had robbed a candy store. It was impossible, because we didn´t do such things. A child molester? I don´t know. It would have one way or another been a case of God help him and he never would have been seen again. The culture didn´t tolerate child molesters.

And now, and now….

And now I read daily of armed police patrolling the halls of schools, of parents walking their kids to school because children aren´t safe by themselves, of metal detectors at the doors, of flash mobs of, er, teens robbing stores. Instead of homogeneity we have diversity, which means you have to buy a new bicycle twice a year. Leave on unattended for ten minutes, and it disappears.

How did we get here? Why do we put up with it? Bastardy in this white, once civilized society is now said to be at thirty percent: A middle class with a slum morality. You have to be crazy to leave your keys in an open car, which we once regularly did. There was no reason not to.

The answer of course is that the post-war culture is no longer dominant. When all of a population agree that certain things are not acceptable, such as assaults, looting, mob robberies, and thievery, they don´t happen. After those horrendous tidal waves hit Japan, there was no looting. It isn´t part of Japanese culture. After riots in America, after Katrina, there was and is massive looting. The culture no longer enforces it standards of behavior.

A virtue of a dominant culture is that it doesn’t have to be imposed. It polices itself. During my five years in rural Virginia, we all had guns. The substantial number of blacks in the county had guns. Nobody ever shot anybody else, either on purpose or accidentally. It wasn´t something we did. It wasn´t in the culture. White or black.

When the dominant culture doesn´t condone crime, there will be very little crime. This is why the European-American constitution of Tom Jefferson could specify trial by jury. A jury trial takes a lot of time and effort, which a society can afford only when there is little crime. Today we have trial by plea bargain because jury trials for our rate of crime would have the entire country empanelled constantly.

In Arlington, and Athens, and King George, we had close to no policemen. That´s how many policemen we needed. We behaved well because it never occurred to us that we might do otherwise. As kids we drank beer illegally, ignored speed limits, and some of us shot an occasional deer out of season—but that was it. We didn´t rape, kill, rob, or assault teachers because it wasn´t in the culture. The dominant whites did not beat the blacks into comas, nor vice versa.

Fear of punishment had little to do with it. We might get into a fist fight, but we didn´t pick up a brick or a length of rebar. There were things we just didn´t do. Had one of us said “Fuck you” to a teacher, the entire moral weight of the county would have fallen on him.

This is why as cultures break down, or mix with less civilized cultures, more and more police become necessary. So do locks, bars, alarms, cameras and, for the remaining virile, carry permits. Hello.

Here is one reason why multiculturalism seldom works. Suppose that one culture has a strong work ethic, fairly strict sexual morality, low illegitimacy, low crime, respect for study and proper use of the national language. Suppose that another culture is precisely opposite, or approximately opposite, as for example the Moslems in France. If the first group is truly dominant, and imposes its standards—you will do your homework, kid—the second group may successfully assimilate.

But suppose that the dominant group isn´t really that dominant and can´t, or won´t, impose its values. How—in a school, say—do you mix the toilet-mouthed with the well-spoken, girls who expect to marry before giving birth with fifteen year old single mothers pushing strollers into class? Or if the courts have decided that “motherfucker· is an entire language to itself, and that eradication of the word would constitute imperial culture-abuse? The effect will always be to lower the civilized group to the uncivilized.

Here we are, and there is no turning back. All that made the old culture what it was is now held to be elitism, sin most dreadful, and all that we held to be wrong is now said to be “authentic,” whatever that means, or else the consequence of ineluctable social forces.

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Why the Real Founders of Democracy Would Be Pissed if They Saw What We Did…

By Paul Rosenberg, FreemansPerspective.com

The word democracy is held in awe these days. Mention it almost anywhere and you’ll get instant nods of approval.

People actually believe that democracy gives us harmony and peace, not to mention wealth. They are sure that it is the ultimate and inevitable end of human development, created by the wise and noble Greeks and given to us, the enlightened society that took it to the ends of the Earth!

But if the ancient Greeks could see what we call ‘democracy,’ they would spit at it. They’d probably want to burn it down.

As many problems as they had (and they had plenty), they were not fools, and it wouldn’t take them a day to condemn what the West now worships.

Why would the old Greeks be so upset? Let’s take a look at their (Athenian) system and see how our modern form stacks up:

#1: Greek citizen assemblies met 40 times per year in an open, public forum. Any citizen could speak and any citizen could vote. A vote of those present was final.

Contrast that with what passes for (American) democracy now: Only special people are allowed to attend the assemblies. On top of that, there are far, far more meetings than anyone could hope to follow: General sessions, meetings for dozens of committees, party caucuses and more, running at all hours. No one person can come remotely close to keeping up with it all.

The citizen is clearly unable to participate or even to understand what’s going on. Just this fact would cause the “fathers of civilization” to pronounce our system a fraud, and rightly so. The citizens are non-participants.

#2: Laws were inscribed on stone pillars (stelae) and posted in prominent locations so that everyone would see them.

Greek laws were accessible to every Greek. Not only were they required to be posted, but this requirement also guaranteed that there couldn’t be too many of them.

If you were to take an ancient Greek to see “our laws,” they’d be looking at more than 80,000 pages of almost indecipherable language. (And those would be only the Federal laws.)

Because of this, the Greeks would be insulted when you assured them that we have “the rule of law.” They would say that when people can’t know the law, they are living in a tyranny, and no amount of fancy argumentation would convince them otherwise.

And, again, they would be right. If you are ignorant of the law (80,000 pages of government-speak) but are still subject to punishment under the law, you are living in a tyranny. The founders would have no confusion about that.

#3: A Council oversaw the daily affairs of the democracy. Each of ten tribes provided 50 men. But, only one tribe’s men (50 of them) served at any one time, and only for one month. (The Greeks had ten months in their year.) And once any person served as a Councilor, they were forbidden from serving again for ten years.

Under this arrangement, playing tricks became almost impossible: as soon as the first of the month came along, the next tribe could turn your tricks around and do worse to you.

Contrast this with senators and congressmen who stay in office for decades on end, selling all sorts of favors, amassing multi-million dollar campaign funds, and making themselves rich in the process. Most of them never really go away.

At this point, our philosophical forefathers would be looking for places to buy torches… and they would be ready to beat anyone who called a system that supports such shenanigans a democracy.

#4: Citizens chosen for positions like overseer of the marketplace were chosen completely at random.

Imagine choosing the boss of the IRS at random. We all know what would happen: You’d get a housewife from Portland one year and a plumber from Topeka the next. And they’d act like humans, rather than unfeeling automatons. The sanctimonious abuser state would crumble.

#5: At the beginning of their democracy, the citizens of Athens were divided into ten tribes (and NOT along regional or family lines). This was done specifically to break the power of the aristocratic families.

Have you paid attention to the DC crowd lately? Have you noticed that they never leave? Instead, they slide back and forth between congress, commissions, agencies, lobbying firms, mega-corps and media. Have you noticed how often their children marry each other?

Look at the Presidential lineup: Bush – Clinton – Bush – Obama – Clinton? – Bush?

That’s called “aristocracy.” However, people who are emotionally bound to the system can’t see it. The Greeks certainly wouldn’t be fooled.

Losing Our Religion

Do you remember a haunting song from the 90s called Losing My Religion? If so, cue that up in the back of your mind, because that’s what stands in front of the people of the West.

The majestic “Democracy” that was supposed to be our savior is actually an abusive fraud. It’s time to let it go. That’s not easy, I know, but it needs to be done.

Will you take the first step?

[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]

RON PAUL SCHOOLS A LIBERAL MSNBC SHREW

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Must Watch: Ron Paul Squares Off Against MSNBC’s Alex Wagner in Explosive Interview

by Noah Rothman | 1:43 pm, September 5th, 2013

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) joined MSNBC’s Alex Wagner on Thursday for a wide-ranging and contentious interview focused on President Barack Obama’s push for American intervention in the Syrian civil war. What followed was a tense and heated exchange between the two ideologically unaligned figures about the need for intervention in Syria, American foreign policy in general, and Paul’s speaking before “anti-Semitic” groups.

Wagner opened by asking about a recent interview Paul conducted with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on his web-based interview program, but the conversation quickly turned to the push for intervention in Syria.

Paul questioned the “so-called gas deaths” in Syria supposedly ordered by President Bashar al-Assad and suggested that pro-intervention advocates have absolved the rebel factions fighting against Assad of any malfeasance.

“Do you really think President Obama is looking for a reason to go to war in Syria,” Wagner asked She noted that the president has been reluctant to go to war.

“I think the pressure comes from the people around him,” Paul said. “It might be contradicting some of his self-instincts.”

Paul said that the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Congress are behind Syrian intervention in opposition to rank-and-file opinion.

“I think there’s a historic event going on here and if this vote is won, that is defeat the request to have a more military approach to Syria, I think it’ll be historic,” Paul said. He noted that such a defeat would be an unusual alignment of the “libertarian Republicans” and the “progressive Democrats.”

Wagner appeared to agree with Paul but countered his assertion by saying that it was the president’s push for an unpopular war in Congress which united Democrats and Republicans against him. “Do you not applaud the president for making that decision?” Wagner asked.

Paul did not. He said that the president came under pressure and did not seek Congressional authority out of deference to the Constitution.

“In terms of surveillance, how confident are you that we are seeing the end of what has been termed the American empire in terms of a broad overreach and surveillance of Americans citizens” Wagner asked.

“We haven’t’ seen the end of it,” Paul replied. “Tyrants and empires cling desperately, and their best weapon is lying.”

Paul said the “people are waking up” and he was encouraged by a close vote in the House in which the Amash/Conyers Amendment to scale back the powers of the National Security Agency was narrowly defeated.

Paul added that this problem would also be solved if the “conspiracy” of the American government to “run all these wars” was ended and American troops came home.

“We haven’t proven any lies yet from this administration,” Paul said. “But believe me, there’s going to be found many, many deceptions.”

Wagner took issue with this statement. “Don’t you think this is sort of irresponsible?” she asked.

Paul went on to say that there is little proof to suggest that Assad is behind the use of chemical weapons in Syria. “Quite frankly, if they were honest with us – some are, some of the neo-cons are more honest, Tehran is – this is all to do with getting Iran and taking that country over, and we’ve been doing that since 1953,” Paul asserted.

Wagner asked Paul about his speech coming up at the Fatima Center, which she said has been accused of being an anti-Semitic organization. Asked if he would reconsider this speech, Paul said “no.”

Wagner cited some of the items in that group’s charter that led some to believe the organization is anti-Semitic. “I have nothing to do with that,” Paul said. “Sounds to me like you have me on here to bash Catholics.”

“There have been a lot of folks that have been involved with your campaign, supporters, newsletters that have been accredited to you that have strong anti-Semitic, racist undertones,” Wagner said.

Paul said that he has been dealing with accusations like these his whole political career. “When people disagree with your ideas they have to destroy your character,” Paul insisted.”

Syria and Second Passports

By Nick Giambruno, Editor, International Man

All of us by now have seen the latest sales pitch from the Obama administration for yet another so-called “humanitarian intervention” in the Middle East. It is not hard to see that the case for war is a bunch of rubbish and will likely end in disaster for both Syria and the US.

I am not diminishing the tragedy that is going on in Syria. The events there touch me on a personal level. I have good friends who live in Damascus and have been there myself several times when the situation wasn’t so hot.

As some of you may know, I used to live in neighboring Beirut while I was cutting my teeth in finance at a regional investment bank. Due to its rich history and importance today, I have long been interested in the Middle East and sought ways to combine it with my professional background in finance.

I know it may be hard to fathom given what is put forth 24/7 on the mainstream media and if you have never been there, but Damascus is actually an amazing city on many levels—that is when it is not an active warzone of course. It is arguably the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. The Christian quarter of the old city is one of the most enchanting places I have ever visited. And it’s tough to beat the pistachio encrusted sweets from the legendary 100+ year old Bakdash ice cream parlor in the souk el Hamidiyeh.

Anyway, my purpose today is not give travel tips or to debunk the case for US intervention in Syria as hokum—David Galland did an excellent job of doing that in his latest piece here.

Instead I want to talk about Syria in terms of the lessons it provides us in internationalization.

It is human nature for people all around the world to have the “that can’t happen here” mentality. And prior to the deterioration of the situation, many Syrians believed the same.

As Doug Casey has eloquently stated “The problem—your problem—is that any country can turn into a 1970s Rhodesia. Or a Russia in the ’20s, Germany in the ’30s, China in the ’40s, Cuba in the ’50s, the Congo in the ’60s, Vietnam in the ’70s, Afghanistan in the ’80s, Bosnia in the ’90s. These are just examples off the top of my head. Only a fool tries to survive by acting like a vegetable, staying rooted to one place, when the political and economic climate changes for the worse.”

The uncomfortable truth is that, as history shows, no country is immune—especially one that has a deteriorating fiscal health—and internationalization is the ultimate insurance policy.

You won’t be any worse off by moving some of your savings into multiple friendly jurisdictions and into things that are hard to confiscate, such as physical precious metals and foreign real estate. Obtaining a second passport is also an important ingredient in the mix.

Once you have taken these steps you will have insulated yourself and your family to a high degree from the uncertainty and sovereign risk emanating from your home country.

Developing your internationalization game plan takes time, and you must take action before it is too late. For Syrians, it would obviously have been optimal to have developed internationalization options many years ago.

Having a second passport and a financial account abroad denominated in a currency other than the Syrian pound, which has suffered from hyperinflation, would have gone a long way for the average Syrian today. The Syrian passport is not a great travel document; it requires a visa for most countries outside of the Middle East.

Having a second passport ensures that you will always have another place to potentially call home, another place where you will always have the legal right to live and work. In worst case scenarios, a second passport guarantees that once you get out of dodge, you won’t have to live like a refugee.

A second passport can also come in handy when a government decides to starting treating its own citizens as beef cows instead of milking cows (i.e. when they need more soldiers for war) or if passport restrictions and other types of people controls are implemented.

The Syrian government, for example, previously refused to renew the passports of Syrians abroad it suspected of being associated with the opposition. This is not surprising and should have been completely predictable—any government could and would behave in a similar manner. Any government has the ability to revoke the citizenship and/or passport of its citizens at a moment’s notice under any pretext that it finds convenient. Look at how the US cancelled Edward Snowden’s passport by fiat.

It is not inconceivable that the US government would, for example, make it more difficult for Ron Paul supporters to travel internationally one day in the future. Heck, they have already taken the first step and labeled them potential domestic terrorists.

The bottom line is that if you hold political views that the establishment of your home government does not like, don’t be surprised when they decide to restrict your travel options. In this case, having the political diversification that comes from having a second passport is even more important.

Unfortunately, getting a second passport, while necessary, is not easy. There are no solutions that are at the same time cheap, easy, fast, and legitimate. There is a lot of misinformation and bad advice out there regarding black and grey market passports that could likely end up causing you significant problems. It is essential to have a trusted resource to guide you through the process. There are definitely some options that are better than others. You can find our top picks for the best countries to obtain a second passport in and how to do it in Going Global 2013, a comprehensive guide to internationalization from Casey Research.

ED MARKEY – BIGGEST PUSSY IN THE SENATE

What kind of a pussy votes PRESENT when deciding whether we should go to war? How about some spineless liberal Massachusetts douchebag. See how your multi-millionaire Senators voted. They really care what you think.

Senator Paul lived up to the standards of his Patriot father – DOCTOR NO.

Rand proposed an amendment that said Obama could not unilaterally decide to attack, since the Constitution puts that power in the hands of Congress. It was defeated 14 to 4.

These Are The 7 Democratic And 3 Republican Senators Who Want To Start The Syrian War

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/04/2013 15:40 -0400

Starting a widely unpopular war which will inevitably escalate and will likely involve Russia and China, not to mention all the countries that neighbor Syria, and at best, result in a regime dominated by Al-Qaeda? No problem. Here are the Senators who voted to push America into the latest middle eastern war:

Voting Yes:

Robert Menendez, D-N.J. – net worth from $317,005 to $680,000
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. – net worth from $1,147,008 to $5,380,000
Ben Cardin, D-Md. – net worth from $1,416,074 to $3,998,000
Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. – net worth from $1,692,382 to $5,223,360
Chris Coons, D-Del. – net worth from $2,690,584 to $7,095,576
Dick Durbin, D-Ill. – net worth from $1,208,567 to $1,443,564
Tim Kaine, D-Va. – net worth from $667,015 to $1,507,000
Bob Corker, R-Tenn. – net worth from $6,625,018 to $76,453,998
John McCain, R-Ariz. – net worth from $3,226,239 to $15,247,981
Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. – net worth from $-234,998 to $299,999

Voting No:

Tom Udall, D-N.M.,
Chris Murphy, D-Conn.,
James Risch, R-Idaho,
Marco Rubio, R-Fla.,
Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
Ron Johnson, R-Wis.,
John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

Present:

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass

6 Groups that Will Win Big From a War with Syria

By Paul Rosenberg, FreemansPerspective.com

It has to be obvious to almost everyone that the US war machine is trying desperately to get another war going… and – at least for the moment – failing miserably.

Now, it’s entirely possible that they’ll get their war going before this article even reaches you, but still, it’s quite another question whether they can sustain it.

War is a wild beast, of course, and you can never tell what it’ll do once it’s released into the world. But the beast of 2013 seems a bit emaciated and weak.

This situation reminds me of the old set of posters and buttons from the 1970s that asked the question:

What if they gave a war and no one came?

That looks to be the case right now. But that doesn’t mean powerful interests aren’t pushing for it.

Who Benefits?

The Romans had a phrase that they used for legal analysis: qui bono, which translates to “who benefits?” Clearly, powerful individuals are pushing hard for the US to go to war. Let’s take a look at who these people are.

Politicians

Early 20th century writer Randolph Bourne was ever-so right when he taught us that “war is the health of the state.” In times of peace, the state is commonly resented. After all, they forcibly remove money from the people in their control, and that engenders bad feelings. When terrified by war, however, people are willing to forget about such matters: It is better to be a serf than to be a corpse.

Consider the “great Presidents” – nearly all of them were associated with a war, and probably a big one.

Bankers

I’m talking here about central bankers, not the operator of your local savings and loan.

War requires money, and lots of it. And money comes from central bankers, not from governments or even from simple printing presses. Dollars, yen, euros and the others come from central bankers, and those bankers get a cut of everything they create.

And then, of course, they get interest on those dollars from every business that needs loans for machines to manufacture bullets, uniforms, bombs, portable food, and everything else that goes into “giving a war.”

The Mega-corps

State-connected corporations thrive in time of war. These outfits are addicted to over-sized profits, and the very best tool for obtaining them is war. Nothing else comes close. So, for the sake of their stock prices, they need war and will push in dozens of ways to get it.

The Intelligence Complex

What’s not to like about war for these guys?

More money, worship on the nightly television shows, unlimited power, and no questions asked about your misdeeds… not to mention the segment of womankind that will reward the impressively violent with prompt mating privileges.

The Military Contracting Complex

There are literally thousands of military contracting firms these days, and all of the successful ones are allied with one government agency or another – a military service, a foreign affairs department, a retired general, a politician… someone with pull. It’s the only way to get work in those fields, and it’s also the best way for bureaucrats of the middle and upper levels to get kickbacks.

War funnels immense amounts of money to all levels of the state-corporate complex through this new conduit.

People Who Play On Emotions

Nothing stirs up “rah-rah” emotions better than images of dead people wearing your home team’s uniform. And that’s really good for the many people who cash in on your emotions. That list begins with politicians and continues with Hollywood (TV, movies and games) advertisers, all the people mentioned above, and even religious leaders. The churches of America fill with military rhetoric (and people) in time of war, and ambitious ministers play it up big. (With a few exceptions.)

So, that’s just a general list of people who benefit from war. The interesting thing about this moment is that the Western world – and America in particular – seems weary of the bloody exercise. They’ve had it for more than a decade, and the emotional surge has worn off.

And, it may just be that the terrified Americans who ran to politicians for safety in 2001 have grown up a bit.

Let’s hope so.

SUSTAINABLE?

Our beloved leaders and their insistence on democratizing the world at the point of a few hundred tomahawk missiles has had predictable consequences. West Texas crude oil hit $109 a barrel today, the highest level since February 2012 when we were saber rattling over the imminent threat of Iran. Gas prices breached $3.90 per gallon then and again in September of 2012 when West Texas crude hit only $99 per barrel. The price at the station near my house has jumped by 8 cents in the last few days to $3.71 per gallon. The national price of $3.62 is headed higher. If and when the missiles start flying, the sky is the limit depending on what Syria, Russia and Iran do. There already appears to be a disconnect, as WTI has surged by 23% since April, but national gas prices are only up 4%. Some of this is due to demand destruction as the high prices and declining economy have led to a collapse in vehicle miles driven and fuel usage.

Some of the disconnect may be explained by the price of Brent crude. It is pretty much flat versus last year, while WTI has gone up 12%. The West and Midwest are most influenced by the price of WTI, while the East is impacted by Brent. The price of Brent hit $116 today, up 16% since April. That is close to the one year high reached in February, when U.S. gas prices hit their high for the year of $3.70 per gallon. Last year ended up with the highest average price for a gallon of gas in U.S. history and that was with falling prices from September through December. The average price in 2013 is only slightly lower than 2012 and we are about to experience much higher prices from September through December. Throw in a hurricane or two and we’ll really be partying. Prices in Chicago and Los Angeles are already above $3.90 per gallon.

There is nothing like high energy prices to kick the ass of this economy. We are already in recession, as the consumer is up to their eyeballs in debt and getting gouged by higher taxes, healthcare costs, tuition costs, and food costs. These soaring oil prices will make everything more expensive, as our economy is dependent upon shipping shit by truck. One of the storylines peddled by the MSM has been the fantastic auto recovery. Thank God Obama saved GM!!!

Again we have a disconnect. The number of vehicle miles driven continues to decline. Why would auto sales be soaring if people are driving less and young people can’t afford cars? The chart below makes the point. We’ve got record high energy prices and a decade long decline in miles driven, but somehow we have a booming auto industry. It couldn’t possibly be driven by cheap credit doled out to subprime auto buyers? Obama and his minions at Ally Financial, along with Bennie and his Wall Street cohorts wouldn’t be using those free Bennie bucks to create the illusion of an auto recovery? Would they?

Do you think the auto recovery is sustainable with rising interest rates, rising gas prices, falling stock prices, increasing bad debt on auto loans, and a recession? If you do, I have some prime real estate in Damascus I’d like to sell you.

“HE WHO SERVES ME BEST”

They will hang whomever suits their purposes in order to preserve and increase their power, control and wealth. First it was Iraq. Then it was Afghanistan. Then Libya. Then Egypt. Now Syria. Next Iran.

First it was Bradley Manning. Then it was Julian Assange. Now it is Edward Snowden. Next it will be you.

http://youtu.be/_ZSS3yxpnFU

THE HANGMAN

By Maurice Ogden

Into our town the hangman came,
smelling of gold and blood and flame.
He paced our bricks with a different air,
and built his frame on the courthouse square.

The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
only as wide as the door was wide
with a frame as tall, or a little more,
than the capping sill of the courthouse door.

And we wondered whenever we had the time,
Who the criminal? What the crime?
The hangman judged with the yellow twist
of knotted hemp in his busy fist.

And innocent though we were with dread,
we passed those eyes of buckshot lead.
Till one cried, “Hangman, who is he,
for whom you raised the gallows-tree?”

Then a twinkle grew in his buckshot eye
and he gave a riddle instead of reply.
“He who serves me best,” said he
“Shall earn the rope on the gallows-tree.”

And he stepped down and laid his hand
on a man who came from another land.
And we breathed again, for anothers grief
at the hangmans hand, was our relief.

And the gallows frame on the courthouse lawn
by tomorrow’s sun would be struck and gone.
So we gave him way and no one spoke
out of respect for his hangmans cloak.

The next day’s sun looked mildly down
on roof and street in our quiet town;
and stark and black in the morning air
the gallows-tree on the courthouse square.

And the hangman stood at his usual stand
with the yellow hemp in his busy hand.
With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike,
and his air so knowing and business-like.

And we cried, “Hangman, have you not done,
yesterday with the alien one?”
Then we fell silent and stood amazed.
“Oh, not for him was the gallows raised.”

He laughed a laugh as he looked at us,
“Do you think I’ve gone to all this fuss,
To hang one man? That’s the thing I do.
To stretch the rope when the rope is new.”

Above our silence a voice cried “Shame!”
and into our midst the hangman came;
to that mans place, “Do you hold,” said he,
“With him that was meat for the gallows-tree?”

He laid his hand on that one’s arm
and we shrank back in quick alarm.
We gave him way, and no one spoke,
out of fear of the hangmans cloak.

That night we saw with dread surprise
the hangmans scaffold had grown in size.
Fed by the blood beneath the chute,
the gallows-tree had taken root.

Now as wide, or a little more
than the steps that led to the courthouse door.
As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
half way up on the courthouse wall.

The third he took, we had all heard tell,
was a usurer…, an infidel.
And “What” said the hangman, “Have you to do
with the gallows-bound…, and he a Jew?”

And we cried out, “Is this one he
who has served you well and faithfully?”
The hangman smiled, “It’s a clever scheme
to try the strength of the gallows beam.”

The fourth man’s dark accusing song
had scratched our comfort hard and long.
“And what concern,” he gave us back,
“Have you … for the doomed and black?”

The fifth, the sixth, and we cried again,
“Hangman, hangman, is this the man?”
“It’s a trick”, said he, “that we hangman know
for easing the trap when the trap springs slow.”

And so we ceased and asked now more
as the hangman tallied his bloody score.
And sun by sun, and night by night
the gallows grew to monstrous height.

The wings of the scaffold opened wide
until they covered the square from side to side.
And the monster cross beam looking down,
cast its shadow across the town.

Then through the town the hangman came
and called through the empy streets…my name.
I looked at the gallows soaring tall
and thought … there’s no one left at all

for hanging … and so he called to me
to help take down the gallows-tree.
And I went out with right good hope
to the hangmans tree and the hangmans rope.

He smiled at me as I came down
to the courthouse square…through the silent town.
Supple and stretched in his busy hand,
was the yellow twist of hempen strand.

He whistled his tune as he tried the trap
and it sprang down with a ready snap.
Then with a smile of awful command,
He laid his hand upon my hand.

“You tricked me Hangman.” I shouted then,
“That your scaffold was built for other men,
and I’m no henchman of yours.” I cried.
“You lied to me Hangman, foully lied.”

Then a twinkle grew in his buckshot eye,
“Lied to you…tricked you?” He said “Not I…
for I answered straight and told you true.
The scaffold was raised for none but you.”

“For who has served more faithfully?
With your coward’s hope.” said He,
“And where are the others that might have stood
side by your side, in the common good?”

“Dead!” I answered, and amiably
“Murdered,” the Hangman corrected me.
“First the alien … then the Jew.
I did no more than you let me do.”

Beneath the beam that blocked the sky
none before stood so alone as I.
The Hangman then strapped me…with no voice there
to cry “Stay!” … for me in the empty square.

THE BOTTOM LINE: “…I did no more than you let me do.”

THE PROBLEMS OF RUNNING AN EMPIRE

Kunstler never fails to amaze. First he turns into a goldbug. Now he is quoting Jim Willie regarding the toppling of our USD hegemony by the Russians, Chinese and other opponents. Next he’ll be quoting Ron Paul and going to NASCAR races.

It seems he doesn’t have as well behaved commenters as TBP.

Between a Rock and a Laugh Track

By Jim Kunstler

After the British parliament put the kibosh on following the American punishment brigade to Syria, and then NATO, and the UN wrinkled their noses at the project, well, that pretty much left President Obama to twist slowly, slowly in the wind — washed, rinsed, and hung out to dry. It looks like a watershed moment in the USA’s increasingly klutzy career as the world’s hall monitor. International power relations are suddenly in flux. A phase change has occurred causing all that was solid a few days ago to melt into liquid.

The Iranians are having a good laugh, for now. Mr. Assad of Syria responded with a beaming smirk. However, any sentient observer can see this region of the world for what it is, a political demolition derby which, left to its own blundering devices, would blow up the whole arena when the last player sputters to a standstill.

First of all, it seems to me that extremists in the Republican-dominated US House of Representatives have been quietly searching for a pretext to impeach President Obama. Committing an overt act of war without congressional approval would have been a good case, legally, despite the fact that executive branch war-making has been absolutely the rule for decades in Washington. The British parliamentary move against the avid David Cameron pretty much begged the question for American legislators. The foggy part is whether they would actually come back to Washington from the fried dough alleys of their state fairs and mount a “debate” about whether it would be a good or bad thing to whack Syria for gassing more than a thousand of its own citizens.

Lately when America mounts a high moral horse about how other nations behave, we have gone into these places and smashed things up, bringing much more death and destruction than we anticipated. The hope is always that some surgical military operation can correct a political illness, but a cruise missile is not exactly a scalpel and once the patient is blown to pieces it is rather hard to patch up the body politic again. You’re just left, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a lot of bloody fragments fought over by political rats and cockroaches.

Syria is a real crossroads both for America’s policy in the region and for its position on the world stage. The region is in a state of destructive turmoil that is likely to lead to the further fall of regimes and the breakup of states. Many of these states are figment nations anyway, with boundaries drawn in the 20^th century by the winners of the two world wars. The discovery of oil from North Africa to Iran and beyond has been catastrophic for everybody in the world, but most vividly for the exploding populations of these mostly desert states, which could not have supported so many people without the artificial support of petro-money. Now, faced with the specter of peak oil production, the whole region is flying apart from the stress of population overshoot, including countries like Syria which never produced much oil itself.

But the drama over the trade in the oil remaining only becomes more intense. For instance, the position of Saudi Arabia, pretending to sit quietly on the sidelines through all this, is curious. There are rumors, unverified, that the gas incident in Syria happened because Saudi Arabia sent canisters of Sarin to the Syrian rebels, who then mishandled them and gassed their own neighborhood. The world’s recent experience with so-called “intel reports” about weapons has made everybody skeptical of claims made by politicians that a particular country poses a danger to others.

Otherwise, there is a whole other strategic realm of concerns around the petro trade and its financing that is totally off the radar screen of the mainstream media. For instance, the sometimes erratic but brilliant blogger Jim Willie describes the larger struggle of Russia, Iran, China, and other interested parties to displace the US dollar dominance in oil trade — in particular a dollar based on increasingly sketchy US Treasury bonds, which has deformed global banking, roiled currencies, and made the settling of international accounts problematical for everybody else in the world. The opposition to the US, and its client / partner Saudi Arabia, the story goes, would replace the dollar with gold-backed oil trade and a logistical work-around based on a growing pipeline system from Iran and beyond, in Asia, to desperate customers in Europe. The implications are a collapse of the dollar (and the US bond market), a wedge between European and American interests, and a dominant partnership of oil-and-gas rich Russia with China — that is, a major power shift from west-to-east.

Who knows how much of this has informed President Obama’s decision process. The stall in the American whack-attack against Syria may itself be a symptom of the swirling new conditions in world finance and power relations. In any case, a great empire — which we have been — can’t afford to make idle threats. The outcome of the Syria melodrama may be that the US has been knocked down a big step in its ability to project power without terrible consequences to itself.

To posters in the comments section: Do not post YouTube videos. Do not engage in quarrels. Do not make stupid political puns. We are making an effort to combat the trolldom that has reigned here for a while. If you misbehave, you will be kicked off.

IMPERIAL PRESIDENT

Ron Paul is spitting fire over the President’s belief that he can take the country to war whenever he chooses. We’re fucking broke. We can’t police the fucking world? Obama has murdered more innocent people with his drone attacks than Assad has killed in Syria. Who is the real war criminal?

Will Congress Endorse Obama’s War Plans? Does it Matter?

Sunday September 1, 2013

President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.

Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented “a serious danger to our national security.” I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.

According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and “limited” missile and air strikes would cost “in the billions” of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

In “The Sociology of Imperialism,” Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire’s suicidal interventionism:

“There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest – why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted.”

Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama’s speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president’s war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president’s war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly. Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means “to whose benefit?” The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war. If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won’t even be doing any of the fighting.

They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card – the U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other – the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a “limited military strike” and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?

Maybe.

Let’s hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing “serious reservations” about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post…

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.

If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.

Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond.

And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.

And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.

So all of those “pro-Israel” websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice. If you really are “pro-Israel”, you should not want this war. It would not be good for Israel.

If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace. This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel. Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.

War is hell. Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one. Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?

If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it. Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this…

It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.

And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country. The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad…

Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond.

Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of “defense readiness” from “five” to “two” in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen…

Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad’s government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia’s defense readiness has been raised to “two” from “five”, a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. “One” is the highest level of alert.

And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis…

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak.

And this is someone that isn’t just fresh out of journalism school. As Paul Joseph Watson noted, “Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.”

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak’s bombshell findings…

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them. Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin…

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that “threatens the security” of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses “in the face of the Syrian regime.” Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt’s future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Are you starting to get the picture?

The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.

And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.

According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.

And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria…

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

However, is is clear that he is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress – even if they vote against it – or the American people stop him.

Let’s just hope that he doesn’t start World War III in the process.