21
POPSInterventionism, Not Muslims, Is the Problem
Thus, rather than ceasing its policy of interventionism after 9/11, which is what the U.S. government should have done even while pursuing the perpetrators through criminal-justice means, it did the very worst thing possible — it continued and even expanded its policy of interventionism in the hope of killing those whose differences with America’s values had risen to the level of rage as a result of U.S. interventionism. Not surprisingly, that only fueled more anger and rage. So, what should the U.S. government do now? It should do what it should have done after 9/11: Exit Afghanistan and Iraq and the entire Middle East. Bring all the troops home. Everyone seems to know this, but America. I read a lot of hate against Muslims on CM and I find that highly troubling. It's a crock. Muslims DON'T hate us, they are NOT the enemy and if the US just left other countries alone, the "War on Terror" would be over. Don't buy into it.. Bring the troops home.
21
POPSThe Answer Terrifies Them Foreign terrorism against Americans would disappear along with the need for a "war on terror." Civil liberties that were suspended could be restored. A sense of balance and harmony could return to our lives. Ending interventionism would mean that the era of big government in foreign affairs could be brought to an end.
5
POPSIraq Might Force US to Leave; US Imperial Plans Revealed It's about sovereignty vs. imperialism. And this article reveals the neocon administration's real designs for Iraq--a forward base in the Middle East for "regime change": American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors. In other words, a free military hand, both inside and outside Iraq, and making use of their bases. So "Reconstruction" is really about making Iraq like the Philippines with a permanent military presence for global strategic interests for spreading "democracy" through military coercion against "rogue states" (i.e. states that defend their sovereignty) against US and UN interventionism toward a global PAX AMERICANA.
4
POPSGovernment Bailouts Unconstitutional, Well Sorta..
Up until the new deal Constitutional limitations were strictly enforced upon congress. However Roosevelt grew angry when told that he did not have the authority to enact all these government regulations and interventions into the private sector. His response was to replace these aging constructionist Supreme court judges with ardent NEW DEAL supporters and the rest like they say is history. No longer was it necessary to actually write legislation that had to be voted upon and approved through the regular democratic process, now all that needed to be done was for the Supreme court to legislate the Presidents objectives from the bench. And then congress would have to enact law accordingly. AFTER ALL who could argue with the SUPREME COURT? Does any of this sound familiar? Although the constitution strictly limited governmental powers Roosevelt found a way around the constitution. Lawlessness always finds a way to circumvent the law to justify their lawlessness.
3
POPS Anatomy of A Meltdown It is important for people who believe in the free market and in a free society to know how to defend themselves, to know what the arguments are, in order that we might resist the expansion of government power that will take place using this crisis as a pretext. hen we are being told that free-market economists must have egg on their face because their cherished system has collapsed, it was followers of Ludwig Von Mises, F.A Hayek - the great so-called Austrian economists of the 20th Century - who were mostly likely to have predicted this crisis. Hayek won the Noble prize in economics for showing that government-established central banks like the Federal Reserve are an intervention into the free market. They are destabilizing, not stabilizing. And by tampering with interest rates and the free market system they cause entrepreneurs and consumers alike to commit massive errors that eventually hit the economy in the form of a major bust. http://www.thomasewoods.com/
3
POPSThe Taliban Will 'Never' Negotiate With West "If increase the soldiers in Afghanistan, the jihad against will become serious." When asked if he had a message for Canadians, Ahmadi called on Canada not to "kill their sons" by sending troops to fight in Afghanistan. "I tell them to let Afghans to make their future by themselves and decide by themselves," he said. "Afghanistan does not belong to America or Canada." Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to pull all Canadian combat forces out of Afghanistan by 2011.
2
POPSSudan Would Be Obama's Iraq; Elitest Foreign Policy Conclusions can be drawn from Obama's elitest foreign policy advisory team, comprised from Hillary and Bill Clinton's own. While condemning Bush's Iraq war, Obama will lead military interventionism into Africa, most likely, if you consider his top adviser's position, who has his ear like the neocons had Bush's ear. Africa will be the place for "regime change" under Obama, to fold it into the plan for world democracy which is driven by the elite. Susan Rice is Obama's Paul Wolfowitz. Dems and Repubs are both military interventionists. Obama like Hillary and McCain is a member of the CFR , the elites pushing global government. Hardly a sharp "change" is it, in direction? See the plan for AFRICOM , for which Obama is most suited to "sell" as needed, as part of the global elite's puzzle.
2
POPSStimulus Plan is Unconstitutional, Economically Dangerous! Both the Constitution and history are witnesses that testify that the Stimulus Plan is both a federal usurpation of power and economically stupid, and could CAUSE another "catastrophe". Read the author's review of history on this: Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism..... This Constitutional constraint still operated as late as the 1930s, when federal courts issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress, and the Supreme Court overturned the New Deal's centerpieces , the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and other statutes. And this Federal intervention rests on the presumption that officials know how to manage the economy So why is Obama being encouraged by many to pass another "New Deal" when history proves the outcome? This should have been on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
2
POPSFrom 'Obama's Kettle of Hawks' Not One Anti-War Voice Obama's Kettle of Hawks by Jeremy Scahill (Author of Blackwater...) Quotes concerning Obama's selections for the presidential cabinet
2
POPSMcCain as President Would be a Megalomaniac This article appeared in The American Conservative Magazine which just endorsed Ron Paul. The "maverick" McCain appears to have changed his positions in light of personal ambitions, which also smacks of Willard Milton Romney. This formerly tortured POW (something that psychologists testify of full well leads to a corresponding pathological abuse of others in return) could become a global meglomaniac that would make Bush look like a pacifist, hard as it is to imagine. The neocons, from the left originally, will love him.
1
POPS"We Are Helping The Taliban"
As our bombings follow them, beleaguered villagers have little choice but to leave their homes and join the swelling numbers of refugees or take up arms and join the fight against us. Nonetheless, instead of recognizing the cascading unintended consequences of trying to deal with Pakistan’s problems, all signs in Washington point to further escalation. Both the House and Senate have newly introduced bills to triple foreign aid to Pakistan, from $500 million to $1.5 billion, with every indication that the leadership in Pakistan is taking advantage of the situation with the Taliban to milk more aid from the US taxpayer. We are broke. This is money we don’t have, and it is an insult to the American people to run up the national credit card for this type of military adventurism after many Americans thought they were voting for peace. The bottom line is our involvement in Pakistan’s internal problems is not making us safer. In fact, we are adding to the numbers of our enemies and incr
11
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update