As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, The Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War than Republicans

as-democratic-elites-reunite-with-neocons-the-partys-voters-are-becoming-far-more-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans

11-01-19 03:49:00,

President Trump’s December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the anti-war wings of both parties, but largely provoked bipartisan outrage among in Washington’s reflexively pro-war establishment.

Both GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the country’s most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly criticized President Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump’s decision in very similar terms, invoking standard War on Terror jargon.

But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from Morning Consult/Politico shows a large plurality of Americans support Trump’s Syria withdraw announcement: 49% support to 33% opposition.

That’s not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that “the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan for too long, and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm’s way” far more than they agree with the pro-war view that “the U.S. needs to keep troops in places such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and maintain our foreign policy interests in the region.”

But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops in that Middle Eastern country come from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: of people who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, only 26% support the withdraw of troops from Syria, while 59% oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76%-14%.

A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28% support withdraw while 54% oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support for withdraw among 2018 GOP voters: 74%-18%.

Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump’s announced intention to withdraw half of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping troops in Afghanistan than Republicans and independents.

This case is even more stark since President Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring home all troops.

 » Lees verder

Democratic 2020 Candidate Pushes US Govt-Sponsored ‘Social Credit’ System Like China’s

democratic-2020-candidate-pushes-us-govt-sponsored-8216social-credit8217-system-like-china8217s

20-11-18 09:40:00,

Authored by Peter Hasson via The Daily Caller,

New York entrepreneur and Democratic 2020 candidate Andrew Yang wants to implement a system in which a government-run mobile app rewards Americans with “digital social credits” (DSCs) for good behavior.

Americans would receive DSCs under Yang’s system for things such as “participating in a town fair,” “fixing a neighbor’s appliance” or “tutoring a student,” his presidential campaign website explains.

“As individuals rack up DSCs, they would have both a permanent balance they’ve earned over their lifetime and a current balance. They could cash the points in for experiences, purchases with participating vendors, support for causes, and transfer points to others for special occasions,” Yang states on his website. 

“As their permanent balance gets higher, they might qualify for various perks like throwing a pitch at a local ballgame, an audience with their local Congressperson or meeting their state’s most civic-minded athlete or celebrity.”

“The most socially detached would be the most likely to ignore all of this,” he added. “But many people love rewards and feeling valued.”

Yang’s social credit plan bears some similarities to the social credit system implemented by China’s authoritarian government.

Every citizen in China is assigned a social credit score that determines whether they can buy plane or train tickets.

Unlike the Chinese system, Yang’s plan does not include using digital social credit for punitive measures.

Campaign chair Matt Shinners emphasized in an email to The Daily Caller News Foundation that Yang’s system lacks the coercive element featured in China’s social credit system:

My understanding of the Chinese system (which is admittedly limited) is that it’s more of a rating that’s externally imposed based on a number of non-opt-in factors, almost like a credit rating, and collates information captured from public surveillance, economic and social media activity, etc… to create a ‘score’ that would then, possibly, be used to ‘blacklist’ people from certain activities. Under my understanding, the Chinese system is more of a score/rating than a system of credits.

Andrew’s platform calls for a system that’s much more akin to time banking,

 » Lees verder

The CIA in league with the Democratic Party Is Moving to Take Control of the House of Representatives – PaulCraigRoberts.org

The CIA in league with the Democratic Party Is Moving to Take Control of the House of Representatives – PaulCraigRoberts.org

18-10-18 10:09:00,

Copyright .© Paul Craig Roberts 2018.- Please contact us for information on syndication rights.


This site offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. IPE has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor.

 » Lees verder

How The West Opposed A Democratic Syria

How The West Opposed A Democratic Syria

25-09-18 09:03:00,

US military document reveals how the

 West opposed a democratic Syria

US military documents from 2011 and 2016 reveal that although officials wanted a Syrian regime change in theory, they thought it was highly unlikely to actually happen — and hoped that if President Bashar al-Assad was overthrown, he would not be replaced by an opposition-led Syrian democracy but, rather, the same Alawite-Baathist ruling structure would continue. The end result was to be the decimation of the democratic opposition, the consolidation of Islamist forces and regime preservation.
‘The US has given up on the overthrow of Assad in Syria’, wroteRobert Fisk this summer. Indeed, as the Russian-backed Syrian army prepared to execute its final offensive on Idlib, western governments appeared to signal their acceptance of a bloody victory for Assad, despite the ritual denunciations.
But at the last minute, Russia and Turkey agreed a truce to ward off a Russian-led attack for at least a month, and establish a buffer zone to protect 3 million civilians. The deal will involve hashing out how to remove extremist rebels from the buffer zone, and Turkey has announced it will send more troops into Idlib.
As the Idlib offensive loomed, the West, curiously, did little of substance in any particular direction. According to two newly uncovered US military documents, western reticence might be because that the US was never really committed to overthrowing Assad, due to a self-serving strategy that has been wildly misunderstood.
The documents suggest that both early on and toward the later phase of the conflict, senior US military officials had not given any credence to the democratic aspirations of Syrian protestors, but had merely sought to use them as a tool to sideline expanding Iranian influence. Toppling the regime was dismissed as a highly improbable scenario, with officials indicating they believed the survival of an authoritarian Baathist governing structure — with or without Assad — was inevitable.
Predicting opposition failure
According to a US secret draft military document obtained via the Wikileaks archive, as far back as August 2011 (six months after the Syrian uprising began) US military officials were highly ambivalent about ‘regime change’ in Syria, on the grounds that opposition forces would never win. Supporting the rebels, the officials hoped, might encourage forces within Assad’s regime to remove him while maintaining the Alawite-dominated authoritarian power structure.  » Lees verder

“Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons from history that will destroy your trust in the CIA

“Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons from history that will destroy your trust in the CIA

20-07-18 07:57:00,

Kit

Did everyone urging us to trust the CIA forget this happened? Or do they just want us to?

In the hysterical wake of the Trump-Putin Summit in Helsinki, President Donald Trump was roundly criticised in the media for taking the side of a “hostile state” over his own intelligence agencies. The Guardian referred to Mueller as a “heroic marine” who Trump disbelieved in favour of a “Russian dictator”.

In the past, when Trump has criticised the FBI, CIA or NSA he has been accused of “undermining faith in our institutions”. He’s been blamed for a collapse of trust in the government. But was this trust ever earned?

At every corner, we are urged to simply believe what we are told. Whether it is about believing Porton Down and MI6 about “novichok”, or believing the White Helmets about Sarin, or believing the FBI about “collusion”, we are presented with no facts, just assertions from authority. Those who question those assertions are deemed “bots” at best or “traitors” at worst.

Well here, fellow traitors, are the Top Ten reasons to question anything and everything the CIA – or any intelligence agency – has ever told you.

10. OPERATION PAPERCLIP – we’ll start with an oldie but a goody. In 1945, as the allies were advancing on Berlin from both sides, American Army Intelligence (this was before the CIA were founded) were “capturing” (read: recruiting) over 1600 Nazi scientists and engineers. Most famous of them was Werhner von Braun…sorry, SS Sturmbannführer von Braun.

Whilst Allied soldiers died in the name of defeating fascism, the CIA’s predecessors were actively recruiting Nazis to come and build bombs for them.

9. OPERATION NORTHWOODS – The original, and important, precedent for accusations that the CIA et al. might engage in false-flag attacks. Operation Northwoods was a joint CIA/Pentagon proposal designed around the idea of escalating a war with Cuba by stoking public anger:

The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government,

 » Lees verder

Ten Ways The Democratic Northern Hemisphere Nations Became The Orwellian West

Ten Ways The Democratic Northern Hemisphere Nations Became The Orwellian West

07-06-18 06:38:00,

Authored by Doug “Uncola” Lynn via TheBurningPlatform.com,

In his book, “1984”, George Orwell envisioned a future crushed by the iron grip of a collectivist oligarchy. The narrative told of the INGSOC Party which maintained power through a system of surveillance and brutality designed to monitor and control every aspect of society.  From the time of the book’s release in 1949, any ensuing vision of a dark dystopia depicting variations of jackboots stomping on human faces, forever, has been referenced as being “Orwellian”.  This is because Orwell’s narrative illustrated various disturbing and unjust conceptualizations of controlcrime, and punishment.

For example, “Newspeak” represented the language of mind control, whereas “crimethink”“thoughtcrime”, and “crimeface” manifested as transgressions against the state.  Guilty citizens were captured by the “Thought Police”, and the ultimate punishment consisted of “vaporization”; which eliminated every last vestige of a person’s existence.

In the horrifying world of 1984, the nation of Oceania was divided into three concentric groups:  The Inner Party, the Outer Party, and the Proles, or proletariat.  The Proles constituted 85% of the population and lived in extreme privation.  The Inner Party represented the elite powerbrokers who led lives of comprehensive luxury compared to the minions in the Outer Party.

But in the real world of today, it is the globalist billionaires who own multiple mansions, fly private jets and ride in eight-cylinder limousines to climate-change conferences where policies are decreed to lower the carbon footprint of the proletariat.  It is the wealthy elite of the westernized nations who have sacrificed individual freedom upon the altar of Collectivism as political correctness has stifled free speech and enslaved citizens drown under oceans of debt.

At the same time, megalithic multi-national corporations like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, have become the eyes and ears of Big Brother; always watching and ever listening.

Indeed, Orwell was near prophetic in describing the proliferation of listening devices in both public and private settings as well as “telescreens”,

 » Lees verder