by John Galt
November 9, 2015 22:15 ET
The Democratic Party in the United States is in grave trouble. Historically, whenever they wished to push the Constitutional envelope or retrieve power from the opposition as the nation was sliding into the brink, the Democrat who was President of the United States resorted to the one tried and true formula since the early 1900’s to empower their party and expand the authority of the Executive Branch:
If anyone honestly reviews American history since 1910, the pattern is replete with incidents to support this supposition:
Woodrow Wilson occupied Haiti in 1915 under the guise of restoring stability when in fact there was a desire to continue expansion of colonial conquest and bases for the U.S. military. Shortly after that, with numerous incursions into the U.S. by Mexican revolutionaries and bandits, Wilson ordered the U.S. Army to invade Mexico and destroy any forces which threatened the U.S. By 1917, after his re-election, signs of economic instability became apparent as World War I began to turn against the United Kingdom and France. This would endanger the economic boom the United States was experiencing at the time and thus Wilson pushed U.S. entry into the war under false pretenses to ensure the Western banking cartels could remain the dominant force in the global economy.
After the war was over, Wilson ordered American troops into Russia to assist the White Army in their efforts against the Bolsheviks. This action produced little concrete results and ended with the Russian people angrily watching the Americans depart after years of inaction which in conjunction with inaction by the European powers resulted in decades of Communist oppression in the U.S.S.R. The consequences of these interventions, along with his domestic policies, are still impacting our country to this day as his actions have been used to justify American military action against independent nations in the Western Hemisphere without a declaration of war since his administration.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was no better. After years of attempting to emulate the dictatorship of the people created under the misguided Fascists of Europe, FDR realized that once another global conflict was inevitable, he had to lay a plan to involve the United States at some point in the future. His attempts to destroy the Constitution via dilution of the Supreme Court, enacting unconstitutional Executive Orders, and usurping capitalist foundations with government intervention in the name of “ending” the Great Depression are now legendary. As the economy collapsed under the weight of government oppressiveness and Federal Reserve was inevitable, FDR elected to align with a policy to guide the U.S. into the next war. Understanding that the methodology used by Wilson would not work, some historians theorized that he allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to force the issue and the evidence does tend to support this theory. Why else would anyone not allow or order naval and air patrols around the Hawaiian Islands when the generals in that theater were begging for authority to do so?
Harry Truman further expanded the globalist intervention idea with the excuse that Korea was in our sphere of influence and Communist attempts at world domination threatened US security. Yet his administration was already flailing and instead of entering the war to finally defeat Marxism in Asia, Truman allowed over 128,000 American soldiers to be killed or wounded without giving the the authority to win the conflict. This new ‘police action’ policy became the future model for every administration since that time to illegally enter into a war even if the reasons were concocted for nefarious reasons.
When one adds John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, etc. and their actions into the historical mix, the reasons to approach the final year of Obama’s administration with great trepidation is necessary and apparent.
Obama’s Modern Solution to American Independence
The final year of Obama’s reign of terror reflects much of the concern as the American public had for the 1917 era of Woodrow Wilson. An unpopular war where isolationism away from the problems created by the rest of the world on their own accord could be mirrored in the disdain the American public has now for the waste of men and economic resources expended in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Then of course, Obama goes out today and makes a very disturbing comment:
To be fair this is context of Obama’s speech to his favorite community organizing group where he stated that this meant he would be active after he leaves office; if we the American people are to trust or believe him. The problem is not this speech or his oft misquoted or under-reported rhetoric. The reality is that there are numerous forward looking projections for 2016 which estimate that the U.S. economy could well be on the road to another major collapse a la 1937 but far worse than 2007-2009 and even some of the largest economic depressions in American history.
So what if the economy follows the commodity indicators and crashes on a global basis finally hitting the American mythological juggernaut in mid-2016? Obama has already laid out the pretense for conflict in several parts of the world this year alone:
- Just this week, the U.S. has announced it would bolster America’s military presence in Europe to assist NATO allies to blunt a theorized Russian invasion or attack on NATO allies.
- The U.S. is building up its troop presence in Australia and Asia to defend against a yet unseen threat by the Chinese military against Japan, Taiwan, or even Australia.
- In Turkey, a slow but steady buildup of Air Force assets has occurred in the last year to blunt ISIS and now the Russian presence in Syria. There has yet to be any direct threat from Russia or Syria against the Ankara government but Obama feels some weird obligation to intervene on behalf of one of the most Islamist administrations in the region.
The terrifying prospect of Obama starting a war with any one of or both China and Russia should frighten any sane American. If Obama were to do so under false pretense as his Democrat predecessors throughout history, what would be the goal, cause, and outcome?
While no defined answer is possible as history along with military conflicts on a global basis are fluid, especially since there has rarely been a direct confrontation with nuclear armed powers, one has to ask what would he hope to accomplish in what might well be a losing cause?
‘Peace in Our Time’
The prospect of President Obama becoming a true wartime executive is a reality the American people are totally unprepared for as we enter 2016. The Pax Americana has lasted since the collapse of the U.S.S.R. with the economic and technological expansion continuing at a frightening pace. This has created a society which has little if any experience of a direct conflict which impacts our homeland, much less fewer individuals who viewed the events of September 11, 2001 as nothing more than a rare bureaucratic failure which has been corrected with an expansion of the Police State.
The truth is America as a society has never really been to war since World War II nor have many had any skin in the game with each conflict progressively engaged in since the Vietnam War.
Citizens of ours, our neighbors and friends, have sacrificed lives and limbs to intervene around the world on behalf of the government in the name of the “war on terror” but in reality few beyond their families have anything invested. If the entire nation had skin in the game, such as a what happened in the world wars, then the reality changes as does the interpretation of the actions of our political leadership.
If the United States were to engage one of or both major world powers in a conflict in 2016, with our military forces grossly neglected and degraded by seven years of Obama’s disdain for our country along with corruption enjoyed by both parties via exploitation of the military-industrial complex.
Thus a major miscalculation where Obama believes his own propaganda could result in a military disaster similar to what was outlined in the article, How America Loses World War III to Russia.
In that article it was warned that this was not a war which was going to last long and due to the spoiled brats of America, the sheeple majority, who will be unwilling or unable to survive long after losing basic infrastructure and the financial system much less the actual military losses incurred due to a non-nuclear attack will accept any solution to end any conflict shortly after it begins. If China is not involved or if it is directly in a confrontation with the U.S. the obvious fact is that neither nation wants to overtly destroy America due to its debts owed to the world and the technological innovation which is needed to expand their own dictatorships.
Thus the solution is simple should a war begin under Obama’s leadership:
Give America a major bloody nose and force the nation into a new world order friendly peace agreement.
This suspension of conflict will be designated by Obama as not a surrender but a path to lasting peace or tool for his personal advancement. With such an agreement however, the theory that Obama’s reign of terror might last beyond 14 more months is not so far fetched. The long held belief by conspiracy theorists is that Obama would be the first U.S. President to challenge the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. However, if Obama engages in a conflict, ends the war with an armistice which is ratified by a treaty, this would over ride the 22nd Amendment by allowing the dictates of the armistice, or treaty, to supersede that amendment to the Constitution.
Meet the New Administrative Governor same as the Old One
As Obama departs his Presidential office and if the foreign powers so decide in the terms of the armistice which Obama helps negotiate, the United Nations could be given a direct oversight role in the administration of and governance of the United States. As such to the victors belong the spoils; imagine a world where the United Nations Security Council is given the power to vote for a Governor (or whatever title) which holds all Executive and Administrative legal power of the United States.
Think that Obama would not be that choice?
Think again. He’s perfect to complete the imposition of globalist initiatives such as usurping the 1st Amendment, repealing gun rights, or establishing a new economic structure including global taxation initiatives based on climate change or consumption. While most Americans would be repulsed by this type of action, if the group-think of this generation is any indication most people would prefer to stabilize and guarantee their own personal fiefdom rather than concern themselves with the greater good of the nation as a whole. Resistance from the American public would be sporadic at best, and diminished with the support of the world waiting to crush every individual who dared to oppose it.
In summary this is only a theoretical outcome which maintains a Constitutional, albeit unethical method, for Obama to stay in power far beyond his current term. God forbid he actually engages in any activities which open the opportunity to allow a global body to usurp American elections as the election of 2016 could result in a line from one of The Who’s classic songs becoming reality:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Sadly, we the people will get fooled again.