TERMINATOR-LIBERATOR: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

CONGRESS IS NO LONGER USED EVEN A FIG LEAF BY PRESIDENTS BENT ON WAGING PERPETUAL WARS

Over two decades ago, the Truth in Media editor coined a slogan that best defines the MO of the New World Order. It was “Perpetual War for Perpetual Commerce” (see New World Order Unmasked). Today, Sunday Feb 1, even a New World Order rag like the New York Times, lamented that we are now living this nightmare.

But the group, also known as ISIL and ISIS, cannot serve as a pretext to give the executive branch what amounts to a blank check to battle an ever-shifting array of enemies around the globe. (New York Times, Feb 1, 2015)

So Congress is no longer even being used as a fig leaf for a president who wants to wage war on any group or country around the world.

Of course, in a classic double-talk of New World Order warmongers, and with full complicity of the mainstream media, the aggressors are always presented to the American public as liberators of some sort. At ground zero level, however, this is what their “liberation” looks like…

Which begs the question: What’s the difference between Terminator and Liberator?

Oh, wait… I get it: One is Fiction the other Reality?

Perhaps. But in a world based on lies and deceptions, what’s the difference between Fiction and Reality?

 (Fallujah, 2004) 

EVISCERATING THE CONSTITUTION

Ever since George H. Bush first uttered the words New World Order in his Sep 11, 1990 speech to Congress, he and each successive president have chipped away at the war making powers which our Constitution gives only to Congress.

“The War Powers Resolution, passed in the wake of the Vietnam War, was intended to stop presidents from fighting wars without input from Congress. Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can initiate military action but must receive approval from Congress to continue the operation within 60 days. Presidents from both parties have regularly ignored the law, and Congress has often been reluctant to assert itself. But it remains on the books.”

“By failing to replace the sweeping war authorizations Congress established for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a decade ago, with a far narrower mandate, lawmakers are abdicating one of their most consequential constitutional powers: the authority to declare war. White House officials maintain that the current campaign in Iraq and Syria is legal under the Afghan and Iraq war resolutions, a dubious argument considering those were tailored to respond to the Sept. 11 attacks and to deal with Saddam Hussein, then the Iraqi leader, on the grounds — since proved to be false — that he had weapons of mass destruction.” (New York Times, Feb 1, 2015)