The Incredible Stupidity of the Western Statist - Let's CRUSH Russia!

Image Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_enl_1136301170/html/1.stm


Western statists in government and the media view the entire world as one big chess board wherein they only have to make a few brilliant moves to economically crush annihilate their perceived enemies to control the planet and its resources.

Matthew Yglesias at Vox.com exhibits such a mentality and arrogantly believes his own delusion that the US and Europe can so economically impair Russia that Russia can be blasted back to the Stone Age. Aside from the genocidal insanity that deliberately hurting and harming folks is indeed a desirable foreign policy goal, the stone cold reality of actual facts dismisses such dangerously juvenile aspirations, despite the best efforts of Yglesias to believe his own warped rant and he isn't focused on merely punishing Russia (who did nothing to earn punishment) but he's thoroughly focused on CRUSHING Russia.

One fact that explains how Europe could crush Russia's economy by Matt Yglesias 

Yglesias is convinced that if Europe sanctions Russia that Russia will surely end up burning in the sanctions toaster. He validates his position by asserting that the trade relationship between Europe and Russia is far more valuable to Russia and even implies that Europe doesn't even need to trade with Russia. Yglesias then proceeds to defend EU statism as if it's a force so powerful that no nation state can escape it dictates.

The fly in the ointment is that while Russia is a nation-state, the European Union is a confederation of separate countries. The EU has incredible clout when it speaks with one voice....

The European economy presently sucks, especially southern Europe, so cutting off trade doesn't just hurt Russia, it also hurts Europe because trade is always a 2 way streak. Just how much is EU-Russia trade worth? It's worth a whopping $412 billion according to a CNN infographic, yet Yglesias dismisses $400 billion in trade as if it's really nothing, a most bizarre assumption considering that Europe is Russia's largest trading partner and Russia is Europe's 3rd largest trading partner.

  
The price of 'crushing' Russia economically would be quite steep for Europe but there is much more to the Russia-EU economic alliance and mutual dependency.  Europe is also dependent upon Russia for gas.

Map: Europe's thirst for Russian gas

30% of the EU's gas comes from Russia - in Germany it's 40% and Germany is the Europe's powerhouse economy.

Europe gets very cold in the winter, especially its frigid northern nations like Germany.  Does anybody really think that Europeans and the Germans are about to risk freezing in the winter and risk losing over $400 billion a year in trade to appease the US Empire?   Well, some believe that it's no problem and that the US can supply Europe with all the gas it needs.  Mic.com (formerly policymic.com) reports, here:

Europe's reliance on Russia is temporary. By 2020, the U.S. could become a major energy exporter, supplying Europe with about half of the gas that Russia supplies now, according to the Obama administration. If the EU and the U.S. can agree upon an "energy policy," then Europe could rely on the U.S. as one of their main energy suppliers. That endangers Russia's grip over the EU, but it also means that Europe would only have to manage the next few years under Russian dominance.

The bold assumption that the US can supply Europe with all its gas needs begs the question: Who controls the largest natural gas reserves on the planet and who has the infrastructure to deliver it?  It's not the US.

Top Natural Gas Reserves by Country 2014

Russia has 1,688.00 trillion cubic feet
Iran has 1,193.00 trillion cubic feet
Qatar has 885.29 trillion cubic feet
Turkmenistan has 265.00 trillion cubic feet
US has 308.44 trillion cubic feet

Source: http://www.quandl.com/c/markets/natural-gas

Gas as a resource is worthless without a delivery system and pipelines are indeed the main delivery source. While Russia and Europe are linked by a complex network of pipelines, the US can't deliver gas to Europe because there is no infrastructure in place to accomplish such deliveries, forgetting momentarily that Russia has more than 5 times the natural gas reserves of the US.

Any efforts by the US to deliver gas to Europe will be expensive, require a huge infrastructure investment (probably one that isn't even close to being economically viable) and will also drive up energy costs across Europe, all of which will negatively impact Europe's already ailing economy.

The bottom line is that nobody can meet Europe's natural gas needs more efficiently and cost effectively than Russia, despite the grand delusions of US media foreign policy wonks preaching the hallucinations of USG policy wonks.

If you were a citizen of Europe, would you risk freezing in the winter and suffering more economic hardship just to appease the US Empire?

While the USG and its media hacks may be suffering from an acute case of inhaling way too many summer vapors, at the end of the day Europe will tell the US to take a hike with a polite "Thank you very much but we rather like our $400 billion plus trade with Russia, we very much like Russian gas and we aren't about to commit economic suicide or freeze or genuflect before DC, and by the way we still remember the NSA, YES, America can go straight to hell and we are totally fed up with the damn Yanks."

Obamacare Taxes, Subsidies and Mandates: Why Obamacare is getting legally interesting.

Obamacare is probably headed back to SCOTUS.  Today, 2 different federal courts made conflicting rulings on the issue of subsidies. Politico reports:

First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a 2-1 decision said the insurance subsidies can’t be awarded through the 36 federal-run exchanges, that they can only flow through the state-run markets. Hours later, the Fourth Circuit court ruled 3-0 that people can draw on the subsidies in both kinds of exchanges. The divergent opinions set up a clash that could eventually end up at the Supreme Court — and reverberate through the fall campaign.

The ruling against the subsidies is the second Obamacare strike against the White House in less than a month, after it lost in the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling on birth control coverage. But unlike the contraception rule, which is a small piece of the health law, the subsidies go to the heart of coverage expansion in the Affordable Care Act.....

Unlike other major Obamacare challenges, this controversy hinges on just a few words in a lengthy law. The D.C. Circuit concluded — “frankly, with reluctance,” as one judge wrote — that the statute narrowly but explicitly authorizes only state-run exchange subsidies, no matter what Congress may have intended. The Richmond court saw ambiguity in the text, but said the IRS had the power to interpret the statute broadly as it set the rules.

Read the rest here.

Obamacare is an expensive and complicated maze of subsidies, taxes, mandates and Medicaid expansion but the subsidies are indeed the mother's milk of Obamacare because without the subsidies health insurance costs will soar for tens of millions of Americans who depend on them.  Right now, the only endangered subsidies are the subsidies for health insurance policies bought on federal exchanges.  Subsidies for state run Obamacare exchanges remain in tact. 

Thus far, the only major Obamacare SCOTUS case, besides the Hobby Lobby case, was the 6/13 SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare.  While conservatives went ballistic and would have preferred that SCOTUS strike down the entire legislation as unconstitutional, that SCOTUS decision was embraced as constitutional by many Libertarian jurists who claimed that Justice Roberts got it constitutionally right. 

Yes, there was conservative mass hysteria over the SCOTUS 6/13 Obamacare decision but does Chief Justice Roberts deserve the thrashing he got from conservatives? While conservatives were moaning the decision with fear and loathing, liberals were probably uncorking the Champagne. As sane observers took another look at the decision from the jurisprudence perspective, it's believed by some who embrace conservative-Libertarian politics that the Roberts decision was indeed the right decision and for the reasons outlined in an interesting article from the Testosterone Pit.

Conservatives should be ecstatic that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts sided with the four liberal Justices in ruling the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is constitutional as a tax, while siding with the four conservative Justices that the law is un-constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Roberts just humiliated President Obama, gutted the social welfare and regulatory state, and appears to have set-up the entire Obamacare law to be constitutionally invalidated.

Chief Justice Roberts Gutted Congressional Power And May Still Have Invalidated Obamacare

Those are very powerful words:  "Roberts just humiliated President Obama, gutted the social welfare and regulatory state, and appears to have set-up the entire Obamacare law to be constitutionally invalidated."

The Obamacare decision is not a simple cut and dry decision.  It's got several critically important moving parts.  Justice Roberts did uphold the power of the Federal government to tax even though he also opposed the mandate.   Yes, the federal government does have the constitutional authority to tax.  More importantly, he did not uphold Obamacare under the Commerce Clause.  Another very important aspect of the decision involved the constitutional authority of the federal government to force the states to tax its citizens to fund increased Medicaid enrollments.  While the federal government does have the power to tax, Justice Roberts indicated that the federal governments' powers of taxation do not extend to the states.  In other words, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force the state to tax its citizens to fund Obamacare.

Medicaid expansion is the heart and soul of Obamacare because it not only forces folks into Medicaid, it forces taxpayers at the state level to fund it.

I wondered how long it would take liberals to recover from the fog of their celebratory hangovers and realize what really happened.  Not long!

Of all the ways President Obama’s health care law is poised to alter the U.S. medical system, the extension of new health insurance coverage to some 32 million people has been billed as its most important.....

But thanks to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) last week, which upheld the law's basic architecture and the controversial individual mandate, fixing the problem of the uninsured could be a lot more difficult that Democrats were hoping. In a move that surprised court watchers and progressive advocates, the Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, ruled that states don’t have to participate in a huge expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, called for in the ACA. (The ACA was written so that states that decided not to expand their Medicaid programs would lose their existing Medicaid funding, but the court said funding already in place should not be affected by states' decisions on the ACA changes.)

Whether states want to participate in the Medicaid expansion isn't just a matter of dollars. Republicans governors across the country, who have been vocal critics of the Affordable Care Act since it passed, are now signaling they may not opt into the Medicaid expansion. (Similarly, many of them turned down federal stimulus dollars.) Gov. Rick Scott of Florida has said he won't support a Medicaid expansion, although the state legislature might feel otherwise. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said after last week's ruling that he was glad the Medicaid expansion was ruled optional, but didn't say whether his state would participate. Other Republican governors, like Nikki Haley of South Caroline and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, have said they will not make moves to implement the ACA in their states, although it's not yet clear if this means they intend to reject billions in Medicaid funding.

Medicaid Ruling Endangers Universal Coverage

While liberals perceived Obamacare as a backdoor to universal healthcare coverage, Chief Justice Roberts stuck a stake straight through the heart of that dream and yes Medicaid was the superhighway for forced universal government controlled healthcare. The Roberts roadblock has infuriated the left.

In fact, the issue of Medicaid expansion has so upset the Obama Administration that the the website of the White House (whitehouse.gov) is moaning that 24 states have refused to expand Medicaid.

24 States Are Refusing to Expand Medicaid.

Here's What That Means for Their Residents: Nearly half of states are so locked into the politics of Obamacare that they're willing to leave nearly 5.7 million of their own people uninsured. Take a look at our map -- and make sure you share it.

Clearly, the Roberts ruling opened up whole new cans of worms in the continuing saga of America's healthcare nightmare.  How it will ultimately shakeout is an issue of pure conjecture.  Moreover, the courts have not seen the last of Obamacare.  The only issue that was settled in the 6/13 SCOTUS decision was that the federal government has the power to tax and we already knew that.  The fact that the federal government does not have the power to force the state to tax folks to fund Obamacare is incredible relevant.  What is even more relevant is that while Roberts did uphold federal powers of taxation, he did stun America when he refused to uphold Obamacare under the Commerce Clause.  Exactly how that will play out in future decisions remains to be seen.

The far dicier issues of Obamacare are nowhere near resolved and now the subsidy issue is on the judicial table.

For more information on the absurdity known as the US healthcare system, see:

The Absurdity of US Healthcare and OMG, the Hysteria over SCOTUS upholding the Obamacare Tax! Under What Circumstances Would This Government Hating Libertarian Reluctantly Support a Single Payer Healthcare System?

America Already Has Socialized Medicine - A Trillion for Medicare & Medicaid and Another Trillion for Obamacare Subsidies 

The Bad Boss Tax and Yes Corporations Do Lobby for Entitlements and Yes it's a Form of Corporate Welfare

Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:At_an_eastern_aircraft_factory,_Philip_Leung,_Chinese,_Marcell_Webb,_Negro,_and_an_unidentified_White_worker_adjust..._-_NARA_-_196335.tif



The liberal leaning  Nation of Change had an interesting article titled The Bad Boss Tax.  Effectively it smacked corporations who pay low wages and then shifts the social cost to the taxpayers who are forced to pay for Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlements for the working poor.  The article even advocates for taxing these low wage paying corporations to reimburse the public for having to pony up with tax dollars to subsidize the working poor.

While I don't endorse increasing corporate taxation and would simply prefer that the corporate tax be totally abolished, the rational response is: what would happen if entitlements for the workers were also abolished?  What if corporations were forced to compete in the labor market as they once did before they figured out that they could bribe politicians to pass entitlement legislation for workers and shift the social costs of labor to the taxpayers?

Anyway, The Bad Boss Tax article does indeed raise some very interesting and valid points.

Vampire businesses

Just how much money are low-wage businesses draining from local, state and federal coffers? A study released in April by Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of more than 400 organizations that advocate progressive tax reform, estimated that Wal-Mart alone costs taxpayers $6.2 billion annually in public assistance. That report draws from a 2013 study by the Democratic staff of the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which estimated that Wal-Mart cost taxpayers, on average, between $3,015 and $5,815 per worker.

Americans for Tax Fairness used the House Democrats’ study to extrapolate Wal-Mart’s public-assistance burden on each state. In Minnesota, for example, where Wal-Mart has 20,997 employees, the public burden totaled $92.7 million per year. That’s $92.7 million Wal-Mart isn’t paying in wages or benefits, but that instead is being borne by taxpayers — taxpayers who, of course, include Wal-Mart workers.

The study also notes that Wal-Mart profits from food stamps on the consumer end. According to the company’s own estimates, Wal-Mart captures 18 percent of the SNAP market, some $13.5 billion annually...

Wal-Mart isn’t alone; there are thousands of other low-wage employers...

Most of those minimum-wage workers are in the service industry, particularly in food service. And not coincidentally, taxpayers are also shelling out to prop up food industry wages. Studies last year from the National Employment Law Project and the University of California, Berkeley, showed that fast-food companies cost taxpayers an additional $7 billion per year in public assistance, with McDonald’s accounting for $1.2 billion. The Berkeley study notes that fast-food companies pay cashiers and other frontline workers a median wage of $8.69 an hour, and more than half of those workers rely on one or more public programs, compared to 25 percent of the workforce as a whole.

It's a damn poor reflection on our economic system that folks who work full time need public assistance.  Libertarians and free market proponents may scream about increasing the minimum wage as an assault on the poor and businesses but until they can convince Americans that free labor markets can and do deliver a level of non-entitlement dependent workers then all the sympathy will indeed be with statist solutions to mandate wages.

A long time ago I was a minimum wage worker and survived quite nicely - had enough money to fund a modest lifestyle complete with an apartment, a car, food on the table and even enough money left over for booze, clothes and entertainment.  But the dollar bought a whole lot more when I earned the minimum wage.

Iraqi Oil, US foreign policy disasters and the Iraq Civil War

The lion's share of Iraq's oil is in Shiite controlled central and southern Iraq and Kurd controlled northern Iraq.  Whoever controls Iraqi oil controls the wealth of the nation. When the US deposed and executed Sunni Saddam Hussein, and imposed a democracy, power shifted from Sunni minority control of Iraq and its oil to the 60-70% Shiite majority who won elections.  Iraq's natural ally is Shiite Iran with a 90% plus Shiite population.  In the middle east control of oil is everything.

With Iraq busting into a 3 way Shiite-Sunni-Kurd civil war, some interesting things are happening besides the obvious - Iraq is Barack Obama's problem from hell.

The Sunni uprising is driven by radical and murderous Sunni Salafist Wahhabists (Al Qaeda and other Sunni Islamist groups) with the backing of Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, a longtime US alley despite being the global kingpin of Islamist terror.  The US is faced an epic nightmare - support the same Al Qaeda and radical Sunni Islamists that birthed the idiotic US War on Terror or ally with Iran, a nation the US has vowed to destroy one way or another.

The geopolitical consequences of the situation in Iraq are hugely significant.  Oil prices are already soaring, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have become displaced and thousands of Iraqis have been beheaded by Sunni murderers.

There is no way that Iran won't step in to defend the Iraqi Shiites and their oil, much of which is very close to the Iranian border (see the above map).

To further complicate the already volatile situation, the Kurds have not only seized a major oil city in the north, they are loading the oil into tankers and fully intend to sell it in the open market, thus bypassing Baghdad. OilPrice.com follows oil and geopolitics and is an incredibly knowledgeable and astute observer.

What Do Ukrainian Energy and Kurdish Oil Have in Common? OilPrice.com

As the second tanker of Iraqi Kurdish oil leaves the Turkish port of Ceyhan bound for sale on international markets, Baghdad is furious and Washington is fearful of the implications for Iraq.....

Washington has dual concerns right now: Russia’s aggressive energy policy in Europe most recently actuated with the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula; and Iran’s growing influence in oil-rich central and southern Iraq, which Iraqi Kurdish oil could push over the edge.

This is what’s got Washington in a tither: The Kurdistan region of Iraq is moving towards independence, not so subtly, by exporting oil directly to Turkey, bypassing the Iraqi central authorities in Baghdad. If this leads to a conflict inside Iraq, it could push the Shi’ite-dominated central and southern Iraq—where the real oil is—closer to Iran, which is already wielding a great deal of influence. Losing Iraq to Iran definitively would be a major blow to Washington’s existing Iran policy, and to its hold on Iraqi oil.

Adding to fears is the spillover from Syria, which culminated on 10 June in Sunni insurgents seizing control of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city which also sits in the “disputed territories” dividing Iraq from Iraqi Kurdistan.

In the meantime, some 2 million barrels of Kurdish crude are now seaborne.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera, a Sunni controlled Arab media giant, is attempting to rationalize the situation in Iraq, especially as it pertains to US foreign policy and Obama.  That the entire middle east region is profoundly jittery is an understatement as the Sunni world is demanding that Obama DO SOMETHING while the Shiite Iraqi government in Baghdad is asking Obama to intervene on behalf of the Shiites to stop the Sunni slaughter.  Baghdad of course is not happy with the Kurds but given the extreme violence of the ISIL Sunni insurgency (the ISIL is an radical Sunni Salafist Wahabbist group like Al Qaeda), the Kurds are the least of Baghdad's problems.

Kurds take oil-rich Kirkuk amid advance of ISIL insurgency in Iraq Al Jazeera

Iraqi Kurds seized control of the northern oil city of Kirkuk on Thursday as Sunni insurgents threatened to advance on Baghdad — two developments that further indicate that the central government has now lost large swathsof a country spiraling deeper into chaos and internecine violence.

Kurds have long dreamed of taking Kirkuk, a city with huge oil reserves just outside their autonomous region, which they regard as their historical capital. The swift move by their highly organized security forces demonstrates how this week's sudden advance by the armed group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has redrawn Iraq's map.

An Obama administration official said the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last month secretly asked Washington to consider carrying out strikes against ISIL positions, but the White House rebuffed the request, The New York Times reported.

"I don’t rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria," Obama said Thursday at the White House when asked whether he was contemplating air strikes. Officials later stressed that ground troops would not be sent in.

Obama said he was looking at "all options" to help Iraq's leaders. "In our consultations with the Iraqis, there will be some short-term immediate things that need to be done militarily," he said.

Despite the fact that the ISIL appears to have achieved control of significant real estate, including the Kurdish city of Mosel in northern Iraq, the ISIL has yet to takeover any prized oil fields. However, Al Jazeera is reporting that the ISIL, which it considers an Al Qaeda splinter group, absolutely plans to seize the oil city of Kirkuk, here.

And that would be Obama's worst nightmare.  The US foreign policy choice is to ally with the ISIL Sunni Salafist Al Qaeda splinter group or ally with Iran to squash the Sunni insurgency.  While Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and Turkey (borders northern Iraq) has a long history of brutalizing its Kurds, Iran also has significant Kurdish populations and has managed to keep the peace with the Kurds. The ISIL is probably targeting Kurkuk to test Iran who really doesn't want to be involved in a war with the Kurds.  The last thing Iran wants is to be goaded into a war that would give the US an excuse to attack Iran.

The situation is dire and there are no easy or painless solutions. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq unleashed a 3 way civil war, destabilized a once very stable nation, destroyed the Iraq economy, intensified the Sunni-Shiite rift and killed hundreds of thousand (millions according to some estimates) of Iraqis.  For what?  Ask the families of the 4,489 US soldiers who died in Iraq and the 32,0000 who were wounded, here.

Meanwhile, Obama is saying that he won't send troops back to Iraq but he is considering other options including air support (bombings).  But who in the hell is Obama going to bomb? The Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites?

In Syria, the ISIL continues to murder, butcher and terrorize Syrians, here. The US is so determined to get rid of Assad, who did nothing to the US, that it is supporting, arming and funding Sunni Salafist Wahhabist terror groups in Syria.  In fact, the entire Benghazi fiasco was nothing but a CIA operation that funneled arms to Syrian terror groups.

My Two Cents on Benghazi

Lies, Lies and More Lies: Benghazi is pure political theater as well as a cover-up.

Stone Cold Reality Check:  The US is governed by an elected crime syndicate consisting of banksters and the military industrial complex who OWN congress and the executive branch, and they constitute the biggest terrorist threat on the planet.

What's the Empire to do? Iran, Iraq and a US-Iran alliance? Geo-politics makes the strangest of bedfellows!!

Invading Iraq, a nation with a 60-70% Shiite majority, was one of the most monumentally stupidest things the US ever did.  Saddam Hussein was a Sunni strongman and really no different than any of the other psychopaths in the region that the US eagerly endorsed, bribed, supported, funded and armed. However, Hussein was no Sunni Islamist, he feared them and he kept them out of Iraq.  It has been reported that Hussein enjoyed drinking western whiskey and watching Godfather movies, activities decidedly deemed un-Islamic.  I don't even know why the US invaded and occupied Iraq except that the Bush Crime Family and the military industrial complex was obsessed with flexing its military muscle by waging war on SOMEBODY. In any event, my best guess for invading Iraq is that the American crime syndicate that lords over the District of Crime in DC was absolutely obsessed with destroying Iran, a Shiite nation with a 90% plus Shia majority.

To begin to understand the situation one has to first understand the petro-dollar.  When Nixon made the unilateral decision to destroy the dollar and its purchasing power by de-tethering the dollar from gold in 1971 via an Executive Order that bypassed Congress, the dollar became a petro-dollar.   But for the dollar to become a petro-dollar and maintain its world reserve currency status, the world's oil supplies had to trade exclusively in dollars.  Once oil traded in any currency other than dollars, the dollar would become toast and America would become just another bankrupt banana boat republic.

The cost of maintaining the dollar as the world's reserve currency came with a whopper of a price tag, a real compact with Satan and that deal was cut with Saudi Arabia and other oil rich Sunni nations.  They agreed to forever trade oil in dollars in exchange for having the power of the US military at its fingertips to advance the most vile, the most intolerant and the most evil form of Islam ever to exist - Sunni Salafist Wahabbist Islam - and Sunni nations have reportedly dumped over $100 billion into radicalizing Muslims everywhere, including Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia and many other nations with significant Sunni populations.  On a side note, Bill Clinton was tight with his Sunni masters, as is the Bush Crime Family, and Bill Clinton advanced the cause of Sunni Salafist Wahhabism in the Balkan by invading, bombing and destroying Serbia and other Balkan nations.  In exchange for his loyalty to advancing radical Sunni Islam, Clinton was rewarded with millions from the Sunni Arab world for his presidential library.  Also, Saudi Arabia is reported to be one of the biggest financial contributors to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), here, which states "One of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

Back to Iraq.  It was impossible for the US not to know that invading Iraq and imposing a US styled 'democracy', complete with purple fingers no less, would result in Shiite majority rule.  Was the US and its neocon MIC so desperate to use Iraq as a forward base for invading Iran that it risked achieving the probable, namely pushing Shiite Iraq further towards its natural ally of Shiite Iran?  The whole thing makes no sense except in the context that the Sunni Muslim world fully expected the US to bomb and destroy Shiite Iran or even ordered the US to do it.  Bear in mind that those who control the world's reserve currency (the petro-dollar) also controls the world, US foreign policy, the Federal Reserve and the entire US government.

However, things began to unravel.  From the Sunni Salafist Wahhabist terror attacks on 911, the bombing of 2 US embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, the London bombings, the Madrid bombings, the Mumbai bombings, the Moscow bombings, the Bali bombings and numerous other Saudi engineered Sunni terror attacks, the western world in general became horrified and experienced their WTF moment by implying "what have we done".

Iraq is in shambles and that's no surprise because it's been a fictitious nation ever since British aristocrat Gertrude Bell galloped through the region as the female Lawrence of Arabia and literally drew Iraq's borders with a pencil on a piece of paper and created for the British Empire modern day Iraq, complete with installing a British lackey on the throne.  Besides the perpetual Sunni-Shiite conflict, the Kurds are also victims in the never ending Shiite-Sunni-Kurd conflict.

Heck, even Joe Biden said in 2006 that Iraq should be divided into 3 separate regions, here.  But Biden's idea was insanely foolish because he still wanted centralized control in Baghdad and any centralized government in a nation torn by civil war and constant internal feuding is a guaranteed disaster.  And then there is Iraq's immense oil reserves so the fight isn't just about religious and ethnic differences, it's also a battle for control of Iraq's vast oil wealth.

The Sunni world is paranoid that the Shiite world, namely Iran and Iraq, will become the new kingpins of middle east oil and the Sunni world definitely wants control of that oil and will do anything to achieve that goal. Oil is wealth and wealth is power.  With the OPEC Sunni oil oligarchy already being challenged by Russia, now a major global oil and gas producer, OPEC and its Sunni chieftains are becoming unhinged as they rightfully perceive that their cozy cartel is threatened by significant oil discoveries in other nations as well as chronic Sunni-Shiite feuds in the middle east.

It's a good damn thing that 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' McCain never became president because, astounding, the unthinkable is being openly discussed - the possibility that the US might consider allying with Iran.  I know it's an utterly preposterous idea but the idea is surfacing.

Iran open to shared role with US in Iraq CNBC

US airstrikes to support Iranian Revolutionary Guard's offensive in Iraq? Russia Today

Exclusive: Alarmed by Iraq, Iran open to shared role with U.S. - Iran official Reuters

Iran Deploys Forces to Fight al Qaeda-Inspired Militants in Iraq WSJ

Now what?  Iran also supports Syria and Assad who the US and radical Sunnis have vowed to destroy.

Is it even likely that the US would consider ending military aid to Sunni Salafist Wahabbist terrorists simply because the fate of the dollar is at stake?

With Russia also emerging as a major oil-gas power, pissing off Russia by supporting the neo-Nazis regime in Kiev has driven Russia and a neurotic China to cut energy deals that will not be dollar dominated, a situation that directly threatens the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

As with any dying empire on life support, it grows more violent as its extinction is glaring them in the face. The US is accustomed to barking orders and having folks all over the planet just humbly genuflect before DC and comply.  But no more.  The barking dogs of the US Empire have resulted in absolute and raw hatred toward the US, its murderous wars, its bloody interventions, its foreign policy and its profound arrogance. Folks all over the planet are rising up and barking back and they are not content to just bark, they fully intend to bite the vermin that has been biting them for decades and sucking the life and liberty out of their people and nations.

For a recap of what is currently happening in Iraq, Drudge 6/13/14 headlines  provides just about everything you need to know about the current situation in Iraq.

BAGHDAD FALLING
Exodus from Iraq as chaos spreads...
UN: 800k refugees...
CHRISTIANS ON THE RUN...
Terrorists 'full-blown army'...
Medieval Sharia Law Imposed...
'Roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers'...
Iraqi government 'paralyzed'...
Army Collapses...
VIDEO: Thousands of soldiers captured by ISIS...
Iran Deploys Forces...
Americans evacuated...
USA Secretly Flying Drones...
ISIS terror leader released from U.S. custody in 2009...
Pentagon: Rebels may have captured military equipment...
PAPER: 'Worst case scenario'...
FLASHBACK: Biden: Iraq One of Obama's 'Great Achievements'...
Vets in Congress: 'What was point of all that?'...
Oil Soars...
OBAMA HINTS AT ACTION...

What is the Empire to do?  Ally with Al Qaeda and Sunni Salafist terrorists?  That's precisely what America has been doing for so long that it's ingrained as a foreign policy imperative, despite all the propaganda that America marched off to war to fight Al Qaeda and similar Sunni terrorist groups.  Americans are no longer buying into the War on Terror phony baloney talking points propagated by the government and its partner in crime, the US media.  Sane folks on the right and left fully comprehend that they were lied to and duped.

Geo-politics is profoundly complicated which why most folks avoid it because it involves an eternal quest for knowledge and truth, especially in  history and economics.  It's where history, resources, religions, cultures and empires have always collided. More information on these issues for those folks who do search for truth:

A Guide To Understanding the Middle East, Syria, The West and Oil

Why Sunni Islam is Crucial to World Peace and Crushing the NWO

Why Syria is Serious - It's Where Oil, Monetary Power and Religious Feuds Collide

The Making of the Modern Middle East

A Cruise Through History: Islam, the West and the Rest of the World

With Charity Toward None, A History of Israel

America's $2.3 Trillion Dollar Foreign Aid is Mostly a Defense Contractor Subsidy

The Cost of America's Wars - $3 Trillion, $4 Trillion, $5 Trillion, $7 Trillion, $8 Trillion, Going Once, Going Twice, SOLD

With 228 Audit the Fed co-sponsors, why no vote? And the Dems really do LOVE the Banksters and Wall Street!!

Wonder why Audit the Fed (HR 24) can't get a House vote despite having 228 co-sponsors plus the sponsor, Rep. Paul Broun?  229 votes is more than the 218 majority required to pass on a full House floor vote.

Let's start with the House Financial Services Committee (FSC). The FSC has 60 members, 32 Republicans and 28 Dems.  The FSC was stacked by Boehner with enough anti-Audit the Fed representatives to prevent a committee vote on Audit the Fed, or at least squash it in a committee vote.

On the FSC, only 23 committee members are co-sponsors and all of them are Republicans.  Not a single one of the 28 Dems on the FSC is a co-sponsor.  There are not enough Audit the Fed supporters on the FSC to pass it out of committee.

The 9 Republicans who are not co-sponsors include Jeb Hensarling (Committee Chairman), Spencer Baucus (AL), Peter King (NY), Edward Royce (CA), Patrick McHenry (NC), John Campbell (CA), Kevin McCarthy (CA), Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO) and Rand Hultgren (IL).

Unless voters in to above congressional districts put enough pressure on their Congress Critters to force them to co-sponsor Audit the Fed, it will never get out of committee.

To further mock Audit the Fed, Boehner kicked Audit the Fed co-sponsors David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) off the FSC!

The next time you hear a Dem bitch about the Banksters and Wall Street,  remind them that 28 Dems on the House Financial Services Committee had the opportunity to hold the Banksters and Wall Street accountable but refused to do so.

Audit the Fed needs 8 more co-sponsor supporters to pass out of Committee.  Boehner has structured the committee so that it's impossible.  The last thing Boehner wants to do is be under pressure to submit a bill to a full floor vote after it sails out of committee.  So he clipped the sails at the committee level.

Audit the Fed was also referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, another joke of a committee in a government that has no interest in oversight or reform.

Audit the Fed co-sponsors:

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 2/14/2013 Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 1/23/2013 Rep Amash, Justin [MI-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 1/14/2013 Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] - 1/14/2013 Rep Barr, Andy [KY-6] - 2/6/2013 Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 9/27/2013 Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 1/14/2013 Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] - 4/10/2013 Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] - 2/6/2013 Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-12] - 2/6/2013 Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 2/11/2014 Rep Black, Diane [TN-6] - 1/14/2013 Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 1/23/2013 Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 1/14/2013 Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-3] - 2/14/2013 Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 9/9/2013 Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] - 3/14/2014 Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 5/7/2014 Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-16] - 1/14/2013 Rep Bucshon, Larry [IN-8] - 1/15/2013 Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 1/14/2013 Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-42] - 2/6/2013 Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 1/14/2013 Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 1/22/2013 Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 1/14/2013 Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 2/14/2013 Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 5/6/2014 Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 1/14/2013 Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 2/11/2014 Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 2/27/2014 Rep Collins, Chris [NY-27] - 9/12/2013 Rep Collins, Doug [GA-9] - 1/22/2013 Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 3/14/2014 Rep Cook, Paul [CA-8] - 3/14/2014 Rep Cotton, Tom [AR-4] - 5/9/2013 Rep Cramer, Kevin [ND] - 9/9/2013 Rep Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [AR-1] - 2/14/2013 Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 5/7/2014 Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 1/14/2013 Rep Daines, Steve [MT] - 6/11/2013 Rep Davis, Rodney [IL-13] - 3/21/2013 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 1/4/2013 Rep Denham, Jeff [CA-10] - 2/11/2014 Rep DeSantis, Ron [FL-6] - 2/6/2013 Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] - 1/15/2013 Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 9/9/2013 Rep Duffy, Sean P. [WI-7] - 4/10/2013 Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 1/25/2013 Rep Ellmers, Renee L. [NC-2] - 10/16/2013 Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] - 1/14/2013 Rep Fincher, Stephen Lee [TN-8] - 1/14/2013 Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. [PA-8] - 1/27/2014 Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [TN-3] - 2/14/2013 Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 2/27/2014 Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] - 1/23/2013 Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 1/25/2013 Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 1/14/2013 Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 1/14/2013 Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] - 7/31/2013 Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 2/6/2013 Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] - 1/23/2013 Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 5/7/2014 Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 1/22/2013 Rep Gibbs, Bob [OH-7] - 5/6/2014 Rep Gibson, Christopher P. [NY-19] - 1/25/2013 Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 2/27/2014 Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 9/9/2013 Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 1/14/2013 Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-4] - 1/14/2013 Rep Gowdy, Trey [SC-4] - 1/14/2013 Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 5/7/2014 Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 1/14/2013 Rep Graves, Tom [GA-14] - 10/30/2013 Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-9] - 12/3/2013 Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 10/23/2013 Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] - 1/22/2013 Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-11] - 2/28/2013 Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 9/9/2013 Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 2/10/2014 Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-22] - 1/14/2013 Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 10/23/2013 Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 1/22/2013 Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] - 1/14/2013 Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 1/22/2013 Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Herrera Beutler, Jaime [WA-3] - 4/9/2014 Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] - 1/27/2014 Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] - 1/22/2013 Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-50] - 1/22/2013 Rep Hurt, Robert [VA-5] - 1/23/2013 Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 2/28/2013 Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] - 1/25/2013 Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 2/27/2014 Rep Jolly, David [FL-13] - 4/10/2014 Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 1/4/2013 Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 2/28/2013 Rep Joyce, David P. [OH-14] - 1/22/2013 Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] - 6/12/2013 Rep King, Steve [IA-4] - 1/14/2013 Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 9/9/2013 Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 2/6/2013 Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] - 2/27/2014 Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] - 1/23/2013 Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 1/14/2013 Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 1/14/2013 Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 3/21/2013 Rep Latham, Tom [IA-3] - 1/23/2013 Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 1/14/2013 Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 3/21/2013 Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 11/15/2013 Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 1/4/2013 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-19] - 5/8/2014 Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 1/15/2013 Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 11/14/2013 Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 2/6/2013 Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-24] - 9/20/2013 Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 7/11/2013 Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] - 1/14/2013 Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] - 3/13/2013 Rep McAllister, Vance M. [LA-5] - 1/27/2014 Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 1/25/2013 Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 5/9/2013 Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 1/4/2013 Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] - 1/22/2013 Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] - 9/9/2013 Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] - 2/28/2013 Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 2/14/2013 Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 1/4/2013 Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 1/14/2013 Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-31] - 4/9/2014 Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 2/14/2013 Rep Mullin, Markwayne [OK-2] - 4/10/2014 Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] - 2/27/2014 Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 6/12/2013 Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 3/14/2014 Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] - 1/23/2013 Rep Nugent, Richard B. [FL-11] - 1/23/2013 Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] - 1/14/2013 Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 1/23/2013 Rep Owens, William L. [NY-21] - 5/9/2013 Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 10/30/2013 Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] - 2/6/2013 Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Perry, Scott [PA-4] - 5/6/2014 Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 1/14/2013 Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 5/7/2014 Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 1/22/2013 Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] - 11/20/2013 Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 5/7/2014 Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 1/23/2013 Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 11/14/2013 Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] - 1/23/2013 Rep Posey, Bill [FL-8] - 2/6/2013 Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 2/27/2014 Rep Radel, Trey [FL-19] - 1/14/2013 Rep Reed, Tom [NY-23] - 3/14/2014 Rep Renacci, James B. [OH-16] - 4/1/2014 Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] - 2/27/2014 Rep Rice, Tom [SC-7] - 3/14/2014 Rep Rigell, E. Scott [VA-2] - 9/20/2013 Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 1/14/2013 Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-48] - 9/9/2013 Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] - 1/23/2013 Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] - 4/10/2014 Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-27] - 10/23/2013 Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 1/22/2013 Rep Ross, Dennis A. [FL-15] - 12/9/2013 Rep Rothfus, Keith J. [PA-12] - 3/14/2014 Rep Runyan, Jon [NJ-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] - 4/1/2014 Rep Salmon, Matt [AZ-5] - 4/10/2013 Rep Sanford, Mark [SC-1] - 6/5/2013 Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 1/15/2013 Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] - 1/14/2013 Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6] - 5/9/2013 Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] - 1/23/2013 Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 1/15/2013 Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 1/14/2013 Rep Shimkus, John [IL-15] - 5/7/2014 Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 1/7/2014 Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 1/15/2013 Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 1/22/2013 Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 5/7/2014 Rep Smith, Jason T. [MO-8] - 7/17/2013 Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 1/8/2014 Rep Stewart, Chris [UT-2] - 4/10/2013 Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] - 1/15/2013 Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] - 1/14/2013 Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] - 2/14/2013 Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] - 1/14/2013 Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 2/27/2014 Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 1/22/2013 Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 2/27/2014 Rep Tipton, Scott R. [CO-3] - 2/28/2013 Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-10] - 2/6/2013 Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 6/14/2013 Rep Valadao, David G. [CA-21] - 11/14/2013 Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 2/27/2014 Rep Wagner, Ann [MO-2] - 5/6/2014 Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 1/14/2013 Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Walorski, Jackie [IN-2] - 5/7/2014 Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. [TX-14] - 1/23/2013 Rep Webster, Daniel [FL-10] - 1/15/2013 Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 2/6/2013 Rep Wenstrup, Brad R. [OH-2] - 2/28/2013 Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 1/22/2013 Rep Williams, Roger [TX-25] - 5/7/2014 Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/14/2013 Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 1/15/2013 Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 1/22/2013 Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] - 1/15/2013 Rep Woodall, Rob [GA-7] - 1/22/2013 Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] - 1/23/2013 Rep Yoho, Ted S. [FL-3] - 1/14/2013 Rep Young, C. W. Bill [FL-13] - 2/28/2013 Rep Young, Don [AK] - 4/10/2013 Rep Young, Todd C. [IN-9] - 2/14/2013

As of 5/13/14

Link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:HR00024:@@@P

House Financial Services Committee:

Hensarling, Texas, Chairman Gary G. Miller, California, Vice Chairman Spencer Bachus, Alabama, Chairman Emeritus Peter T. King, New York Edward R. Royce, California Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia Scott Garrett, New Jersey Randy Neugebauer, Texas Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina John Campbell, California Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Kevin McCarthy, California Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Bill Posey, Florida Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri Bill Huizenga, Michigan Sean P. Duffy, Wisconsin Robert Hurt, Virginia Steve Stivers, Ohio Stephen Lee Fincher, Tennessee Marlin A. Stutzman, Indiana Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina Randy Hultgren, Illinois Dennis A. Ross, Florida Robert Pittenger, North Carolina Ann Wagner, Missouri Garland “Andy” Barr, Kentucky Tom Cotton, Arkansas Keith J. Rothfus, Pennsylvania Vacancy Maxine Waters, California, Ranking Member Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Nydia M. Velázquez, New York Brad Sherman, California Gregory W. Meeks, New York Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts Rubén Hinojosa, Texas Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Carolyn McCarthy, New York Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts David Scott, Georgia Al Green, Texas Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Gwen Moore, Wisconsin Keith Ellison, Minnesota Ed Perlmutter, Colorado James A. Himes, Connecticut Gary C. Peters, Michigan John C. Carney, Jr., Delaware Terri A. Sewell, Alabama Bill Foster, Illinois Daniel T. Kildee, Michigan Patrick Murphy, Florida John K. Delaney, Maryland Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Joyce Beatty, Ohio Denny Heck, Washington Steven Horsford, Nevada

Link: http://financialservices.house.gov/about/members.htm Jeb

Image credit: http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/qy5271b4a4.jpg 

Sarah Palin Endorses K Street Establishment Lobbyist & Former Bush Adm. Official Over Anti-War Incumbent Walter Jones

The North Carolina 3rd Congressional District is no ordinary congressional district because it includes a major military base.

Camp Lejeune, located in Onslow County, is home to 40,000 Marines and Sailors. In total, the installation surrounding community is home to an active duty, dependent, retiree and civilian employee population of approximately 180,000 people. Cherry Point, in Havelock, North Carolina, is home to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing and houses 7,500 Marines. Source here.

Yes, we are talking serious Republican neocon territory.  So what's all the fuss?  Cong. Walter Jones, a 10 term Congressmen, initially supported the War on Terror but after the agony of personally visiting with the families who lost loved ones in America's latest series of wars, Jones flipped his pro-war position and became vociferously anti-war.  In fact, Jones so opposes the damn wars that he has earned the endorsement of Ron Paul.  More striking is that Jones has had no problem getting re-elected in a district dominated by military personnel.

To say the least, Jones figuratively and literally drove a dagger deep into the neocon heart - attacking it on its own turf by campaigning against the wars on a military base no less, the cathedral that houses the high priests and priestesses of warmongering murderers.

Enter:  Sarah Palin the Neocon Caribou Barbi who also happens to be a total fraud.  Not only has Palin endorsed a lobbyist ex-Bush Administration official in the primary to unseat Walter Jones but she once again strives to strengthens her neocon credentials which never waned. Despite a rocky not-so-pleasant split with establishment Republicans over Palin's Tea Party activities, Palin has firmly solidified her neocon credentials (no surprise here.).

Of course, the progressive Obama worshiping warmongering media is kinda freaking out over Jones.

Walter Jones: The Antiwar Republican From North Carolina A pro–Iraq War conservative Republican now fiercely opposes the war in Afghanistan. The Nation

Wall Street, War Hawks Fund Challenger To Only Anti-War, Anti-Wall Street Republican.  The Huffington Post

Sarah Palin Endorses Challenger to Anti-War Republican Congressman.  Slate

On the wingnut right that also despises Walter Jones, the neocon Washington Examiner has taken note of Palin's endorsement of a lobbyist and calls Jones 'erratic'.

In North Carolina, an incumbent faces Sarah Palin's man from K Street Washington Examiner

Republicans in Eastern North Carolina face an interesting choice May 6. Should they keep their erratic ten-term Congressman Walter Jones? Or should they dump him for K Street lobbyist Taylor Griffin, who is backed by Sarah Palin?

Griffin is the underdog in Tuesday’s primary, but he has some wind in his sails thanks to Jones’ ever-shifting, hard-to-explain positions — and also thanks to serious support from K Street.

... it’s jaw-dropping that nearly 20 percent of Griffin’s individual donations come from K Street, by my count.

Looking through Griffin's campaign finance filings, I flagged donors who identify as lobbyists, who are registered lobbyists or who work in Washington as communications or policy consultants for corporations.

Griffin himself comes from K Street. As his website tells it, after serving in George W. Bush's administration....

The simplest explanation for Griffin's huge K Street haul is his pedigree in the Bush White House and Treasury Department. These offices naturally fed into K Street. The lobbyists and consultants on Griffin's donor lists are his former colleagues and buddies.

K Street and the GOP establishment often array themselves against candidates who are too libertarian for their liking. Rep. Justin Amash, for instance, has attracted a K Street challenger. In recent open seat races, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul encountered opposition backed by hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Business.

Granted, Palin is somewhat vanishing from media headlines and fame after vastly enriching herself with her 5 seconds of fame that included several books and a juicy Fox News contract following her meteoric rise from the unknown Thrilla from Wasilla to McCain's running mate.  Still, Palin solidly remains the much worshiped goddess of the neocon-thecon wing of the GOP.  Having transitioned from useful idiot (McCain's running mate) to expendable (dubbed an embarrassment after she failed to win the election for the hapless and hopelessly insane McCain) and back again to useful idiot as a pimp for warmongers and K Street, Palin never misses an opportunity to make herself relevant.

Well, I guess all that Tea Party nonsense about Going Rogue was just that - nonsense.  At the end of the day, Palin is just another shabby and morally defunct opportunist who does indeed genuflect at the feet of statists, neocons and anti-liberty power.

The thrill of it all!  And yes, I'm hoping and praying that Walter Jones wins the May 6 primary because peace, liberty and prosperity cannot afford to lose Walter Jones.  As for Palin, the neocons and K Street, may they all rot in hell where they belong.



Image Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Palin_Kuwait_2.jpg