America Is No Longer A Representative Republic

Demonstrators protest possible US attack on Syria in Los Angeles

If America were still a representative republic, Congress would deny President Barack Obama and his neocon toadies the authorization to launch an attack on Syria. But as we have demonstrated countless times, America is now a fascist totalitarianism.

According to polls taken in recent days, Americans oppose by 59 percent to 36 percent taking military action in Syria. Only 21 percent of Americans believe taking action against Syria is in the national interest. Another poll shows American opposition at 53 percent.

So as Obama lines up the neocons behind his war effort in order to gain cover and a group of idiots with which to share the blame, let’s look at who America will be supporting in the war effort. They are:

  • Monsters who order the widows of war dead to prostitute themselves to other rebel soldiers to show their loyalty.

The United States has no business taking sides in the Syrian war. The evidence that Bashar Assad used chemical weapons is sketchy, at best. In fact, it’s likely that the perpetrators were the rebels, who were the ones with the most to gain from using gas. And the gas was likely supplied by Saudi Arabia.

The criminal Obama regime wants to bomb Syrians to punish them for bombing Syrians. Meanwhile, Obama has killed four times as many people with drones as Assad is alleged to have killed with poison gas. And now, Obama wants to up the ante.

So who is the war criminal here? It will be Obama and any neocons who support military action if the United States makes war on Syria against the will of the American people (including veterans) who are tired of war.

Personal Liberty

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • unbridled

    The time for talk may well be over. When decorated Vets come out the way that they have recently it is a sure sign that the handwriting is beginning to fade from the wall. Shame on us all for not reading it when we could have. We, as a nation, are now officially done….

    • peter

      Not officially done yet. If we can just get some of that hopey changey going, things may come right. We have to ‘hope’ that the imposter goes and ‘change’ has a chance. If we think that Hilary will bring hope and change, we are sadly mistaken once more. If she were President Syria would be history already and so would we.

  • Sarah Conner

    Stand down,mr.obama…our enemies are killing each other…don’t interfere…

    • chocopot

      Is there any better possible scenario than Arabs killing Arabs? Let them go at it forever – that’s the best thing that could happen.

      • Don 2

        Sarah Palin said it best, “Let Allah Sort It Out.”

        • chocopot

          Amen to that.

        • Michael Shreve

          Incessant wars in the Middle East throughout history DO seem to be acts of Allah.

  • Stuart Shepherd

    For Facebook’s Roy Mars- the comparisons to Hitler are even STRONGER if you include the attitudes of the people TOWARD the compared leaders. Both were elected, and re-elected, by a morally depressed, “free” populace lured and lulled by a type of perverted nationalism message of “hope and change” by an illegitimate but narcissistically sociopathic “charming” imposter. The “liberal” academic elite, including Jews (!), supported Hitler in Germany and were enchanted by him!! Once he and his gestapo were in power, however, it was too late. No amount of “punishment” was too severe for opposing their agenda or not complying with it. The agenda was primarily the “Master Race.” If a mother opposed her chosen daughter (typically 15 or 16 years old) being sent to “youth camps” for the purpose of being impregnated by other chosen boys of a similar age someone could report her to the gestapo and she could be imprisoned. Like us, now, she not only had to do it, she had to do it a positive and outwardly supportive demeanor or risk being ruthlessly punished socio-politically-economically. We have a very similar situation, and there are countless examples which I won’t list here, but many are familiar with.

  • Al Chemist

    There is far more evidence that the rebels are responsible for the gas attacks than there is evidence that the Syrian government is responsible. AT THE VERY LEAST, there is doubt. Our young Nobel Peace Prize winner should pull his head out of his butt. A few republicans should follow his lead and pull theirs out also.

    • Vis Fac

      The rebels are Al Queda let them sort it out then as Al Queda has declared war on US we should let Syria finish things for us. After all ODUMBO is waging war on the US Citizens and no one care about our well being. Not even us we liberals believe we shouldn’t be armed. At least I’m not going down whimpering I’ll be going down fighting.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

  • dan

    …to expect representation from the folks that gace us the Patriot Act
    and NDAA while not bringing to account the perps that orderd the
    stand down on 9/11…tjat daily inflict the TSA and DHS on Americans while
    leaving our borders virtually undefended and allow an invasion of
    infiltrators and illegal voters that can undermine the elections …..
    who needs WMDs when you have Congress to destroy us ?

  • Warrior

    Quite possibly, the “syrian” adventure may finally be the “excuse” to coax “iran” into full blown participation. Could this be the “plan” to deal with iranian “nukes”? If congress votes to go, that seals the deal for me. This whole event, I’m afraid, is all being staged.

    • John Cherish

      You got that right the country with the most to gain out of this is Saudi Arabia, they will solidify their rule in the region and already are very powerful in the worlds affairs with their stranglehold on the Oil and the price charged for it

      • IsThisAmerica

        Well if we were allowed to have our own oil right out of our ground we could kiss the Saudis goodbye. Why must we be global? I think we should take care of ourselves first and foremost. Try to get our allies back (if it’s not to late). Get rid of all the muslims and illegals in this country, slam the border shut. Extreme border patrol, no pussy footing around. Look at area 51 deadly force will be used. Illegals taking all the jobs away, leaving citizens with part-time because of obummercare. Dismantle the IRS. Half the government. Only people coming here for citizenship must be able to take care of themselves. The muslims are trying to take over the world and force their garbage down our throat.

    • macgyver1948

      You could be right since Iran and Syria share terrorists but to
      actually think it could be an intentional draw on the part of our
      government I could only hope not. But many things in our 230 + years
      have been with hidden agendas. I just hop Russia and China only get
      angry and not participate if we go to Syria. I also hope we first
      consider the humanitarian ways we can protect and help the refugees

  • John H. Holliday D.D.S.

    His Imperial Royal Majesty, Emperor, King and Sultan Barack Hussein Obama has a plan to announce that Syria is now the new 51st State in the United States Of America and Attorney General Eric Holder will become the first Gun Runner or Governor of the new 51st State known as Syriana. Of course Syriana will be a new Blue Democrat Islamic State in the so called Union. Allah works in many mysterious, incoherent and illogical ways. Just a bit of satire and sarcasm.

    • denise0513

      since Obama stated before that he had visited 57 states and there was one more to go, wouldn’t that mean Syria would be the 59th? I am still trying to find the missing 8 states. I thought there was only 50 states.

      • mark

        You’re wrong. The 51st and most influential state of the United States is Israel

      • mnkysnkle

        There are 57 states belonging to he Islamic alliance,(AIPAC). He wasn’t confused when he made that statement. We were!

      • IsThisAmerica

        He knows more about the middle east than he knows about this country. Tell anyone anything?

  • justus brother

    Just watched the video of the guy getting his head cut off and the two women being shot. This is what the dirtbag and chief wants to defend?

  • speedle24

    This whole mess is an unbelievably complicated scenario. On the one hand we all know in Obama’s mind this is all about Obama. Frankly I don’t think the man really gives a rat’s ass about the future of the country. Put another way, he doesn’t have at the front of his thought process “What is the best thing for the people of the United States.” He is the narcissist’s narcissist.

    If we just forget about Obama altogether (which I admit is hard for me because I wish for nothing that enhances his standing and political power), what course of action is best for the country? The Libertarian view is pretty much that we should stay the hell out of foreign conflicts, period. I don’t necessarily agree with that in today’s reality, but I do think that should be the default point. If we assume that because of the Iran nuke situation and the political games being played in that regard we should do something to marginalize their power and influence (by bruising Assad)? You can certainly make a case for that.

    On the other hand what are the considerations over Russia and China (great pals with the Assad regime)?

    This thing seems to have gone past whether or not Assad actually ordered the gas attacks (or whether it was a set up by the rebels). The question of who is the more influential rebel group (the good guys or bad guys) seems to still be up in the air (depending upon whom you believe). That is also a big part of the equation. For my money if we knew the good guys would benefit from our taking down Assad I would be all for it. If the bad guys would benefit I would rather have Assad in power.

    Therefore, we don’t know what the facts are in this mess, and I am not sure that the government knows what the facts are (which is a sad story about our intelligence capabilities). Now we have politicos pressing to make decisions about firing off cruise missiles when they nor the public knows what the hell is going on. This has become all about saving face for the most incompetent moron of a chief executive in the history of the union. The facts don’t seem to be relevant.

    • Michael Shreve

      The Libertarian view is that the U.S. must ONLY engage in war when the U.S. is directly THREATENED.

      • speedle24

        I understand. But “directly threatened” is a bit ambiguous. For example, is one directly threatened when the next door neighbor sets up a rocket launcher pointed directly at one’s house, or does directly threatened have to be all the above plus the neighbor vowing that he is about to launch the rockets, or does he actually have to launch the rockets before one is directly threatened?

        The point is that in today’s world there is not a whole lot of room for error when the most radical of rag heads are racing to develop nuclear weapons. When that day comes there will most likely be war. So the question is should we wait for the inevitable or should we prevent it from happening. Please don’t say it is a middle eastern problem and not ours. Although I get the sentiment and would love to believe it, it’s just not true, not in today’s world.

        I repeat. This is a huge mess and we have no competent leadership or logical strategy to deal with this kind of stuff. That is the best reason for backing off IMO.

        • Robert Messmer

          So you are saying forget bombing Syria and instead take Iran out of the picture?

          • speedle24

            I don’t know that we should do that at this particular time, but if we are determined to do something involving the military, going after the head of the snake would be more logical than stepping on its tail. Unlike the Syria situation, we have no confusion about Iran’s intention and where the bad guys are.

        • Michael Shreve

          Directly threatened means IMMINENT danger. When someone points a gun at you that is IMMINENT danger (probable and immediate). Mere threats are NOT sufficient even when the person OWNS a gun, even IF they have shot others. Think Cuban Missile Crisis. Else, the U.S. would have been JUSTIFIED in attacking the U.S.S.R during the cold war. The U.S. Constitution empowers the President to use military force ONLY to defend the U.S. Even Congress is NOT empowered to AUTHORIZE military force when there is NO imminent threat to U.S. security.

          • speedle24

            Yes Michael, but the reality is that once someone “points a gun at you” it is probably too late for you to do anything but say a prayer. So this comes down to someone making an intelligent informed decision to act “before the gun is pointed” but not too soon. This is why no healthy civilization can adopt some kind of strict code (imminent danger) that prevents it from action until “X” occurs.

          • Michael Shreve

            In EVERY jurisdiction you can get arrested for TAKING OUT someone who is NOT an imminent threat. The CAPACITY for Syria or Assad to POSE an IMMINENT threat is NEGLIGIBLE. the capacity of the Jihadist in the rebel forces OPPOSING him to ENDANGER the U.S. is FAR more probable..

          • speedle24

            I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment of the “current” situation. I am simply saying that we shouldn’t try to quantify options for military action based on a definition such as “imminent threat”. Your post is a case in point. That conclusion may well change at some point when Iran is the opposition.

    • Libertarian Soldier

      First, not all Libertarians think in the light you’ve placed us.

      I’m a different type of Libertarian than what you’re seeing, lately. Been a Libertarian since I got out of High School and Ed Clark ran for President. That dates me, doesn’t it?

      Our party is leaves something to be desired for Godly people and unborn children but their principles stay with less government is good government where the democrats and republic-rats are so similar, in the debate about striking Syria, you can’t tell who’s who. When it comes to immigration deform, you still can’t tell them apart. Constitutionality of the pResident enforcing only the parts of the laws he’s supposed to faithfully enforce, including obamacare when it comes to defunding it, can’t tell them apart. Republic-rats have become a party without a soul. They’re the not quite as left wing of the democrat ick party.

      The problem with the new libertarians, with a small “l”, is all they stand for is keeping the government out of their dope and debauchery but they’re passionate about it! I think they’re just another flavor of republic-rats. Socially, they’re democrats.

      If I was President-elect, I’d be working on my plan for my first day, intelligence on where Assad was hiding his gas and any other military assets, as well as financial assets. On that day, I’d obliterate any war making device in Syria. At midnight, I’d make my announcement that civilians had two hours to vacate and take out the targets in 4.

      A small, elite group would secure Assad and his entourage. Those would be the only boots on the ground. He’d be arrested or killed.

      At the same time, I’d launch a lateral attack on all of Iran’s suspected uranium and military factories and military assets. That would be my limited, gentle military strike. They’d get 15 minutes notice. All our allies would be informed in advance and asked for assistance.

      An embargo would be laid to stop trade with Syria. Regfugees may leave; nobody except UN relief would be allwed in Syria.

      Justification: Keep our former pResident’s word (the office’s, not the man’s), in the interest of justice. This action is taken as a preemptive strike to quash the threat against Israel.

      A secular government of their own choosing would be supported.

      OK! I’m not a Constitutional Law Professor and neither was obama but I don’t claim to have been one.

      We’d stop being the agents of tyranny and become the country of truth, Justice and Peace through Strength. No more leading from behind. That’s not leading; that’s failure to lead where it’s needed most.

      • speedle24

        Welcome to the Tea Party sir.

  • terri

    No war on Syria! Hand off Obama want to do it..God is with us safe way. God can do responsibitily for Syria & Obama, Congressional & including politics.

    • Robbie

      What on earth have you written here?????

  • Timothy Butterworth

    Please Share This Around!!

    Petition for the: Full removal of any
    taxation on any and all products identified as specifically designed
    and manufactured as Arms.

    Contrary to the modern propaganda that
    is stated by our enemies both foreign and domestic The 2nd Amendment
    only reaffirms our natural right to self defense and self
    preservation through the use of owning and utilizing Arms. It ensures
    we as citizens have the right to: manufacture, sell, purchase and own
    all forms of weaponry and armor as “Arms” as well as our
    right to openly carry, display and utilize these weapons any time
    necessary including against governmental tyranny “Bear”

    This Freedom “Shall No Be
    Infringed” and should already be 100% tax free for any and all
    weaponry and armor produced with in The United States.

    The Constitution prior to the 2nd
    Amendment already provides for both state and federal government to
    create both an Army and Navy. The second amendment clearly did not
    address this as The push for the entire Bill of Rights was to
    identify and explicitly define the rights of all individual citizens
    that the government is required to protect!

    A well regulated militia being
    necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
    keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is basic American
    English “,”.

    A well regulated militia being
    necessary to the security of a free state. Why… as an aid to
    prevent governmental tyranny as well as provide for our ability to
    provide immediate defense against any attack while the military is
    being organized and awaiting formal orders.

    The right of the people to keep and
    bear arms shall not be infringed. Clearly an individual right as all
    Rights in The Bill of Rights are Individual Rights established by and
    for The Citizens of The United States of America. It Shall Not Be
    Infringed… No governmental agency can legally restrict this right
    nor will it ever be surrendered to any foreign entity.

    We do not honor the actions of past
    traitors here in this country, that attempted to unconstitutionally
    restrict this right under the tyranny of calling it public safety or
    through the treaties from the Geneva Conventions “No Square Inch Of
    America Is A Lawful Target By Any Foreign Enemy Declaring War” or
    The UN.

    Just as not tax should be applied to
    Freedom of Forced Slavery, Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech
    no tax should also be applied to The Right to Bear Arms as well.

    • Libertarian Soldier

      You are absolutely correct! Don’t know how it got to this. Now, with men, conservatives, straight and Christians being jettisoned, court-martialed, pay cut, demoted and discriminated against, we’ll likely need to form a well armed militia in order to supplement our armed forces since islamics, gays and atheists are on the fast track to power and they consider the founders and their followers ‘radical extremists’.

      The labeling is not my opinion, it’s documented, in writing, in the training literature for the armed forces, now.

  • Libertarian Soldier

    No empty gestures in Syria! This empty gesture will bring about disasterous consequences that won’t be empty gestures. We’re not respected because obama (saudi arabia and the muslim brotherhood’s western emissary) is not respected. A telegraphed empty gesture will draw real attacks on Israel.

    This won’t save obama’s reputation and we elected him so the American Honor ship sailed. We were the puppet masters, arms suppliers, military advisers, contractor suppliers, financiers, in that war until we stopped as part of the Benghazi cover-up, after supporting the toppling of Egypt, causing and contracting al qaed’s toppling of Qaddafi, stealing al qaeda’s stockpile of weapons to give to the muslim brotherhood (our puppet masters) to topple Assad.

    All because obama was out, toppling governments (Egypt, Libya, Syria) at the behest of the muslim brotherhood and saudi arabia. then, like a drunk at a party, drunk with power, he starts talking $#!+ and picking fights.

    Because we’re under this dictatorial rule, the egomaniac republic-rats are trying to go along so they won’t face the fact that they’re irrelevant, have no say about anything and are too chicken $#!+ to fight for the Constitution because they’ve become the slightly less, left wing extension of the same party that brings us this dictator.

    Keep us out of WWIII until we can put a real commander-in chief in the seat and repeal and reverse all the harms this pResident has done to us.
    Need another Reagan Revolution!

    • rhondareichel

      Draw attacks on Israel? Not our problem. Netanbombyou has been cheerleading this all along. Let them suffer the consequences —not us. We don’t want it.
      You had better worry about your OWN country.

    • Bill

      Well said, Lib
      This whole Syrian “crisis” is about the sale of natural gas to Europe. Assad is linked with the Russians in their attempt to monopolize the European market and the rebels are financed by the Saudis who want to sell natural gas to Europe.
      Instead of sticking our finger in the garbage disposal, why don’t we just sell our own natural gas to Europe and create some jobs in America.
      But that would be too easy

  • Ol’ Grey Ghost

    “So who is the war criminal here? It will be Obama and any neocons who
    support military action if the United States makes war on Syria against
    the will of the American people (including veterans) who are tired of war.”

    If the firing on Fort Sumter by the South Carolina Militia or the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other military posts on the island of Oahu by the Japanese Imperial Navy were the wrongheaded and aggressive acts of war that they are often portrayed as in public school history classes, then how is Obama’s plan to attack Syria any less a wrong-headed and aggressive act of war?

    The U.S. government was “Constituted” for the purpose of protecting the rights, liberty, and property of the AMERICAN people (especially since they are the ones who pay for it). In that fashion, this government formed an army and navy, now called the “Department of Defense (sic),” to carry out this purpose. There is nothing belonging to Americans that is in peril for the U.S. government to react to in this manner, and more will be in peril if it does.

    The Syrian government stands accused of abusing its own people in a police action to suppress an uprising which has yet to be independently verified, yet people are abused all the time here in the United States by law enforcement personnel at all levels of the governments of the Union. Should the U.S. D.o.D. rush in to save Americans whose rights are being trampled in the name of maintaining good order?

    The main purpose so far presented in arguments before the U.S. Senate to justify such an action is to simply back up the word of the President. “If we don’t, the U.S will lose all credibility!” they shout like the gorillas in the War Council scene from the movie, “Beneath the Planet of the Apes.”

    Barry acts like the little brother that runs around town shooting off his mouth and getting into fights that the big brother has to jump into to save the skin of the younger. I say let him fight this one himself. It might teach him to think before he speaks…or at least wait till the teleprompter is on…

    • jim_wright

      This is nothing but a way to distract the American public from Mr. Obama’s failed foreign and domestic policies while arming the Muslim terrorist that Mr. Obama has allied himself with.

      • Bill

        Good analogy, Jim

  • jaybird

    We are gong to have a “knock down, dragged out fight with the Muslims in this county one day. In approx 30 yrs. they will out number us and they are in government positions, Federal and local where they can change our laws. I feel sorry for everyone’s children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. There is not enough reproduction to outpace them. They are having a lot of children and we are killing our babies which will be the downfall of our nation and in other countries also. Christians will be persecuted.

  • Michelle

    @alexferguson you sir are a troll…

  • rbrooks

    an strange story from a site that supported and cheered when little bush started this mess.

    • Progressive Republican

      It’s what FRWNJ disinformation sites like this do.

    • Robert Messmer

      LOL but truth be told, little bush didn’t start this mess.

      • rbrooks

        well, old reagan created bin laden. but we do have a bit more history than that with the ME

        however, the truth is little bush started these two particular wars.

        obama wants one of his own.

        • Robert Messmer

          Yes we do have more history with the ME than that. Such as having to send Marines to free American citizens from the Muslims before they even bothered labeling the US as “The Great Satan”. We had done absolutely NOTHING – no little bush, no old reagan, no support of Israel – and yet they attacked us anyway. Do they hate us -Yes they do. Is it because of anything we have done -No it is not. They hate anyone/everyone that doesn’t bow down and kiss their butt.

          If Obama wants his own war, then let him pay for it out of his pocket and let him fight it.

          • rbrooks

            we are not blameless in all of this. every time we pull one of these little charades we create a new generation that hates us.

            i agree we do not need to be there nor should we be there.

            however, it seems to be difficult to get the average american to keep their nose out of everyone else’s business.

            i felt the same way about the two wars little bush started. or the one i got to fight in.

            nothing has changed.

          • Progressive Republican

            “Is it because of anything we have done -No it is not.”

            I do not concur. I believe that a significant point of origin of the acrimony of (especially Shiite) Muslims can be traced to the CIA’s formally acknowledged coup against Iran’s elected government in 1953, This resulted in the Shah being perched upon the Peacock Throne. We all know how well that turned out.

            Had America not meddled in the affairs of Iran, there would have been no Shah, no revolt, likely no radical Muslim ascendance, possibly no 9-11, etc.

            Granted, there are Muslims who hate any who aren’t Muslim simply for that fact. The same is true of Christians.

            That being said, I see only unmitigated disaster in increasing the amount and tenor of meddling in Syria. America ind its allies have done enough damage already. Pursuing a blatantly more active military role would, imltho, be asinine.

            AlterNet and Consortium News have been running some excellent articles on the subject of America’s being behind what’s been happening there.

  • Jdawg

    Let’s not forget that during the revolution, WE killed unarmed government loyalists pleading for their lives and killed those who wanted to be prisoners. Those don’t really belong as negatives on this list. It’s a part of revolution.
    That being said I don’t support US intervention in Syria.

    • Robert Messmer

      The Founding Fathers and their followers might have but WE have not killed any unarmed loyalists. Besides even if it happened do we have any video of one of our forebears eating a “Loyalist’s” heart? Or whatever that organ was.

  • Jenasus Parks

    Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Obama is as fake as his birth certificate. Impeach the Imposter and send Obama back to Kenya where he was born or charge the traitor with treason and send Obama back to Hell where he came from.
    Obama is at war with America and Obama wants our military to join the terrorists that devastated America on 9/11/2001.
    Obama is on a suicide mission, just like a terrorist, and wants to take America with him when he starts World War III.

  • Progressive Republican

    Let’s finish the first paragraph:

    If America were still a representative republic, Congress would deny President Barack Obama and his neocon toadies the authorization to launch an attack on Syria. But as we have demonstrated countless times, America is now a fascist totalitarianism and has been moving in that direction since a proven traitor won the 1980 election.

    • Robert Messmer

      “Proven traitor” hmm apparently not since he wasn’t in jail.

      • Progressive Republican

        Traitors with sufficient political capital don’t go to jail. That is reserved for the little people.

        • Robert Messmer

          LOL As I figured, no proof just your personal hatred.

          • Progressive Republican

            Recent evidence has shaken the confidence of former Rep. Lee Hamilton in his two-decade-old judgment clearing Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign of going behind President Carter’s back to frustrate his efforts to free 52 U.S. hostages in Iran, the so-called October Surprise case.

            Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who oversaw two congressional investigations into Ronald Reagan’s secret dealings with Iran, says a key piece of evidence was withheld that could have altered his conclusion clearing Reagan’s 1980 campaign of allegations that it sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran.

            In a phone interview earlier this year, the Indiana Democrat responded to a document revealing that in 1991 a deputy White House counsel working for then-President George H.W. Bush was notified by the State Department that Reagan’s campaign director William Casey had taken a trip to Madrid in relation to the so-called October Surprise issue.

            Casey’s trip to Madrid in 1980 was at the center of Hamilton’s investigation in 1991-92 into whether Reagan’s campaign went behind Carter’s back to frustrate his attempts to free 52 American hostages before the 1980 election, popularly known as the “October Surprise.” Hamilton’s task force dismissed the allegations after concluding that Casey had not traveled to Madrid.

            “We found no evidence to confirm Casey’s trip to Madrid,” Hamilton told me. “We couldn’t show that. … The [Bush-41] White House did not notify us that he did make the trip. Should they have passed that on to us? They should have because they knew we were interested in that.”

            Asked if the knowledge that Casey had traveled to Madrid might have changed the task force’s rather dismissive” October Surprise” conclusion, Hamilton said yes, because the question of the Madrid trip was key to the task force’s investigation. “If the White House knew that Casey was there, they certainly should have shared it with us,” Hamilton said, adding that “you have to rely on people” in authority to comply with information requests.


            The document revealing White House knowledge of Casey’s Madrid trip was among records released by the archivists at the George H.W. Bush library in College Station, Texas. The U.S. Embassy’s confirmation of Casey’s trip was passed along by State Department legal adviser Edwin D. Williamson to Associate White House Counsel Chester Paul Beach Jr. in early November 1991, just as the October Surprise inquiry was taking shape.

            Most Iranian officials wanted a quick end to the 1980 U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis, but Reagan’s presidential campaign struck a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the hostages’ release. His 1980 campaign obstructed resolving the Iranian hostage crisis to prevent President Jimmy Carter’s reelection.

            On Aug. 18, 1980, Iran’s then-acting foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh informed Iran’s Majlis that “another point to consider is this fact. We know that the Republican Party of the United States in order to win the presidential election is working hard to delay the solution of the hostages crisis until after the U.S. election.”

            Ghotbzadeh argued for a quicker resolution of the crisis so Iran’s new Islamic government, which had consolidated its power in part because of the hostage crisis, could “get on with other more pressing affairs than the hostage issue.”

            He added, that “objection to this argument is that it will be in line with the policy of the Republican Party leaders and supporters of [banker David] Rockefeller and Reagan. [But] if we leave this issue unsolved, our new government will be constantly under pressure and may not be able to succeed in its affairs. In light of this consideration it is better to settle this crisis.”

            As the hostage crisis wore on in late summer 1980, Ghotbzadeh made other comments about the Republican interference, telling Agence France Press on Sept. 6, 1980, that he had information that Reagan was “trying to block a solution” to the hostage impasse.

            In December 1992, when a House Task Force was examining this so-called October Surprise controversy – and encountering fierce Republican resistance – then-Iranian President Bani-Sadr submitted a letter detailing his behind-the-scenes struggle with Khomeini and his son Ahmad over their secret dealings with the Reagan campaign.

            In the letter Bani-Sadr told the task force that he learned of the GOP plan after a meeting in Madrid on July 2, 1980, involving Khomeini’s nephew, Reza Passendideh; Iranian banker Cyrus Hashemi, who had close ties to Casey’s business network; and GOP lawyer Stanley Pottinger.

            “Passendideh told me that if I do not accept this proposal, they [the Republicans] would make the same offer to my rivals,” Bani-Sadr wrote on Dec. 17, 1992. Passindideh “further said that they [the Republicans] have enormous influence in the CIA … Lastly, he told me my refusal of their offer would result in my elimination.”

            Bani-Sadr claimed that he resisted the GOP scheme but that the plan was accepted by the Khomeini faction.

            Despite Bani-Sadr’s details, the House task force judged that he had “mistakenly misled” himself into believing “that Khomeini representatives met with Reagan campaign officials.”

            Bani-Sadr’s detailed letter meshed not only with Ghotzabeh’s contemporaneous accounts but with a statement made by former Defense Minister Ahmad Madani, who had lost to Bani-Sadr in the 1980 presidential race although Madani had received covert CIA assistance funneled to his campaign through Iranian financier Cyrus Hashemi.

            Madani said he later discovered that Hashemi was double-dealing Carter by collaborating with the Republicans. In an interview in the early 1990s, Madani said Hashemi brought up the name of Reagan’s campaign chief William Casey in connection with these back-channel negotiations over the U.S. hostages. Madani said Hashemi urged Madani to meet with Casey, earning a rebuke from Madani that “we are not here to play politics.”

            Testimony from French intelligence chief Alexandre deMarenches’s biographer said that deMarenches admitted setting up meetings between Reagan’s campaign chief William Casey and Iranian radicals in Paris in October 1980.

            In December 1992, biographer David Andelman told a House task force that deMarenches described the GOP-Iranian meetings, but kept the information out of his memoirs to protect the Reagan-Bush legacy.

            Though the House task force judged Andelman’s testimony “credible” and noted that it was corroborated by two other French intelligence officials, they still concluded that the allegations of Iran-Republican meetings in Paris were baseless using some bizarrely circuitous logic.

            There was also a secret report from the Russian government in January 1993, outlining what Moscow’s intelligence files contained about the GOP hostage initiative.

            The report, prepared by Sergei Stepashin (who later became Russia’s prime minister), cited three meetings between Casey and Iranians in Europe during 1980. The Stepashin report implicated President Reagan, Vice President George Bush, Casey and CIA official Robert Gates.

            The House task force offered no public explanation — or even mention — of the Stepashin report.

            I’m shocked! SHOCKED I tell you…

            Equally “shocking” was the Clinton administration’s rresponse to an offer from the German government to share October Surprise material discovered in the files of the East German intelligence service, the Stasi.

            A source involved in the discussions said the Clinton administration shrugged off the offer with the attitude of “who wants to get into this?”

            Then there was an admission from Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat to Jimmy Carter that Republicans had sought Arafat’s help in their scheme to delay the hostage release. Hiss admission in early 1996 was corroborated by longtime Palestinian spokesman Bassam Abu Sharif and a Middle Eastern diplomat, Mustafa Zein, who reportedly served as middleman for the Republican approach to Arafat.

            Zein’s account of his work for the Republicans, contained in a sealed appendix to a lawsuit, “Zein vs. the United States,” which was scheduled to be unsealed before Clinton’s Justice Department objected, in a move that kept the information secret from the American people until more recent FOIA requests were successful..

            Then we have corroboration of Israeli intelligence official Ari Ben-Menashe’s claim that he possessed sensitive information and was not the “impostor” or “low-level translator” that the Israeli government called him. In sworn testimony to Congress, Ben-Menashe asserted that Bush and Gates took part in the October Surprise operation. According to Ben-Menashe, senior Israeli officials assisted the Republican scheme because they viewed Carter as a threat to continued Israeli control of the West Bank.

            there are also details from a key Iranian, Jamshid Hashemi, who says Casey was helping Teheran transfer money in late 1979. Casey, then a private lawyer, “was the man who was actually putting all these things together,” he said in an interview. Hashemi also said House Republicans pressured him in 1992 to recant his testimony. Instead, he reiterated his account of hostage discussions between Casey and radical mullah Mehdi Karrubi in Madrid, Spain, in summer 1980.

            In his 1997 Carter biography, writer Peter Bourne reported that Casey “had established his own channels to Teheran through relationships in the French intelligence community.” Bourne described these Europeans as “professional operatives who … were cold-bloodedly involved in breaking of governments through clandestine deals” and “who could keep secrets even if it meant perjuring themselves.”

            Bourne also cited a motive for CIA officers to join the plot. “Carter was widely disliked,” Bourne wrote, “while Casey and Reagan’s vice presidential nominee, George Bush, were considered members of the club.”

            So there is the treason Ronnie committed in order to win the Presidency; possibly with a little help from the CIA.

            Oh, did I forget to mention that?

            In a 1990 interview, Miles Copeland said that “the way we saw Washington at that time was that the struggle was really not between the Left and the Right, the liberals and the conservatives, as between the Utopians and the realists, the pragmatists.

            “Carter was a Utopian. He believed, honestly, that you must do the right thing and take your chance on the consequences. He told me that. He literally believed that.” Copeland’s deep Southern accent spit out the words with a mixture of amazement and disgust.

            Copeland’s contacts regarding the Iran crisis included CIA veteran (and another Iran hand) Archibald Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger – both of whom were close to David Rockefeller whose Chase Manhattan Bank had handled billions of dollars in the Shah of Iran’s accounts, a fortune that the Iranian mullahs who ousted the Shah in 1979 badly wanted to lay their hands on.

            “There were many of us – myself along with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Archie Roosevelt in the CIA at the time – we believed very strongly that we were showing a kind of weakness, which people in Iran and elsewhere in the world hold in great contempt,” Copeland said. As Copeland and his friends contemplated what to do regarding the Iran hostage crisis, he reached out to other of his old CIA buddies, among them ex-CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton.

            The famed spy hunter “brought to lunch a Mossad chap who confided that his service had identified at least half of the [Iranian] ‘students,’ even to the extent of having their home addresses in Tehran,” Copeland wrote. “He gave me a rundown on what sort of kids they were. Most of them, he said, were just that, kids.”

            One of the young Israeli intelligence agents assigned to the task of figuring out who was who in the new Iranian power structure was Ari Ben-Menashe, who was born in Iran but emigrated to Israel as a teen-ager. Not only did he speak fluent Farsi, but he had school friends who were rising within the new revolutionary bureaucracy in Tehran.

            In his 1992 memoir, Profits of War, Ben-Menashe offered his own depiction of Copeland’s initiative. Though Copeland was generally regarded as a CIA “Arabist” who had opposed Israeli interests in the past, he was admired for his analytical skills, Ben-Menashe wrote.

            “A meeting between Miles Copeland and Israeli intelligence officers was held at a Georgetown house in Washington, D.C.,” Ben-Menashe wrote. “The Israelis were happy to deal with any initiative but Carter’s. David Kimche, chief of Tevel, the foreign relations unit of Mossad, was the senior Israeli at the meeting.”

            Ben-Menashe was among the “October Surprise” witnesses who has offered sworn testimony describing meetings between Republicans and Iranians in 1980 that were designed – with the help of CIA personnel and Israeli intelligence – to delay release of the 52 hostages until after Carter’s defeat.

            Just six months after Iran freed the Americans hostages, senior Reagan administration officials secretly endorsed third-party weapons sales to Iran, a move to align U.S. policy with Israeli desires to sell arms to the Islamic republic then at war with Iraq, according to documents recently released by the National Archives.

            This, then, planted the seeds of the Iran-Contra scandal.

            You have heard of his second act of treason, right?

          • Robert Messmer

            Very nice post. While it does cast a different light on Ronald Reagan, its dirty politics as usual but not treason. He/his campaign did not attempt to overthrow the American Government (just win an election) nor did they give aid and comfort to an enemy.

            They were playing fast and loose with the lives of American citizens so it is a shame that no criminal charges can be brought against those who participated and are still alive.

            I do agree that if this is indeed true, he did betray our American ideals. More than just a little help from the CIA but then since they were screwing around in Iran prior to the revolution it would be expected.

            It seems strange that Clinton’s White House did not take up the German offer. For any Democrat, much less Bill Clinton, to lift a finger to protect any Republican – dead or alive, suggests to me that they have just as much, if not more, dirt covered up.

            I await your post!

          • Progressive Republican

            Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or assists its enemies by giving them “aid and comfort” has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term “aid and comfort” refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

            By supplying the hostile Khomeini regime with weapons he did indeed and in deed commit treason. We need not be technically at war with another nation for it to be considered an enemy. Iran was clearly this.

            So far as your remark about Clinton, personally I was not surprised at this as, by that time, Clinton had shown that he was a Democrat mostly in name only as so many of his policies (especially economic) were fairly conservative (NAFTA, deregulation, signing DADT, etc.)

            A case could easily be made that his pro-choice stance was also somewhat conservative as it mimicked Barry Goldwater”s similar stance. I base this on the idea that the anti-choice faux conservatives tend to cite religious reasons for their position. Sen. Goldwater warned us against the then emerging religious right and their bent towards theocracy as not being true conservatism. A famous quote of his indicated that he wouldn’t mind doing Jerry Falwell physical harm by saying, “”I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” although some claim that he actually said, “nuts”.

          • Robert Messmer

            LOL either way Goldwater was correct!

          • Progressive Republican

            Can’t argue that. It’s a true shame the way he turned out to be right about the Right. This does not bode well for America. unless, of course, they become such a laughingstock that they propel themselves off the political map. Perhaps then this ridiculousness will end. One can only hope…

  • Chester

    Do wish some of you would actually study the words you throw around so casually. Comparing America, even in its present form, to any sort of facist state is rather like comparing the little creek you splashed in as a kid to the Mississippi river. With a bit of study, more conservatives would be comfortable in a facist state, or at least the ones who post on here, than any liberal. I don’t see the mandatory militarization in this country that any facist state requires, nor do I see the class elimination that is another of the necessary components, America never was a true representative democracy, or a true republic, but a bastardized combination of things that seems to have worked out pretty well. Granted, some don’t like one thing or another that has been done, or is being done, by the country, but they do still have the right to complain, and to try to get things changed to go the way THEY want, unlike some of the countries, past and present, they keep comparing us to.

    • Progressive Republican

      Nicely said.

  • Carlos

    Impeach Barry Soetoro. Attempted murder of Syrian people, Benghazi, IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, just to name a few.

  • Oliver_K_Manuel

    America is no longer a representative republic because decisions were made sixty-eight years ago (2013 – 1945 = 68 yrs) to prevent nuclear annihilation by establishing our present Orwellian, one-world government.

    Here is an updated, one-page synopsis of the 1945-2013 history of government science after conversion to a propaganda tool:

    That is a synopsis of more detailed information sent to the Congressional Space Science and Technology Committee last month.

    The corruption of science first became public in 2009 emails and documents:

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    • FMR

      Dear Oliver, I would say that the basis for the establishment of the one world government goes back to the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1911. Combining, the wealthiest of families from Europe with those in the US, to control the flow of money and favors. I know, sounds like a bad movie, but there it is. Have you read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G Edward Griffin?