Bush And Obama Make Putin Look Good

Big Government toadies can pooh-pooh the existence of a conspiracy by elitists to create a global government (aka a New World Order) all they want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are. Over the last several decades, proponents of global government have been quite outspoken about their intention to create a New World Order. In fact, former President George H.W. Bush (NOT so-called “right wing conspiracy nuts”) was the one who popularized the term “New World Order” in modern times.

For those who haven’t taken the time to educate themselves on the reality of the elite’s intention to create a New World Order, please take a few minutes to review this documentation:

A Chronological History: The New World Order

That pastors and Christians would question the existence of a modern conspiracy to construct global government is somewhat surprising to me, as such a conspiracy can be traced all the way back to the story of the Tower of Babel as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Plus, the Biblical record is replete with examples of ancient empires that embarked on world domination.

In addition, students of Bible prophecy that interpret Scriptures to foretell a literal antichrist and Revived Roman Empire should readily observe that what they are talking about is nothing more than global government. Unfortunately, far too many Christians take an indifferent–even fatalistic–approach to this potential eventuality (“we can’t stop it”) or a convenient attitude of escapism (“the Rapture is going to bail me out of all this trouble”).

Regardless, what Christians should take note of is that no matter what approach one takes to Bible prophecy, the warnings regarding global government are concentrated upon the West. And while dispensationalists are quick to point to Russia as the future Gog and Magog of the Book of Ezekiel, this is purely conjecture. (Many Bible scholars believe the Gog and Magog prophecy, like most prophecies of the Old Testament, was fulfilled long ago.) The one constant is the global conspiracy of the West. And dare I say that whether what we are witnessing is a literal fulfillment of Bible prophecy or not, what we ARE seeing is a Western conspiracy to create global government.

In truth, we haven’t had a President to oppose the international bankers that largely comprise the movers and shakers of the New World Order since President Andrew Jackson. In my opinion, President Woodrow Wilson was the first President to ensconce the evil machinations of globalists into official U.S. public policy via the creation of the Federal Reserve, a graduated income tax, etc. And certainly President Harry Truman became a significant contributor to the globalist agenda when he led the United States into joining the United Nations. But it has been the combined administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Barack Obama (truly nothing more than one continuous administration) that has taken the New World Order to the brink of reality.

And what most Americans (especially most Christians) fail to understand is that the Neocon wars in the Middle East form the tip of the spear for the globalists’ New World Order agenda. Though preparations for all of this began long ago, it was G.W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq that launched what can only be regarded as the final push to fulfill the utopian dreams of the elitists for global government. Of course, Barack Obama has only continued Bush’s global agenda. In fact, Obama has ordered more drone attacks than did Bush. And, apart from a populist uprising against the establishment at the voting booth next year, whoever is elected President (Democrat or Republican) will only further oblige these wicked NWO architects.

Americans need to face it: the wars America is fighting in the Middle East have NOTHING to do with protecting the United States and EVERYTHING to do with satisfying the demands of global elitists in Washington, D.C., London, and elsewhere. Perpetual war is a tool of globalists to enslave us. Global hegemony–not liberty–is their goal.

The Western war machine in the Middle East has done more damage to the American conscience (not to mention the carnage and death inflicted upon innocent victims) than anything since the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion-on-demand. As a result, most Americans have now come to accept preemptive invasion of foreign nations, perpetual war, a burgeoning Police State at home, and the construction of an American Empire.

But all of a sudden, Western globalists may have been dealt a setback.

In the September 4, 2015 edition of his World Affairs Brief, Joel Skousen writes: “Ever since the US began targeting Syria for regime change, Russia has only supplied Syria with replacement arms and ammunition–nothing new that would allow Assad to effectively combat the US backed rebels nor the Israeli Air Force which intervenes regularly against Assad’s air defenses. What I’ve consistently said over the years is that all the Russians have to do to stop US and Israeli intervention in Syria is to put a squadron of first line fighters in Syria and man them with Russian pilots, plus add some Russian Special Forces on the ground. The US isn’t going to risk WWIII by directly attacking the Russians (they want Russia to start it so the globalists look innocent). But this week, something dramatic may have changed–an Israeli news channel announced that a Russian fighter squadron will arrive in the next few days, followed by Special Forces to take on ISIS. I’ll have to see further evidence before I know it is real, but this could really put another wrench in globalist plans for both Syria and Iran if Russia shows some muscle.”

“Remember that Russia failed to back up Hussein in Iraq (another former Russian ally) militarily when the West invaded.”

“It always looked like Russia was going to similarly allow Syria to fall. For example, Russia never delivered the S-300 air defense missiles they had promised to Assad, nor any first line fighter aircraft. But now, if the Israeli report is true, all that may change. If Russia follows through and provides a Russian military shield for Assad, this could be a real game changer in the Middle East relative to globalist intentions.”

“This is clearly the tactic that Russia has known all along would stop US intervention—both through arming “moderate jihadist rebels” (a non sequitur) and the Islamic State which it created to have an excuse to intervene in Syria militarily. Why did Putin wait until now when Assad’s back is to the wall and most of the Syrian territory lost?

“Perhaps it is because the Russians have decided that two can play the phony anti-terrorist game. Knowing that the US formed ISIS to create a back door excuse to attack Syrian infrastructure, Putin decided he could also use the excuse of fighting the same ISIS to enter Syria and support Assad.”

“The reason this is a big game changer is that with Russia coming in to attack ISIS the Islamic State will actually start to receive some serious damage. As I have documented in past briefs the US has been faking its fight against ISIS by avoiding attacks on large concentrations of troops or equipment when vulnerable, denying pilots permission to attack until they run low on fuel, and hitting lots of empty buildings or infrastructure that only hurts Syria, not ISIS. Russia won’t be tying their pilot’s hands nor pulling any punches with ISIS.

“Bill Gertz had a story confirming how the US is fudging the fight against ISIS, including that the US is not targeting ISIS training camps. No surprise there–they aren’t targeting claimed ISIS training camps across the border with Mexico either, and it’s not because they actually intend to let those fake terrorists attack the US. It is only to keep up the media hype about the ISIS threat. If the US allowed a cross border attack it would only rile up the public about Obama’s refusal to fence the border.”

See the Gertz report here:

Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps

“There are also a series of videos on the internet about Muslim training camps in America, complete with weapons training with automatic rifles. You don’t think the US could track them down if they were real? You bet they could, but they don’t–because they serve the propaganda purpose of keeping Americans compliant with the anti-terror agenda.

“Keep in mind as you read his report that the US refused to target ISIS staging areas inside Iraq in the build up to the ISIS-Iraq invasion, even as PM al Maliki begged them to take them out. It is all for the same reason: ISIS is a tool of US and British intelligence to enhance the lagging and phony war on terror and to justify intervening in Syria.”

Still quoting Skousen: “So it is little wonder that the Obama administration has yet to announce a significant public reaction to the new level of Russian assistance in Syria, other than call it destabilizing. Yes, it is only destabilizing to them and ISIS and really puts a kink in their plans to take down Syria. To recap the globalist agenda for new readers–that differs from the official claims,

“1) The aim all along has been to take down Iran as a regional military power (the only Muslim country threatening to become self-sufficient in the full range of indigenous weapons, including nuclear). This is supremely hypocritical in that the US does nothing to stop North Korea which has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver those weapons to parts of the US.

“2) Israel has long been tasked to start the war with Iran, claiming the necessity of taking out its nuclear weapons program, but Israel has been waiting until the globalists take out Syria, whose retaliatory capacity to strike Israel with theater ballistic missiles heretofore was significant.

“3) The US was about to do a Libyan-style “No Fly Zone/Invasion” of Syria but was stymied when Syria and Russia accepted Secretary of State Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark about giving Syria an out if she gave up her chemical weapons (the same ones transferred out of Iraq by the Russians before the Iraq war).

“4) The US created the peace talks with Iran to set Iran up for a future violation of this agreement when the US is ready to go back into the attack mode on Iran, after Syria is taken down.

“5) The US and Britain created ISIS out of the larger portion of Syrian jihadist rebels they were funding in Iraq in order to have an excuse to get back into Syria. Rather than taking down ISIS, they continue to bomb only insignificant targets and are actively resupplying ISIS via surrogates in Qatar and formerly through Yemen.

“But if Russia seriously intervenes in Syria, it will hamper this entire agenda–or at least make them rethink the entire plan.”

Subscribe to Skousen’s World Affairs Brief here:

World Affairs Brief

Think of it: G.W. Bush and Barack Obama make Vladimir Putin look GOOD.

In addition, while our federal government seems intent on eviscerating all vestiges of Christianity from America’s public life (the federal judge who threw the Kentucky clerk of court into jail was a G.W. Bush appointee; the Supreme Court justice who wrote for the majority in the recent same-sex decision, Anthony Kennedy, was appointed by Ronald Reagan), Putin is boldly calling on the Russian people to return to their Christian roots.

All of the reports I have received from missionaries in and around Russia tell me that the vast majority of pastors and Christians in Russia believe Putin is a wonderful Christian leader. Putin touts himself an Orthodox Christian. In 2012, he publicly promised to defend Christianity, especially persecuted Christians, around the world.

A Christianpost.com report stated: “And, as reported by Interfax, Putin replied, ‘You needn’t have any doubt that that’s the way it will be,’ assuring Hilarion that Russian foreign policy would defend Christians from persecution abroad.

“Putin’s recent actions seem to confirm his promise. Last week, Putin vetoed a U.N. motion calling for Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to step down. Syrian Christians received this as good news. Assad is of the Alawite sect of Islam. Alawites and Christians are both religious minorities in Syria. Syrian Christians feel that sharing this minority status means Assad will provide them with protection. A Syrian Christian woman even told The Global Post, ‘Thank God for Russia. Without Russia we are doomed.’

“Putin has long been a supporter of Christianity and Christian values within Russia. He has called for the Church to play a larger role in citizens’ social lives, better religion classes in schools, and television programs emphasizing religious values.”

See the report here:

Vladimir Putin Vows To Defend Christianity Worldwide

Perhaps this is another reason why Putin is coming to the defense of Assad. And perhaps this also helps explain why there seems to be more respect for Christian values in Russia than there is in the United States today.

Consider: the Bible is freely distributed in Russia’s public schools, and homosexual marriages are NOT legally recognized. In fact, Putin signed a law in 2013 prohibiting the distribution of materials promoting the LGBT relationship to minors. At one time, providing such materials to minors in the United States would also have been deemed a crime: the crime of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” Now, these-type materials are included in our public school curricula.

In addition, public gay pride demonstrations are prohibited in Russia. Compare this to the government of Israel, which just might be the biggest promoter of gay rights and gay-rights demonstrations of any civil government in the world–more so than even the government of the United States. (Note: I am NOT advocating for a restriction of free speech here in the U.S. I am merely pointing out the manner in which Putin’s Russia attempts to protect its children from aberrant sexual behavior, while Obama’s America and Netanyahu’s Israel actively promote such behavior among its youth.)

Russia’s past history was dismal in terms of abortion. But the trend in Russia is changing under Putin. Abortion is available in Russia during the first trimester of pregnancy only; but a bill is currently working its way through the Duma (state parliament) that would remove all state funding for abortions and prohibit private organizations from doing abortions. Under the bill, women would have to personally pay for an abortion. Proponents of the bill believe legal abortion will be eliminated in Russia during the next two years. Putin has already signed a law prohibiting any advertising of abortion services. Definitely, Russia is trending toward a pro-life position.

My friend, Joel Skousen (quoted above), often opines that he believes Putin is still a communist at heart and, as a former head of Russia’s secret spy agency (the KGB), is still an avowed enemy of the United States. He might be right, of course.

But the bigger question is, who is the enemy of freedom? Any nation or national leader can become an enemy of freedom–regardless of label. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it be found in Red Square or the White House.

Don’t forget that George H.W. Bush was the head of the CIA before becoming President. And if there is a substantial moral distinction between the CIA and KGB, I, for one, don’t know what it is. Plus, our federal government (and especially our State Department) is littered with all kinds of socialists. Furthermore, when one looks at the way America’s foreign policy is more and more becoming a tool of the globalists, and the way agencies of the federal government are becoming increasingly dictatorial here at home, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

All I know is right now, Vladimir Putin seems to be the one man in the world who has the cojones to thwart the agenda of the globalists. I say again: Bush and Obama make Putin look GOOD.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Trump Just Made Jeb Bush Realize He Made A Huge Mistake In Only A Few Seconds

With Donald Trump’s breakaway success thus far in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, some have speculated the party needs to find a new establishment candidate – potentially 2012 nominee Mitt Romney – to take over for the struggling Jeb Bush.

Bush and Trump have engaged in several verbal battles since announcing their respective candidacies. Judging from subsequent polling results, Trump has benefited from the feud while Bush languishes in the middle of a crowded field.

In a recent social media video, Bush’s campaign brought up several opinions – including his assertion that he is “very pro-choice” – that some Republicans believe mean Trump would not be a conservative leader.

The Real Donald TrumpDonald J. Trump in his own words:

Posted by Jeb Bush on Tuesday, September 1, 2015

One of the primary criticisms included in the short video related to Trump’s admitted fondness for the Clintons. It was on this point, Independent Journal Review noted Tuesday, that Trump struck back with his own short campaign video.

No more Clintons or Bushes!

Posted by Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, September 1, 2015

The Instagram post began with a clip in which Bush made sure to “recognize the commitment” of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate he said has “devoted her life to public service.”

Bush’s brother, former President George W. Bush, appeared next. In that clip, he described Clinton as a “sister-in-law” to the Bush family.

Trump included some pithy advice for choosing the 2016 presidential nominees: “No more Clintons or Bushes!”

It wasn’t just Trump who felt Jeb Bush’s latest video attack was ineffective. Many of the most popular Facebook comments in response to his video included scathing reviews.

h/t: Independent Journal Review

Can Jeb Bush overtake Trump in the GOP primary? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism - Equipping You With The Truth

Watch What These US Army Vets Decided To Do Against Islamic State

Several American Iraq War veterans are now volunteering to help Kurdish militias in northern Iraq in their battle against Islamic State, Al Jazeerah reported.

One of the US Vets spoke with Al Jazeerah. He said that volunteering in the war against Islamic State was “the right thing to do”. He said that he saw “the beheadings and the slave trade in the news” and decided to “found a group that helped to facilitate the travel of Westerners” to the front in Iraq, where they now fight against Islamic State.

The US Vets bring with them their battle experience, but they do not have the weapons to combat Islamic State effectively.

One of them said that the weapons they use are fit for “urban warfare.” They joined Kurdish forces because “the Iraqi government doesn’t want foreign boots on the ground,” Al Jazeerah reported.

The American volunteers told Al Jazeerah that their presence in Kurdistan is a message to the US government that ground forces are needed in the battle against Islamic State.

Former US President George W. Bush had the same message for the Obama administration. In an interview with the Israeli Daily Israel Hayom, Bush said that he had decided not to criticize his successors but made clear that in the current war against Islamic State, the U.S. needs “boots on the ground.”

“The temptation is to try to rewrite history or to make yourself look good by criticizing someone else. I think that is a mistake. I don’t think that is what leadership is all about. I know how hard the job is. I didn’t like it when former leaders criticized me when I was president. Some did, so I decided not to do the same,” Bush said.

He then said the following when he was asked if it was possible to defeat ISIS without boots on the ground:

The president will have to make that determination. My position was that you need to have boots on the ground. As you know, I made a very difficult decision. A fair number of people in our country were saying that it was impossible to defeat al-Qaida — which is ISIS as far as I am concerned. They said I must get out of Iraq. But I chose the opposite — I sent 30,000 more troops as opposed to 30,000 fewer. I think history will show that al-Qaida in Iraq was defeated. And so I chose the path of boots on the ground. We will see whether or not our government adjusts to the realities on the ground.

On Sunday, Brett McGurk, U.S. envoy to the coalition against Islamic State, said that the threat posed by Islamic State is unprecedented. McGurk told Chuck Todd on NBC’s Meet the Press: “We have to get a handle on this. This is a real threat to the United States.”

His remarks came after President Obama decided to send an additional 450 military advisors to Iraq to train Iraqi forces–and after the New York Times revealed an internal State Department assessment that said the Islamic State is winning the “message war.”

An internal State Department assessment paints a dismal picture of the efforts by the Obama administration and its foreign allies to combat the Islamic State’s message machine, portraying a fractured coalition that cannot get its own message straight.

The assessment comes months after the State Department signaled that it was planning to energize its social media campaign against the militant group. It concludes, however, that the Islamic State’s violent narrative – promulgated through thousands of messages each day – has effectively “trumped” the efforts of some of the world’s richest and most technologically advanced nations.

The State Department assessment contradicts what former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed less than a month ago. As Western Journalism reported at the time, Pelosi said that the fight against ISIS on social media had “really been making some progress.”

In fact, the only forces who are really making progress in the fight against Islamic State are the Kurdish militias. After they drove out Islamic State from the strategic Syrian city of Kobani in January this year, the Kurds are now poised to take over the Syrian city of Tal Abyad from Islamic State.This despite the fact that the West refuses to supply the Kurds with heavy weapons.

Update: One of the Americans fighting with the Kurds against Islamic State in northern Iraq died in battle on June 10th, the Examiner reported:

Keith Broomfield had such a strong commitment to defend those being persecuted for their Christian faith, as well as protecting the innocence of Kurdish women and children, that on Feb. 24 under the nom de guerre Gelhat Rumet, he joined the People’s Protection Units known as the YPG even though he had no previous military training. The YPG are the main Kurdish guerrillas battling the Islamic State group in Syria. Broomfield is believed to be the first U.S. citizen to die fighting alongside Kurdish forces against ISIS. The Merced Sun-Star reported Sunday that according to the family, Broomfield felt compelled to fight against what he considered “evil.”

Friday the L.A. Times stated that several month ago, Broomfield, a plant manager at his family’s Bolton-based business, Broomfield Labs Inc., informed shocked relatives that he had decided to join the fight against Islamic State. He didn’t know anyone in Syria or Iraq and had no battlefield experience, but he was appalled by the brutality he saw the Islamist militants inflicting on fellow Christians and other religious minorities.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Rand Paul’s New Patriot Act?

Doesn’t the term “patriot” sound so good? Being called a patriot is something that every citizen of every country considers a badge of honor and distinction. So in the political battle of words and semantics, whoever can claim the “high ground” of patriotism would most likely emerge as the victor.

After the terror attacks of 9/11, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft brought before Congress a list of recommended changes in the law to combat terrorism. Some of these measures had long been opposed by members of Congress as infringing on the rights of Americans.

In order to claim the high ground of the debate, the former administration of Republican President George W. Bush introduced a bill that was termed “The Patriot Act.” Rather than look “un-patriotic” most of Congress was willing to grant the former President, and his Democrat successor, many enhanced but unconstitutional powers. That is until now.

Rand Paul of Kentucky demanded a stop to this wordsmithing and came forward with something I call a new Patriot Act, almost single-handedly forcing many unconstitutional practices of U.S. intelligence programs to, in the words of Time magazine, “go dark.” This act of Patriotism, or Patriot Act, Rand Paul proposed brought much-needed attention to the centralized elevation of the executive branch.

Why do I call this Patriotic?  Won’t this make us less safe? “Patriotism” as defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary is: “The love of one’s country; the passion which aims to serve one’s country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity.”

This has always been a struggle between God-given rights and laws, liberties and powers, the Bill of Rights and delegated Constitutional powers, and the people and their government.

You see, if you think government is the source of your rights, then you will have no problem with them taking certain rights from you to keep you safer. Yet founding father Benjamin Franklin inferred: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

This is because our founders believed that rights come from God, and that God instituted governments to protect those God-given rights.

What would a nation become if all authority to govern our God-given liberties was given to a central power that we could not limit–where “independence” is just another word in the war of semantics? Look around the world; this is the stuff that Communist, Socialist, and Totalitarian governments are made of.

“I came here to defend the Bill of Rights, not to be popular,” Senator Paul tweeted. Though he may not be popular with many of his colleagues, I believe the good Senator is popular with the founders of the American View, and the most holy Author of our Liberties.


Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hawks With Long Knives Aim To Cut Down Rand Paul

I have some serious advice for Senator Rand Paul: Stay clear of the Senate gym steam room and don’t trust anyone in a robe resembling Brutus. There is virtually no one in the GOP establishment who does not want to derail Senator Rand Paul’s bid for the presidency–and with good reason. Rand Paul not only has new ideas for the future of America, but he is honest about the mistakes Republicans, including former presidents, have made in the past.

The biggest establishment taboo Rand Paul has broken most recently is to tell voters that the United States should not arm Islamic Sunni fighters to overthrow secular governments.  Apparently, he did not get the memo from Senator John McCain that we only train and arm “good” Sunni Islamic fighters such as the Harakat al-Hazm brigade. Oops … that “most trusted group” took the weapons we gave them, including TOW missiles, and joined the jihadists early this year. Not to worry; we have a new brigade of Sunni fighters we are training in Jordan to replace them.

The media on the right fears him because he appeals to the conservative voter base rather than the donor base. The Republican voter base, including the military, deep down know the truth about Iraq and are tired of hearing the same old hawkish lines claiming a victory that was never there.

The establishment GOP line is: Bush won the war in Iraq, and Obama lost the peace by not leaving troops there.

In reality, in December of 2008, the last full month of the Bush presidency, there were eleven suicide and roadside bombings in Iraq that killed dozens. One bombing in Mosul killed two U.S. military personnel. This of course does not include shootings or kidnappings. A strong peaceful democracy?

The further establishment GOP line, as Senator Marco Rubio declared it: “The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.” Tell that to the one million Christians who have been forced out of Iraq or the Yazidi women who have been sold on slave blocks in cities that had secular police forces under the Baath party. In what universe do you have to live in to believe that Iraq today is a better place to live than in 2002? OK … It is a better place to be if you are a jihadist in the ISIL.

Rand Paul has only to whisper “the emperor has no clothes,” and the Wall Street Journal and Fox News go ballistic. The Wall Street Journal editorial headline on May 28th read “Rand Paul Created ISIS.” I am not joking; that is the actual headline. What did Rand Paul say to deserve a ful- out attack by the Wall Street Journal? The Senator said the following:

ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’ job even easier. They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because the same hawks in my party loved Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya, they just wanted more of it.

But Libya is a failed state and a disaster, Iraq really is a failed state or a vassal state now of Iran, so everything they’ve talked about in foreign policy they’ve been wrong about for 20 years and yet they somehow have the gall to keeping saying and pointing figures otherwise.

The Senator is right. The “secret weapons shipments” early on to Syrian rebels by the Obama Administration were approved by GOP congressional leaders behind closed doors. Every dollar to every mercenary and every gun to every brigade was approved by the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Every dime and every bullet. The only GOP objections to the Obama Administration’s plan to help the Sunni royal family of Saudi Arabia overthrow the Shia Alawites in Syria was that not enough American money and not enough American weapons were being allocated.

To make matters worse for himself, Rand Paul told the truth about the GOP hawk establishment having supported Hillary Clinton’s war on Libya. He is factual in that hawks John McCain and Lindsay Graham wanted even more American firepower, perhaps even ground forces, in Libya. Instead of being a stable nation under Gaddafi, Libya today is a failed state with roving bands of terrorists.

The donor base of the GOP, including a lot of big companies receiving defense dollars, are sharpening their knives for Rand Paul. That is where the real GOP divide is. The donor base and the voter base of the GOP see things very differently. While the “inside the Beltway bubble” GOP establishment and their donors are hawks, the majority of GOP voters, particularly recent veterans, are not. The polls do show that the largest concern of GOP-leaning voters is national security (cited by about 25%). But a deeper look shows that those 25% are most concerned with stopping Islamic terror on the homeland soil, not toppling secular dictators in the Middle East.

The Wall Street Journal’s biggest issue with Rand Paul is that he is an “anti-interventionist.” Apparently the Wall Street Journal editorial staff has come to the McCain/Graham/Rubio conclusion that the people of Libya, Iraq, and Syria are far better off today thanks to American intervention. Really? Someone should inform the families of those who were beheaded, and the many women forced into sex slave relationships with men who have purchased them at auction blocks. Many Republicans outside the Washington beltway see the truth, that Iraq, like Syria and Libya, is a horrible wreck.

Senator Paul has more to watch out for than would-be assassins in robes, such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain in the steam room. The leftist media also wants to cut him up and toss him out now, before voters on both sides of the fence hear what he as to say.

He is dangerous to the left because he is a champion of many populist ideas such as lowering prison sentences for drug use, a stand that will draw away votes from the Democrats. Currently, possessing less than one fourth of an ounce of crack cocaine draws a minimum five year sentence. Senator Paul says that is wrong, and is unfairly applied to African-Americans. He will also draw liberal (but not radical) environmentalist support from the Democrats, having publicly admitted to planting trees.

The GOP and both the liberal and conservative media want to knock out Senator Rand Paul early, before voters of both parties can hear his message. Rand Paul is dangerous because his ideas are neither left nor right establishment; they are often new and in many cases populist. He has the strange idea that the armed forces should protect the interests of the United States, not be the world’s police force. He wants the unconstitutional practice of the government reading the personal writings and communications of citizens by stealth stopped. And he tells the voters that loving trees is an OK thing to do! How dare he?

William J. Murray is chairman of the Washington, DC-based Religious Freedom Coalition and oversees the Christmas for Refugee program.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth