John McCain: Lap Dog Of Barack Obama, The Saudi Royals — Or Both

Senator Rand Paul, at one of his many campaign stops for his presidential run, referred to Senator John McCain as a “lap dog” to President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Many believe the proper description of Senator McCain’s relationship to Barack Obama should have been “yelping lap dog.” When Obama bows to Saudi royalty, Senator McCain is there to hold his hand.

On January 27th of this year, Senator McCain dutifully traveled with President Obama to Saudi Arabia to pay his respects to the newest Sunni despot, King Salman. McCain brought support for President Obama’s homage to the new despot in the form of two former Secretaries of State who served in Republican administrations, James A. Baker III and Condoleezza Rice.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined with Senator McCain and President Obama and other high American officials in the rather feudal ceremony of celebrating the lordship of the new King of Saudi Arabia, who apparently outranks all other world leaders. (Vice President Joe Biden showed up to slobber over the King a week later.)

Standing by President Obama on his pilgrimage to show reverence for King Salman was not enough; the yelping lap dog keeps pressing President Obama to be even more faithful to the wishes of the Sunni King. In Iran, for example, Senator McCain wants the military strikes favored by Saudi Arabia, regardless of the cost in American lives or the resulting chaos and war in the Middle East. Iran has a population of nearly 80 million, and cannot be so easily defeated or toppled as was the government of Yemen in the “Arab Spring” at the request of King Abdullah.

McCain has also done some yelping about Syria, arguing that President Obama has not moved fast enough to follow the wishes of the Saudi royals in toppling the secular government there. McCain wanted American airstrikes in Syria, and ground forces if needed, to bring the Sunni rebels to power.

McCain went beyond backing President Obama’s efforts to overthrow secular governments in the Middle East and replace them with Sunni puppet governments favored by the Saudi royals. He actually entered Syria illegally, with the help of President Erdogan of Turkey, to foster violence and revolution. While there, he proudly posed for photos with terrorists wanted for crimes in Lebanon.

John McCain just doesn’t get it. The United States doesn’t have the money or the military strength to actually occupy every nation in the world who has a leader who is regionally problematic.  Syria was not a threat to the United States or to a single American citizen, and still isn’t. Gaddafi in Libya had become an ally of the United States; but thanks to the McCain/Obama intervention in that nation, the place is in chaos and is an exporter of terrorists who are a real threat.

The beheadings of Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians on the beaches of Libya are a direct result of the McCain/Obama Middle East policies. The Christians who lived in Libya would still be safe in their homes had it not been for Senator John McCain’s demands to murder Gaddafi and hand over control of the government to al-Qaeda linked rebels. And in Syria, tens of thousands of Christians whose families have ancestry back to the time of the Apostles of Jesus have been forced to flee their homes. Currently, mortars are being supplied to the rebels who are firing on Christian churches in Damascus, the roots of which run back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

This April, Senator John McCain announced that he will run for a sixth term in the Senate. He was first elected to the House in 1982 and then to the Senate in 1986. He was sworn in to the Senate in January 1987. As of 2015, he has been on Capitol Hill a total of thirty-two years.

During that time, McCain has been the leading hawk on Capitol Hill, voting for every military intervention anywhere, regardless of who the president was at the time. He sided with President Bill Clinton in bombing Christian Serbia back to the dark ages to protect Muslim extremists, and he endorsed President Obama’s drone campaign that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians in four different nations. He even endorsed the killing of American citizens abroad with no trial, even if they are not armed, should a president consider them a threat.

Senator McCain has on numerous occasions supported the overthrow of the governments of sovereign nations, even those with democratically elected governments. McCain traveled to Kiev in 2014 and led a rally of Ukrainian nationalists in Independence Square calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of that nation. With the support of Senator McCain, President Obama, and CIA funding, the democratically elected government in Ukraine did fall, causing the intervention of Russia to protect its own naval assets in the Crimea. McCain’s influence as a powerful Senator sitting in the corner of President Obama has brought Russia and the United States back into a Cold War relationship. Had he been elected, we may well have found ourselves in a hot, rather than cold, war with Russia.

Last year, I attended a GOP fundraising event near Capitol Hill that included two congressmen. The subject of Senator McCain came up, and someone present said: “We can fix the damage done by Obama; just thank God that John McCain was not elected president because we can’t fix what is left after a nuclear war.” Virtually everyone in the room said “Amen” simultaneously.

Sadly, Senator McCain does not realize how much practically everyone on Capitol Hill, except Senator Lindsey Graham, dislikes him. Because of his long captivity as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, and the torture he endured there, he is treated with respect even by those who can’t stand to be in the same room with him. McCain takes this to mean that everyone agrees with him, even with his angry rants which echo down the halls of Congress on a regular basis.

I am no psychologist, but I have a sense that the torture and isolation McCain endured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam has much to do with his violent tendencies and eagerness to take military action just about everywhere in the world, for what he believes is even the slightest affront to our nation.

We live in a competitive capitalist world. Attempting to isolate and economically punish competitors we disagree with politically only hurts us. Dozens of American companies have been devastated financially by the “sanctions” on Russia, which only temporarily affected that nation because it is the seventh largest economy in the world. Every nation in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia, ignored the American and European “sanctions.” The Russian ruble took a dive last year, but has risen 35% so far this year. What exactly was gained for Americans? The CIA plan so loved by John McCain to take over Russia’s only warm water port failed, and now nuclear-equipped bombers are stationed in the Crimea instead of antiquated naval vessels. Meanwhile, the economy of the Ukraine has been destroyed.

The 1960’s are over. It was easy for the CIA to overthrow leftist governments in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile back then; but that strategy just hasn’t worked well recently in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, or Libya. The world is more complex, and men such as McCain who can only think in terms of black and white are not an asset.

Just as the 1960’s are over, it is time for John McCain’s political career to be over. There is just no place in the Senate for a Republican, bellicose, ‘war is always the answer’, yelping lapdog for the Saudi royals and Barack Obama. John McCain needs to be sitting in front of a TV in a room with pastel walls in Arizona, not on Fox News promoting world disorder.

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

New Military Spending Bill Expands America’s Empire

On Friday, the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee U.S. involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control act — limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth.

But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund. Such “emergency” spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011 budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money.

Ironically, a good deal of this “emergency” money will go to President Obama’s war on ISIS, even though neither the House nor the Senate has debated — let alone authorized — that war! Although House leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill — with many on minor issues like regulations on fire hoses — an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate the current U.S. war in Iraq and Syria was rejected.

While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration toward new conflicts. Despite the president’s unwise decision to send hundreds of U.S. military trainers to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in the east. Does Congress really think U.S.-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine is a good idea?

The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time, the House wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government. Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands.

While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration, the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush’s average defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687 billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend.

Next year’s military spending plan keeps the U.S. on track toward destruction of its economy at home while provoking new resentment over U.S. interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster. Let’s hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.

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

American Double Standards On Display In Ukraine

Last week, two prominent Ukrainian opposition figures were gunned down in broad daylight. They join as many as ten others who have been killed or committed suicide under suspicious circumstances just this year. These individuals have one important thing in common: they were either part of or friendly with the Yanukovych government, which a US-backed coup overthrew last year. They include members of the Ukrainian parliament and former chief editors of major opposition newspapers.

While some journalists here in the U.S. have started to notice the strange series of opposition killings in Ukraine, the U.S. government has yet to say a word.

Compare this to the U.S. reaction when a single opposition figure was killed in Russia earlier this year. Boris Nemtsov was a member of a minor political party that was not even represented in the Russian parliament. Nevertheless, the U.S. government immediately demanded that Russia conduct a thorough investigation of his murder, suggesting the killers had a political motive.

As news of the Russian killing broke, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce (R-CA) did not wait for evidence to blame the killing on Russian president Vladimir Putin. On the very day of Nemtsov’s murder, Royce told the US media that, “this shocking murder is the latest assault on those who dare to oppose the Putin regime.”

Neither Royce, nor Secretary of State John Kerry, nor President Obama, nor any U.S. government figure has said a word about the series of apparently political murders in Ukraine.

On the contrary, instead of questioning the state of democracy in what looks like a lawless Ukraine, the Administration is sending in the U.S. military to help train Ukrainian troops!

Last week, just as the two political murders were taking place, the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Ukraine to begin training Ukrainian national guard forces — and to leave behind some useful military equipment. Though the civil unrest continues in Ukraine, the U.S. military is assisting one side in the conflict — even as the U.S. slaps sanctions on Russia over accusations it is helping out the other side!

As the ceasefire continues to hold, though shakily, what kind of message does it send to the US-backed government in Kiev to have U.S. troops arrive with training and equipment and an authorization to gift Kiev with some $350 million in weapons? Might they not take this as a green light to begin new hostilities against the breakaway regions in the east?

The Obama administration is so inconsistent in its foreign policy. In some places, particularly Cuba and Iran, the administration is pursuing a policy that looks to diplomacy and compromise to help improve decades of bad relations. In these two cases, the administration realizes that the path of confrontation has led nowhere. When the president announced his desire to see the end of Cuba sanctions, he stated very correctly that, “…we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new.”

So while Obama is correctly talking about sanctions relief for Iran and Cuba, he is adding more sanctions on Russia, backing Saudi Arabia’s brutal attack on Yemen, and pushing ever harder for regime change in Syria. Does he really believe the rest of the world does not see these double standards? A wise consistency of non-interventionism in all foreign affairs would be the correct course for this and future US administrations. Let us hope they will eventually follow Obama’s observation that, “it’s time to try something new.”

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

America Rising Releases New Hillary Video: ‘Trustworthy?’

This ad by America Rising highlights Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, the debunked tale of the former first lady arriving under sniper fire in Bosnia, and other scandals.

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

Putin Threatens Nuclear War – Are We Listening?

Mykhaylo Palinchak / Shutterstock.com  Mykhaylo Palinchak / Shutterstock.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin and the security forces surrounding him have their eyes on the Baltics. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were once part of the Soviet Union and an important access point for the Russian navy to the Baltic Sea. In fact, Russia still maintains control of a small territory next to the Baltics, Kaliningrad.

With the Russian involvement in Ukraine and the invasion of Crimea, NATO has been extremely worried that the Baltics are next. The alliance has been parading American armor across Eastern Europe in response to the Russian threat. NATO promises to not station alliance forces permanently along the border states with Russia; however, these new forces are to be “rotated” to get around this restriction.

NATO believes that Russia no longer deserves this consideration since they have actively invaded their neighbor in Ukraine.

It seems the Russian military and political establishment wants the West to know that forces stationed in the Baltics are a no-no. The Independent reports,

Russia has threatened to use “nuclear force” to defend its annexation of Crimea and warned that the “same conditions” that prompted it to take military action in Ukraine exist in the three Baltic states, all members of Nato.

According to notes made by an American at a meeting between Russian generals and US officials – and seen by The Timesnewspaper – Moscow threatened a “spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military” if Nato moved more forces into Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

The Russians told the meeting, which took place in Germany last month, that an attempt to return Crimea to Ukraine would be met “forcefully including through the use of nuclear force.”

The Russian military still cannot compete with NATO conventionally. Nuclear weapons are another story. Russia relies on its nuclear offensive and deterrent capability and is now rattling that saber in the Baltics and Eastern Europe.

The problem for the United States and our NATO allies is that our president does not care about Europe. It’s not on his radar.

He’s much more concerned about allowing the Muslim caliphate to flourish in the Middle East. Hence the snubbing of the NATO ambassador recently in Washington. We are in dangerous times indeed.  

Photo credit: Mykhaylo Palinchak / Shutterstock.com

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom