Syria: a vote of no-confidence in the President
by Jon Rappoport
September 7, 2013
As members of Congress reveal that calls to their offices are overwhelmingly against the war, and the House considers it may not vote at all, in order to spare Obama embarrassment, we can see a version of what refusing to vote for a president on election day looks like.
It looks like: no-confidence.
Every four years, I write about this possibility. Suppose only 19% of eligible voters showed up at the polls. It would speak loudly: The American people no longer trust the major candidates. They no longer trust the charade. They no longer trust the vote-count. They know both major candidates work for the same Globalist machine.
No-confidence.
Well, here it is. On the issue of the war.
I'm not saying the Congress will reject war. They may go ahead and drive the steamroller over the people. But it's getting a little hairy for them.
And remember this. The media play any significant presidential victory as a signal that all his programs and plans are getting a boost. But on the flip side, that means a significant failure, in full view of the country, will register---despite the hype and explanations---as a weakening of his overall standing.
Washington DC registers such shifts in power like starving dogs smelling bloody meat. They attack.
War is supposed to be such a big deal that it's a foregone conclusion, if the President wants it. He either sends the planes on his own, or Congress rubber stamps his position first. But this time, it's different.
This time it's: do we believe the President and his "evidence" and his claim that he's taking the moral high ground; or don't we. The question is in plain sight. It's out there for all to see.
The push to war is such an obvious fabrication, only a complete fool or a dyed-in-the-wool Obama believer would opt for attacking Syria. The hypnotic Obama bubble is bursting, even for many of the faith.
In my last article on Syria, I pointed out that the super-secret Congressional intell briefing was a sham. It was all generality and no hard evidence. It was basically arm twisting.
So what's left? Nothing. "Do what the President wants you to do."
If Congress says yes, they'll go down deeper into the dumper with Obama. These barnacles on the body politic can do one thing: assess self-interest and electability. They're thinking about it.
They're in the pressure cooker.
Taking a step back...do you think Obama woke up one day and said, "Hold on here. Assad just used chemical weapons on his own people. I have to take action. I have to punish him."
Of course not. This idea came from somewhere else. It's been on the table for years, as part of a Middle East strategy to destabilize the whole region. It's, on one level, a Mossad-CIA plan, with a Saudi twist. On a higher level, it's a Globalist operation, whose end game is order from chaos.
Partition nations into warring ethnic enclaves, disrupt the oil flow, create, therefore, planet-wide depression, and come in behind that to install new fascist dictator-puppets, bringing in international banksters to "re-finance" the whole region and own it from the ground up.
Obama is just another renter in the White House, playing the cards he was dealt. He goes along with the show, introducing his own prejudices, like any other President, and takes what he can get.
He's no magic man, and now his juice is running out.
A no-confidence vote against war on Syria could, however, expand to mean no-confidence in any White House occupant from the two major parties.
Waking up is hard to do, but if the American people keep their eyes open, they'll see that this Syria escapade is just one more example of an agenda that betrays any sane person's idea of what America is supposed to be.
The only kind of transcendent President, in these times, would be one who, after a year or so in office, would hold a press conference and say, "I've learned I'm being run. Men are controlling the office of President. I'm supposed to take their orders. Here is what I know about them. Here are their names. Here is what they told me. Here is how they're trying to coerce me. This is the story, the real story about what has happened to this country..."
To which people might say, "How could a President do that? They'd kill him."
Exactly. That's why I used the word "transcendent."
Every American President sends soldiers to their deaths, and he kills people in distant countries. To be "transcendent" is to put his own life on the line, too.
That should give you some idea about why no-votes signaling no confidence in Presidents are vital. None of them will go as far as necessary to blow the cover on who really runs this nation.
Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com