Like Clinton, Warren is a fixture of the war party and the elite.
The global elite are adept at fixing elections.
It is of paramount importance the game of political musical chairs held every four years be limited to vetted and trusted insiders, as noted back in the day by Carroll Quigley.
This was obvious when the Republican side of the one party system attempted to exclude Ron Paul from the sham election process, an effort spearheaded by the “fair and balanced” corporate media.
The ruling elite rely on Lincoln’s proverb as they jostle to maintain uninterrupted rule: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.”
Thus Obama, who was sold as a savior and ultimately turned out to be little more than an able teleprompter reader. According to a recent new poll from Quinnipiac University, Obama is considered the worst president since World War 2.
Hillary Clinton Becomes a Liability
For months now the corporate media has lectured us about the leadership qualities of Hillary Clinton. It is widely assumed she will be selected to inherit Obama’s tarnished mantle. Recently, however, there has been murmurings about Madame Clinton’s health and age and her ability to serve (or, at least, read a teleprompter).
Despite Clinton’s issues and the possibility she will prove to be an inappropriate choice, the neocons have increasingly touted her as the sort of warmonger they would like to see representing American foreign policy after the 2016 election.
Fooling the Democrat Base with Populist Elizabeth Warren
On Sunday Edward Klein, writing for the New York Post, said Obama will throw his weight behind Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a move he characterizes as a “stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton.”
If Democrats are going to maintain their grasp on the White House, it will be necessary to once again bamboozle the lefties in the party like they did in 2008 when Obama was portrayed as a savior and a slayer of evil corporate and bankster influences in Washington.
The “first black president” mumbo-jumbo wore off pretty quickly after Obama betrayed his leftish promises and continued the Wall Street agenda and stepped up the war on terror. He was, Democrats soon discovered to their dismay, nearly indistinguishable from his Republican predecessor, the reviled George W. Bush.
“Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives,” Klein writes. “She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.”
Warren: Globalist Tool with Progressive Cred
Although an effort has been made to keep Elizabeth Warren’s contributor list squeaky clean, the second largest contributor to her Senate campaign sets off alarm bells – the highly Democrat partisan and George Soros funded MoveOn.org.
During the reign of Bush the Democrat “netroots” organization called for an end to the occupation of Iraq but soon betrayed the antiwar movement by supporting legislation introduced by then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who was determined to continue the illegal occupation and support the foreign policy objectives of the global elite.
“I’m not even all that sure MoveOn opposes the Iraq war,” Joshua Frank wrote for Dissident Voice in 2006. “Sure they rallied opposition during the lead up to the invasion a few years back, but since then they’ve done little if anything that should garner the respect of the antiwar movement. Despite Kerry’s grotesque position on the Iraq war in 2004, MoveOn implored their members to donate cash to his campaign, but said nary a word about his pro-war posturing.”
John Kerry has dutifully followed in the foot steps of his predecessor. “He’s become the biggest cheerleader for war against Syria in the entire administration,” writes Matthew Rothschild for The Progressive. “Once more, a majority of the American public doesn’t want war. And once more, the political class is intent on dragging us into it.”
Democrat Party is the War Party
Democrats, like their supposed opponents in the Republican party, are imbued with blood and gore.
“Historically, the Democratic Party has been the party of war in the United States, having actively maneuvered to involve the U.S. in the First World War, Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam in spite of considerable popular support for isolationism or nonintervention, particularly among Republicans,” writes Philip Giraldi, a former CIA military intelligence officer. “That continues to be the case in spite of the White House’s unfortunate adoption of the neoconservative formula for world domination, which is derived from the neocons’ Trotskyite and Straussian roots rather than from any genuine, conservative Republican tradition.”
The New Republic, an establishment Democrat centerpiece, is selling Elizabeth Warren as Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare. Liberals praise to the heavens Warren’s anti-Wall Street and populist cred while ignoring her stance on war and dogged maintenance of the national security state.
“We need to continue our aggressive efforts against Al Qaeda, and we need to continue to support the efforts of our intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, and military professionals,” Warren states on the foreign policy section of her Senate campaign web page.
She touts the neocon line on Iran, insisting it represents a mortal danger to the United States and continues, despite facts to the contrary, a pursuit of nuclear weapons.
“The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama’s views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren,” warns liberal Max Blumenthal. “With AIPAC leading the push for war at the height of an election campaign, there is no better time to demand accountability from candidates like Warren. Who does she serve? The liberal grassroots forces that made her into a populist hero or the lobby seeking to drag the US into a dubious, potentially catastrophic war? It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over than after the next war begins.”
Will Get Fooled Again
Democrats will once again rush under the big establishment tent if Warren is selected. And once again they will be betrayed.
Elizabeth Warren is, like Hillary Clinton, a fixture of the war party and the elite. The difference is Warren’s emphasis on social and economic issues – issues invariably addressed with socialist palliatives that rarely result in substantive change – while she supports the forever war on terror and “humanitarian” interventions of conquest and domination run by the banksters and elitists she claims to oppose.
By Kurt Nimmo, Infowars