The Delusional World Of Imperial Washington

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Michael Klare via,

Think of this as a little imperial folly update -- and here's the backstory. 


In the years after invading Iraq and disbanding Saddam Hussein’s military, the U.S. sunk about $25 billion into “standing up” a new Iraqi army.  By June 2014, however, that army, filled with at least 50,000 “ghost soldiers,” was only standing in the imaginations of its generals and perhaps Washington.  When relatively small numbers of Islamic State (IS) militants swept into northern Iraq, it collapsed, abandoning four cities -- including Mosul, the country’s second largest -- and leaving behind enormous stores of U.S. weaponry, ranging from tanks and Humvees to artillery and rifles.  In essence, the U.S. was now standing up its future enemy in a style to which it was unaccustomed and, unlike the imploded Iraqi military, the forces of the Islamic State proved quite capable of using that weaponry without a foreign trainer or adviser in sight.


In response, the Obama administration dispatched thousands of new advisers and trainers and began shipping in piles of new weaponry to re-equip the Iraqi army.  It also filled Iraqi skies with U.S. planes armed with their own munitions to destroy, among other things, some of that captured U.S. weaponry.  Then it set to work standing up a smaller version of the Iraqi army.  Now, skip nearly a year ahead and on a somewhat lesser scale the whole process has just happened again.  Less than two weeks ago, Islamic State militants took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province.  Iraqi army units, including the elite American-trained Golden Division, broke and fled, leaving behind -- you’ll undoubtedly be shocked to hear -- yet another huge cache of weaponry and equipment, including tanks, more than 100 Humvees and other vehicles, artillery, and so on.


The Obama administration reacted in a thoroughly novel way: it immediately began shipping in new stocks of weaponry, starting with 1,000 antitank weapons, so that the reconstituted Iraqi military could take out future “massive suicide vehicle bombs” (some of which, assumedly, will be those captured vehicles from Ramadi).  Meanwhile, American planes began roaming the skies over that city, trying to destroy some of the equipment IS militants had captured.


Notice anything repetitive in all this -- other than another a bonanza for U.S. weapons makers?  Logically, it would prove less expensive for the Obama administration to simply arm the Islamic State directly before sending in the air strikes.  In any case, what a microcosm of U.S. imperial hubris and folly in the twenty-first century all this training and equipping of the Iraqi military has proved to be.  Start with the post-invasion decision of the Bush administration to totally disband Saddam’s army and instantly eject hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sunni military men and a full officer corps into the chaos of the “new” Iraq and you have an instant formula for creating a Sunni resistance movement.  Then, add in a little extra “training” at Camp Bucca, a U.S. military prison in Iraq, for key unemployed officers, and -- Voilà! -- you’ve helped set up the petri dish in which the leadership of the Islamic State movement will grow.  Multiply such stunning tactical finesse many times over globally and, as TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes clear today, you have what might be called the folly of the “sole superpower” writ large.


Delusionary Thinking in Washington

The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower

Take a look around the world and it’s hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington’s dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?

This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, “We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here,’ no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe.”

Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington

Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington’s power brokers assumed that there would always be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance.  In the wake of the utterly unexpected Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a “sole superpower” (aka Rome on the Potomac). In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it declared: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”

H.W.’s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he told military cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be “to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity -- given few nations in history -- to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future. A chance to project America’s peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years.”

For Bush, of course, “extending the peace” would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after it began, he did not doubt -- nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight) does he today -- that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted status as the world’s sole superpower.

The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed “imperial overstretch.” As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which “the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country’s power to defend all of them simultaneously.”

Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What’s curious, however, is just how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the planet’s first “hyperpower,” a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.’s miscalculation in Iraq and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying, in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas -- among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the South China Sea -- but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.

Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington’s power elite -- Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule -- seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country’s strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision. “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” he told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. “That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come.”

How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment to global supremacy?

The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire circus act.  It involves the constant juggling of America’s capabilities and commitments, with its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration.  Call it the Obama Doctrine.

After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers decided to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in the western Pacific.  Announcing this shift in 2011 -- it would first be called a “pivot to Asia” and then a “rebalancing” there -- the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.

“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region,” he told members of the Australian Parliament that November.  “As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.  As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense of the Asia Pacific.”

Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained army there collapsed with the loss of four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting -- this time sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country, putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict there.

Meanwhile, Republican critics of the president, who claim he’s doing too little in a losing effort in Iraq (and Syria), have also taken him to task for not doing enough to implement the pivot to Asia. In reality, as his juggling act that satisfies no one continues in Iraq and the Pacific, he’s had a hard time finding the wherewithal to effectively confront Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the various militias fighting for power in fragmenting Libya, and so on.

The Party of Utter Denialism

Clearly, in the face of multiplying threats, juggling has not proven to be a viable strategy.  Sooner or later, the “balls” will simply go flying and the whole system will threaten to fall apart. But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.

For those who adhere to this outlook, it’s not America’s global stature that’s eroding, but its will -- that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you’re prepared to back up your threats with actual force, or “hard power,” as some like to call it.

Among the most vocal of those touting this line is Senator John McCain, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. “For five years, Americans have been told that ‘the tide of war is receding,’ that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values,” he typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Times op-ed. “This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative.” The only way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is “to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader.” This means, among other things, arming the Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe, combating “the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses,” and playing a “more robust” role (think: more “boots” on more ground) in the war against ISIS.

Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. “When aggressive rulers or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us,” he declared last November, “what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility, and global reach of American hard power.”

A similar approach -- in some cases even more bellicose -- is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the race for president, Rand Paul again excepted. At a recent “Freedom Summit” in the early primary state of South Carolina, the various contenders sought to out-hard-power each other. Florida Senator Marco Rubio was loudly cheered for promising to make the U.S. “the strongest military power in the world.” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker received a standing ovation for pledging to further escalate the war on international terrorists: “I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us.” 

In this overheated environment, the 2016 presidential campaign is certain to be dominated by calls for increased military spending, a tougher stance toward Moscow and Beijing, and an expanded military presence in the Middle East. Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions. In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office in January 2017 will be expected to wield a far bigger stick on a significantly less stable planet. As a result, despite the last decade and a half of interventionary disasters, we’re likely to see an even more interventionist foreign policy with an even greater impulse to use military force.

However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional thinking. China is far more powerful than it was 13 years ago, Russia has largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has replaced the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.

Time to Stop Pretending

Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of this predicament?

Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it’s not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie of other major powers -- none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power, Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers -- Russia, China, and Iran among them -- and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous regional firestorms. 

If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this country’s “war capital,” this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global superpower status and, “rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis… should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion.” Layne and others have spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge to garrison the planet, reduced military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.

But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it’s already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wendigo's picture
wendigo (not verified) Jun 1, 2015 9:39 PM

I suppose we can dismantle the empire peacefully, or risk someone else doing so violently. 

Uchtdorf's picture

After the earthquakes, flooding and plagues humble America next year, our superpower status will be lost permanently. But that's OK because the next sovereignty the survivors build after eliminating the foreign troops will be much better.


Oh, and this year will be financially tough as the US$ loses world reserve currency status after September.

Anusocracy's picture

If the US economy collapses the psychopaths and their pretenses of glory will continue on, much as the leaders did in the wracked shell that the Soviet Union became.

Like psychopathic chickenhawks running around with their heads cut off.

Keyser's picture

It's not just the GOP neocons that think the US is the global arbiter of what is right and wrong... Just look at the last 6 years... The neolibs are far more idealistic than the neocons ever were... 

Gobbler's picture
Gobbler (not verified) Keyser Jun 2, 2015 1:02 AM

I don't think the sky is falling just yet.  All these problems can be fixed.  It won't be easy, but this isn't nuclear war.  We've broken up banks before in our countries history.  We will eventually do it again. 

StackShinyStuff's picture

Max Landsberger: Since the 1984 oil discovery in New Guinea, we have sold the Bu!kais hill tribesmen 20 of our S-24 fighters. At $21 million per unit, that's $252 million. This has started a local arms race between the Bu!kais, and their local neighbors the Kla!klalas. Now the Kla!klalas also happen to be sitting an a large amount of oil. And now the Kla!klalas want to buy 20 of our new Slash X-Ray Ultra Pursuit fighters for a total of $480 million.

Pete Helmes: What are the chances of war between them?

Bob Nixon: Very good sir. Our spare parts replacement contracts could be very lucrative.

Pete Helmes: Who trains their flight personnel?

Max Landsberger: Well, as near as we can assess it... well, they don't actually fly the planes. They sort of roll them down hills, crashing them into each other.

Scott Dantley: Personally, I think that it's a shameful waste of incredible kill power.

Pete Helmes: Make the deal.

Bob Nixon, Scott Dantley: Absolutely.


Head Office - 1985

MonetaryApostate's picture

I don't think the other races are amused with the "White man's ways", nope, not at all, and so....




samsara's picture

One of the GREATEST non-watched movies of all time.

I know every line...


Farqued Up's picture

Except, FSA oligarchs are stealing everything BEFORE the collapse.

trulz4lulz's picture

After reading through the article and PDF files of the Soros Ukrainian emails, my money is on violence. I'm not sure why the shooting hasn't started yet. Well with big boy guns anyway.

Jim in MN's picture

Funny how everyone studies capital investment, no one studies scrappage.

Scrap it.


daveO's picture

The markets will deconstruct it, eventually.

BHO said, “ will be true for the century to come.” He's completely clueless, of course. Since he was installed in the White House, US debt has doubled. If this were to continue for the next century, it'd reach $2.3 Quadrillion, 128 X's higher than today. How long can debt increase at 12% per year while growth is flat lining and demographics are aging? A helluva lot less than a century, that's for sure.

zhandax's picture

It was proven in 2008 and confirmed in 2012.  There aren't enough grown-ups left to resolve this rationally.  Let the fucker collapse (not that you could stop it).

doctor10's picture

The delusions run deep and wide in DC-and are not just based in their own overestimation of their reach militarily.

In fact their empire ambition and military arrogance proceeds from far deeper and more tragic character flaws-principally that with which the Ancient Greeks were pre-occupied -"hubris"

The consequence of the current "minds" in federal government believing themselves more "enlightened" than the Founding Fathers, has been to run the ship of state hard upon the rocks domestically and abroad.

We have a transgenerational mess born in their arrogance, presumptiousness and ignorance, on our hands

Fun Facts's picture

The ignorant, stupid eminently blackmailable politico puppets in DC live in the zio media msm echo chamber. Their ivory tower reality is a sham.

They probably have no real idea that they have completely destroyed the USA as we once knew it for the exclusive benefit of the ZWO oligarchs who now effectively rule over a serfdom.

WTFUD's picture

The Delusion never recedes ; see UK.

reader2010's picture

The super rich can't and won't live without the Empire, financially. We are truly fucked.  

heisenberg991's picture

I would love to be a military contractor $$$$$$$$$$$$

OldPhart's picture

My son is hiring, can you work hard labor 20 hours a day, seven days a week, for six months at a time, while random gunshots come your way?

ILLILLILLI's picture

Why is the job only part-time?

OldPhart's picture

I don't think so.  He's been there thirteen years.  I'm at the point where I'm going to have to break one of his legs when he comes home next week to get him to stop going back.

zhandax's picture

I would love to hear the options available for when that happens...

Usurious's picture
Usurious (not verified) Jun 1, 2015 9:47 PM

''As the Bretton Woods Project points out, emerging nations with large real economies and small financial sectors were the countries which best weathered the economic crisis, which was caused by advanced economies with large financial sectors(9). Like the modern opium war it waged in the 1980s and 1990s – when it forced Asian countries to liberalise their currencies, permitting western financial speculators to attack them(10) – the IMF’s prescriptions are incomprehensible until they are understood as instruments of financial power.

Decolonisation did not take place until the former colonial powers and the empires of capital on whose behalf they operated had established other means of retaining control. Some, like the IMF and World Bank, have remained almost unchanged. Others, like the programme of extraordinary rendition, evolved in response to new challenges to global hegemony.''

Usurious's picture
Usurious (not verified) Usurious Jun 1, 2015 9:57 PM


the tribe ran the british empire and also runs the american empire....via DEBT-MONEY the petro dollar and the reserve currency............

''The bid for power, oil and spheres of influence that Bush and Blair launched in Mesopotamia, using the traditional camouflage of the civilising mission; the colonial war still being fought in Afghanistan, 199 years after the Great Game began; the global policing functions the great powers have arrogated to themselves; the one-sided justice dispensed by international law: all these suggest that imperialism never ended, but merely mutated into new forms. The virtual empire knows no boundaries. Until we begin to recognise and confront it, all of us, black and white, will remain its subjects.''

daveO's picture

Afghanistan was/is about narcotics. Then, there were the Chinese opium wars. That's where the big bucks are.

Cityzerosix's picture

After the last crusader Field Marshal Edmund,'The Beast' Allenby drove the Turks from Jerusalem in 1917 the entire Ottoman Empire which had been in existence since the 14th century collapsed. Britain, France and their proxies carved up the vast region into so-called protectorates but rebellion was instantaneous. The Turks fought the invaders from 1919-23 and liberated that part of the old Sultanate.An alliance with fanatical Sunni Wahhabists and the House of Saud in the deserts had already taken place and was to become extremely useful to the foreign empires. The Trojan Horse of the State of Israel would also help to ensure that no Muslim hegemony would ever again rise in the Middle East.

q99x2's picture

I have a solution. Expose the documentation that Saudi Arabia took down the WTC and then move in and make Saudi Arabia the 51st state. Done deal. Accomplishes everything all at once sort of.

Wahooo's picture

And then frack that bitch until it crumbles under the quakes.

Achilles Heel's picture
Achilles Heel (not verified) Jun 1, 2015 9:49 PM

Washington DC = the following


The 3 stars = the three nodes of POWER (all controlled by jews)


LONDON (finance)

VATICAN CITY (religious)

WASH DC (military)


This goes back to ancient Egypt (whereby the 'DICK' symbol obelisks from Egypt are in Vatican Square, London, & a replica was constructed in WDC as the Washington Monument)...


There are a lot of complicated ideas that go into this... BUT THE BASIC IDEA IS...


REJECT ALL OF THESE... (or be content as a sheep)...







Cityzerosix's picture

1st Council of Nicaea 325 a.d. This set in motion the construction of an Empire unlike anything that had gone before.

TeethVillage88s's picture

Following the thread here from Achilles Heel and yourself.

I was just going to ask who gets to vote on if Washington Gives up it's military Superpower Status over the world or gives up policing the world, or gives up protecting the trade routes and Oil shipments?

Not US voters.

Maybe Vatican & London. But maybe Saudi Arabia gets to vote with Israel, NATO, Germany, France & Switzerland home of the BIS and other big bankers. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg?

But maybe the big voters are in the MIC & Wall Street & K Street.

Cityzerosix's picture

The Old Money shall never surrender.

TeethVillage88s's picture

I guess if we have Treaties to support Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, NATO, Germany, France, EU, Poland, Czech Republic, United Kingdom...

We really can't stop the Wars.

We can't stop the Superpower Military Status.

The Official or unofficial US Government will continue on the Trajectory of War and Global Chaos.

There is No Vote on it.

Real Estate Geek's picture

How far back does that go though?  The flag's three stars & two bars are straight off of Washington's coat of arms.  (It's even on the Purple Heart medal.) 


ebworthen's picture

Having lived inside the Beltway for 15 years I can tell you it is the biggest dome of delusion in the nation, besides perhaps, Wall Street.

Those people will not get it, nor understand, nor try to - until the barbarians are at the gates or the nuclear bomb flash blinds them.

OldPhart's picture

To hell with flash blinding them...I prefer to see ashes.

Axtrax's picture

Instead of reaming the Iraqi army maybe we should air drop everything but anti-air weaponry in the middle of the desert and see who shows up and turn them into pink mist with air sorties.  Honey pot any one?

trulz4lulz's picture

Because if Murikistan wanted to do that, they would have.

Ginsengbull's picture

Just drop grenades that go off as soon as the pin is pulled.

Alananda's picture

And no mention of Israel.  Why worry ourselves about "cause and effect"?  The result of the End Game all that maters to a dreadful few.

Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_'s picture

"pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower"


It takes military might to be THE super power. The US still (just barely) has military might. The other factor required is a favorable perception. What the world currently perceves, is a USA run by prissy idiots. Can't be a super power with the likes of Obama at the helm. How about crusty old Ronald Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket)? He can speak in public without a teleprompter and with the right advisors (every prez has them) he could kick ass. Not talking about war. Just standing up for America - no more bowing!  I know, no chance. Just dreaming. 


Imperialism? Why not? Better than being an 'also ran'.

lasvegaspersona's picture

'certain Republican' if !Hillary is a dove...she seems to have the blood lust even some of the Rs don't have.

Intelligence_Insulter's picture

9/11 was an inside job.

Skateboarder's picture

Conspiracy theorist! Now your name is smeared and your credibility is lost. You are hereforth shunned from intelligent, patriotic society

Arthur Schopenhauer's picture

Delusionary thinking in Washington, my ass. The delusionary thinkers are the goofy phookers who decieve themselves into thinking the delusionary thinkers are in Washington.

We the people, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, fail realize that the corporation operates under the issuance of decrees in all its conceivable legal forms and that the Constitution... it is merely a referential document, since it was abolished by the Act of 1871.

Moreover, the United States in legal terms... is at all times, in a State of War, thus the Sovereign can legally implement all necessary measures to quell any potential social unrest scenario (Insurrection: 50 USC §§ 201-226).

Yeah... 50 USC §§ 201-226 is a LOT to swallow. Maybe you ought to curl up while you're on vacation for about a week and let THAT shit sink in. You'll realize how DELUDED those guys in Washington are? Yeah. Right! They have codified into law every which way you can turn and you aren't going to get away from their asses any which way you turn.

Yeah... right. They are deluded? You keep telling yourself that while you are just simply... fucked.

The lawful stockholders of this corporation called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Buckingham Palace and St. Peter's Basilica) won't hesitate to get rid of the nonprofitable stocks (specifically dissenters) since US citizens are just financial instruments.

Admiralty Law prevails over Common Law, and stays in accordance with the stipulations clearly defined in Vatican's Canon Law: the historical document called the Constitution clearly observes this legal doctrine, as seen in Article I, Section 2, third paragraph (first sentence) - the Three Fifths Compromise:"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

TeethVillage88s's picture

I Guess if we became the corporation known as the United States of America with Private Stockholders... that would explain why we are moving toward TPP and bigger Trade Treaties in order to form a corporation known as The World Government with more private stockholders.

The only question is how much stock China and the BRIICS Bankers will be able to get.

- Other than the Morality and Ethics of turning a Government into a corporation with Debt-holders and Stockholders.
_ and that People become Profit Centers, Accounts, which pay taxes, take on Credit & Debt, and Pay corporations interest & fees

robertocarlos's picture

The more you understand the less likely you are to resist because you know those fuckers will kill you.