NBC Report Confirms Bankers Fund Drug Cartels and Terror Groups

Yes the Sheeple are to believe differently but that is why they get slaughtered. The largest mega banks are profiting off of the drug trade, or even the activity of terror groups? A little-known NBC report from 2012 actually confirms it.

In fact, one 2012 NBC report details how HSBC bank helped to finance everything from Mexican drug cartels to Syrian terror cells. Thanks to a United States Senate report, which centers around the role of Mexican drug cartel funds travelling through HSBC, NBC and a few other outlets actually covered the breaking news — albeit to a small degree.

banks drug cartelsAnd it’s this report that reveals how the United States branch of HSBC directly aided backers of Al-Qaeda and Mexican drug cartels through both finances and overall banking services. From terror-linked groups out of Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh, HSBC was tied up with numerous terror groups and financially empowering them for quite some time.

For around a decade or more, in fact.

Yet HSBC has managed to get away without much of a hitch. Even the 2012 Senate Report we’re discussing was simply a ‘probe’ that documents the events themselves. Even the major United States bank regulatory group the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was deemed to have improperly looked into the situation — instead turning a blind eye to the entire operation. The investigative group at the Senate even reports on how the very culture of HSBC has been ‘polluted’ during the lengthy time period of terror and drug funding:

“The culture at HSBC was pervasively polluted for a long time,” said Senator Carl Levin.

 MULTIPLE MEGA BANKS CAUGHT FUNDING DRUG CARTELS, TERROR GROUPS

But HSBC isn’t the only bank associated with the Mexican drug trade or the financial support of known terror groups. While HSBC was funding Iran and Mexican drug cartels according to the report, Wachovia was also getting in on the Mexican drug trade financial game. It was actually back in 2010 when Wachovia forfeited $160 million (chump change to them) in order to settle a Justice Department probe into their financial support of Mexican drug cartels. This was all broken down by the Guardian in an article entitled “How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs.”

ING also decided to get in on the action, however, and ultimately settled a bit higher at $619 million after violating US sanctions against Iran and Cuba in shadowy financial trades.

So what is to be done to these banks at the end of the day? Are executives being jailed, companies being dissolved, and funds being withdrawn from Mexican drug cartels and terror groups? Well, no. Instead,taxpayers are helping to fund the megabanks with $83 billion per year – far more than any minor settlements paid out by the banks.

A Brief and Bloody History of Gun Control

You or someone you know may see guns as deadly killing machines that are simply to blame for a large volume of homicides across the nation, but a brief look at the history of gun control actually offers a new perspective into the application of guns on an entirely new level. While normalcy bias (a thinking pattern that causes an individual to underestimate the potential of any event or situation due to currently enjoying a normal and cushy lifestyle) can oftentimes lead individuals away from the reality of history, countless citizens around the world have been highlighting the repetitive history that follows gun control.

In this breakdown, we will be examining a lot of numbers and extracting them to get some real answers. Then, we’ll see the source of these numbers and whether or not gun control regulations are reducing or increasing overall crime rates in heavily controlled areas.

The first thing to touch upon, and perhaps most relevant to our modern society, is how deadly firearms really are. First of all, let us examine the factors that are responsible for deaths within the United States. This will put death counts into perspective and allow us to go deeper into the firearm-related deaths themselves later. Examining data from the CDC for the leading causes of death and including death statistics from the FBI regarding homicides, we find the following numbers:

LEADING US KILLERS

  • Annual deaths from heart disease based on CDC data: 597,689
  • Cancer deaths from CDC data: 574,743
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases (CDC): 138,080
  • Stroke deaths (CDC): 129,476
  • Deaths from accidents, unintentional injuries (CDC): 120,859
  • Alzheimer’s disease deaths per year (CDC): 83,494
  • Diabetes (CDC): 69,071
  • Influenza deaths each year (CDC): 50,097
  • Suicide deaths (CDC): 38,364
  • Overall weapons deaths (2009 FBI): 13,636
  • Overall firearm deaths (2009 FBI): 9,146

So there we have the overall death data that comes compiled from the CDC website mixed with the FBI website table that goes as far as 2009. As you can see, the overall firearm deaths are 9,000 per year. If you’ve been following some of the mainstream media rhetoric surrounding guns, you might have thought the number would be at least over 100,000 — perhaps even higher than diabetes or suicide. The reality is that it is quite low overall, despite what you may have been told. But it’s still 9,146, so let’s now break down this figure to get the specific factors.

Of the 9,146 firearm deaths:

  • 6,452 were from hanguns
  • 348 from rifles
  • 418 from shotguns
  • 94 from other guns
  • 1,834 from unknown guns

This is where the numbers cut through even more false information sent forth by the mainstream media. Rifles have been demonized as powerful tools of homicide that are to blame for a large number of yearly deaths, but as it turns out only 348 per year are actually killed using rifles. Now of that number we must ask “how many are using legal weapons and non-gang related?” And furthermore, how many of these murders occur in ‘gun free’ cities? We’ll get to what we know on that shortly.

First, I want to utilize some further statistics from the overall weapons deaths provided by the FBI for 2009. The number, which totals 13,636, also breaks down into several components that will likely be highly shocking when compared to the broken down gun data. Especially when considering that the apparent ‘epidemic’ levels of rifle deaths actually don’t even compare to stabbings, blunt objects like hammers, or even bare hands and feet.

Gun Control Ban

Michigan Gun Shop Sponsorship of Little League Team Causes Uproar Among Parents

Todd Bruning, the owner of a local gun shop, Todd’s Guns, wanted to sponsor a little league team that both of his children play on.

The league is non profit and relies heavily on money from sponsorships to keep their teams outfitted.

However, once the jerseys arrived and had “Tom’s Guns” in small type underneath the much larger wording of “Cubs” on the front of the jersey, some parents were outraged.

According to GOPUSA.com,

Coach Barry Walters said he wouldn’t let his son wear the jersey. He disagrees with gun shop advertising with a kids’ team, especially after the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut that left dozens dead at the elementary school.

“Don’t use my kid as a billboard to promote guns,” he said.

Other parents thought the shirt was inappropriate. Carri Dively wasn’t at practice when the jerseys were distributed, but said she’s glad other parents have raised their concerns. Tom Rogroff said it would be different if the children were older; in adult leagues, players could have had a say in who sponsored the team.

The league says it doesn’t discriminate against sponsors as it badly needs to the money in order to allow children to play baseball.

However, the league is offering an option for parents who are upset:

League officials told parents they will pay to cover up “Todd’s Guns” if they object, and Mr. Bruning said he’s fine with that.

“I have no problem with it whatsoever,” he said. “If the parents don’t want guns on their shirt, just give them another shirt.”

Cubs parents said they were OK with the compromise too. The team’s season starts today.

Isn’t it a little hypocritical for people to gladly take this business owner’s money to help their kids play sports, but then complain when he does what every other little league advertiser does and puts his business name on their jerseys?

Feel free to go drop a line on Todd’s Guns Facebook page here:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/TODDS-GUNS/146189718787210

Read the Full Story Here

Biotech Giant Monsanto Announces Expansion at Saint Louis HQ; Congressional Members Propose Federal GMO Labeling Laws

Showing no signs of slowing down, Monsanto announced expansion of its Chesterfield Village Research Center in St. Louis by 400,000 square feet. On the same day, April 24th, a bipartisan bill was introduced to Congress requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. It seems nothing can stop the power of the biotech industry to overtake the nation’s food supply, but average citizens are demonstrating in growing numbers their dissatisfaction with GMO foods. It is urgent that consumers change their purchasing habits and stop buying the worst offenders of genetically altered foods, while also lobbying their congressional leaders.

Monsanto continues expansion of GMO foods in the US

The biotech giant will spend more than $400 million to devote to research focused on expanding new genetically modified crops. Monsanto announced earlier in the month that it expects to sell a record amount of GMO corn this year. The company expects to add 675 jobs to the company in the next three years.

Americans demand GMO labeling of their foods

In growing numbers American consumers are demanding to know what is in their food. While the first state ballot mandating GMO labeling narrowly failed to pass in CA, to date 37 new GE labeling bills have been introduced in 21 states.

Every US citizen has the power through their purchasing habits to damage the biotech industry

Each time consumers shop for food they have the ability to vote for or against GMO foods. Consumers hold more power than they realize in their buying habits. If shoppers in this country stopped buying genetically modified foods, the food market would be dramatically impacted. The biotech industry would be damaged.

The corn, soy and canola industry has been taken over by genetically modified crops, so it is important to avoid these products, unless they are certified organic. They are often hidden in many processed foods in the forms of high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soy lecithin. It is recommended to buy only certified organic corn or corn from local farmers who only use non GMO crops. Reading labels can be challenging, but the non-GMO shopping guide can be downloaded at no cost from the Institute for Responsible Technology: http://action.responsibletechnology.org

Biotech companies are threatened by the GMO labeling laws and understand their potential impact on consumer behavior

Biotech companies recognize that if more Americans realize that they are purchasing GMO foods, they may stop purchasing them. This change in consumer behavior could significantly damage the expansion of their companies. For this reason, Monsanto and the other biotech leaders invested millions to defeat the CA state ballot to label GMO foods.

Conclusion and resources

The battle to fight GMO foods in this country will be a challenge with the biotech companies’ expansive budgets and powers. As American consumers increase awareness about the dangers of GOM foods, there is a growing demand for GMO labels. By committing to make even one change in purchasing behavior, each individual can impact this important issue of food safety for Americans. Contacting legislators is also essential to save this countries’ food supply from damaging GMO’s.

To contact local legislators to register support for the Federal Labeling bill see: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com For more information on the dangers of genetically modified foods view: http://responsibletechnology.org/health-risks and http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/140.pdf

Sources for this article include:

http://monsantoblog.com

http://www.reuters.com

http://action.responsibletechnology.org

http://responsibletechnology.org/health-risks

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com

http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/140.pdf

White House Correspondents’ Dinner: Celebrities on Getting Rid of Guns

Tracy Morgan: “I mean, if we could get guns under control, if we could get rid of them, I’m with all of that.”

Hollywood actor Tracy Morgan told PJ Media that he wants President Obama and Congress to “get rid of guns.”

Actress Kate Walsh and Actor Tim Daly told PJ Media that more gun control will not take away anyone’s constitutional rights.

The celebrities made their comments over the White House Correspondents’ Dinner weekend in Washington.

Morgan was asked if he is disappointed that Obama’s gun-control initiatives have not been passed by Congress.

“I mean, if we could get guns under control, if we could get rid of them, I’m with all of that. I’ve had a lot of friends that have died violently from guns. Of course. I hope that wasn’t a booby trap question,” Morgan said at a Creative Coalition event launching White House Correspondents’ Dinner weekend.

“Of course I want to get rid of guns. My father fought in the Vietnam War and he forbid us to have guns when he came home when we were little, so yes.”

Los Angeles County Now Giving Uninsured Residents ‘Free’ Vaccines

A media-induced panic has apparently set in across Los Angeles following the recent death of a West Hollywood lawyer due to bacterial meningitis. According to reports, both the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Los Angeles County are now busy jabbing as many local residents as possible for the condition, including low-income and uninsured residents who are among the primary targets for the “free” vaccine.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times (LAT) and others, 33-year-old Brett Shaad recently contracted bacterial meningitis after attending a “gathering of gay men in Palm Springs.” He died just a few days later, igniting a firestorm of concern that an outbreak of bacterial meningitis may be imminent. Officials in West Hollywood quickly demanded that Los Angeles County take direct action, and now thousands of local residents are lining up to get jabbed for bacterial meningitis.

Though not officially recognized as a “gay disease,” bacterial meningitis appears to be common throughout the gay community. According to San Jose Mercury News, Shaad is the second gay man to die from bacterial meningitis within the past five-or-so months, and during this same period at least 13 additional cases of the disease were reported, four of which were in gay men.

Even though there are only about 25 cases of bacterial meningitis among Los Angeles County’s roughly 10 million residents every year, the county caved to pressure from West Hollywood officials to begin distributing “free,” taxpayer-funded meningitis vaccines at clinics throughout the county. The vaccines are being specifically targeted at low-income and uninsured residents, according to reports, and many people have already taken the bait.

“You just don’t want to take that chance,” said Mark Chavez, a landscape architect and resident of West Hollywood, to LAT about his decision to get the vaccine following Shaad’s death. “Gay or straight, everyone should be aware of it,” he says.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation also reportedly distributed the bacterial meningitis vaccine for free to visitors who showed up at one of its facilities throughout the Los Angeles area on April 15. The organization is continuing to order more vaccines as people continue to request them, and plans to administer them as long as people want them.

Meningitis vaccine linked to causing Guillain-Barre syndrome, other neurological damage

But just like with most other mass vaccination campaigns, those submitting to meningitis shots throughout LA Country are likely not being informed about the serious side effects that could emerge as a result of being injected. The bacterial meningitis vaccine has been linked to causing Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) and various other forms of neurological damage.

“The immune system gets stirred up by something – an infection, an immunization, a surgical procedure or a traumatic injury,” says Dr. Robert Miller, a neurologist at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco and member of the international GBS Foundation’s advisory board, about the causes of GBS.

“When you can’t transmit an impulse, the muscle won’t react,” he adds, referencing the damage caused by the GBS immune response, which inflames and degrades the myelin sheaths surrounding nerves, leading to their eventual inability to transmit impulses. “It can cause paralysis and it can be permanent.”

Sources for this article include:

http://articles.latimes.com

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com

http://www.mercurynews.com

http://www.azcentral.com/health/kids/articles/1023meningitis-ON.html

Ron Paul – Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston

Forced lock down of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.

These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.

What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.

The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.

No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.

As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:

“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”

Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.

Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.

This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

Former Congressman Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.

Pediatricians To Push For Gun Control On Capitol Hill

According to TheHill.com, the American Academy of Pediatrics will lobby Congress for stricter background checks, a ban on so called “assault weapons”, and federal funding to research gun violence.

According to TheHill.com,

“Gun violence is a public health issue that profoundly affects children,” the AAP wrote in a policy memo.

“Firearm injuries are one of the top three causes of death among youth, and studies show that strong gun laws help significantly reduce injuries, suicides and homicides.”

What they don’t say is that the odds a child will be injured or killed by a gun are literally over 1 in 1,000,000.

According to the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 703 children under the age of 15 died in accidental firearms deaths between 2001 and 2010, the latest year for which the agency’s statistics on fatalities are available. During the same period, 7,766 children under the age of 14 suffered accidental firearms injuries — about one injury for every million children. Injuries (note, that is injuries, not deaths) occur at a rate of around 1 in 1,000,000.

I wonder how many laws we could put on the books if we wanted to ban everything that had a million to one chance of killing a child.

Cleaning solutions? Better ban everything except vinegar.

Swimming pools? Way deadlier than guns and one of the leading killers of toddlers.

What about the biggest killer of all? Automobiles account for a ridiculous number of deaths. Let’s just ban cars and invest in the public transportation system.

Read the Full Article Here

How Did Barack Obama become Monsanto’s Man in Washington?

Jon Rappoport

After his victory in the 2008 election, Obama filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade.

Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

He didn’t make that many key political appointments and allow that many new GMO crops to enter the food chain through a lack of oversight.

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Records don’t show Monsanto or other biotech giants pouring a landslide of (visible) campaign cash down on Obama, relative to other large donors.

Goldman Sachs was Obama’s number-one $$ donor, and Goldman touts GM-crop commodity contracts, for both buys and sells; but Goldman has its fingers in every significant money pot from Nome to Tierra Del Fuego.

The “Obama riddle” is as plain as the nose on the face of Globalism. Monsanto’s agenda, to monopolize the world’s food supply, is essential to the Globalist blueprint. That blueprint ultimately aims for redistribution of food to the world from a point of Central Planning

As president, Obama has a sworn obligation to Globalism. His oath isn’t to protect the Constitution. Are you kidding?

Every recent president has had an overriding loyalty to Globalism.

Obama’s signing of the Monsanto Protection Act, making that corporation senior in power to the US court system, wasn’t an accident. It was taken in keen awareness of his duty to his Globalist betters.

You won’t, of course, see this disclosed on the evening news.

Here is a president who, like Bush, has no plans for a better world. Obama’s notion of “better” is tied up in the Globalist agenda:

An elite-run bureaucracy, promoting equality and justice, reduces all populations to a lowest common denominator, squashing freedom and prosperity.

Obama’s supporters will never learn the truth, because they’re blinded by the light, which they project on to the persona of the president.

Obama is aware of the con, since he triggered it, and he leverages it.

He’s all nudge-and-wink. “Yes, we’ll help you and you and you. Of course we will.”

He might help you if you make a declaration of dependence. Sacrifice yourself on an altar of despair and then you might earn the right to be fed.

Obama, while on the campaign trail in 2008, was promising transparency in government, was claiming that every person has the right to know what’s in his food (GMO labeling). But clearly, that was all cover and fluff. He was lying through his teeth and he knew it. He’d been vetted for the presidency, and he knew the job entailed joining Monsanto and the larger Globalist agenda as a front man.

He hasn’t changed over the past four years. He’s been a covert agent since the beginning.

Imposter. Charlatan. These words fit Obama. He’s pretended, like Clinton, to care, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t care that GMO food is taking over the country and the world. He wants it to happen. He’s always wanted it to happen.

The sitting president of the United States, Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, among others, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to make GMO food dominate America.

They intend, through Monsanto-gene drift among millions of plants in ag fields, through increased planting of GMO crops, and through introduction of still more GMO crops, to wrap up the USA in genetically engineered food.

Obama is on board. He’s always been on board.

He is the GMO president.

If tomorrow, the Globalist Rockefellers of this world decided that all food grown in the US should be injected with Prozac, Obama would find a way to help.

Stop making excuses for the man. He’s not a victim of evil forces surrounding his presidency. He signed up for this trip with eyes wide open.

Sources:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

U.S. Moves Closer to Military Intervention in Syria

Exploiting the unsubstantiated rumor that Syria has used chemicals weapons, senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham went on the Sunday news shows to push for military intervention in Syria.

Graham predicted Syria would “become a failed state by the end of the year” without military intervention. He said not intervening would result in a war with Iran “because Iran’s going to take our inaction in Syria as meaning we’re not serious about their nuclear weapons program.”

The South Carolina senator said the “whole region is going to fall into chaos” if the United States does not commit to attacking the al-Assad regime and its professional and well-equipped army numbering more than 500,000 soldiers.

“My biggest fear beyond an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is the chemical weapons in Syria falling in the hands of extremists and Americans need to lead on this issue. We need to come up with a plan to secure these weapons sites, either in conjunction with our partners [or] if nothing else by ourselves,” Graham told Foreign Policy last month.

In order to be successful, he said, “ you’ve got to get on the ground” in Syria.

John McCain said “boots on the ground” would not be necessary to depose al-Assad. “The American people are weary. They don’t want boots on the ground. I don’t want boots on the ground,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “The worst thing the United States could do right now is put boots on the ground in Syria” because it would be unpopular with the American public.

McCain said the U.S. should arm and support the Syrian rebels, who are largely Islamic extremists.

On April 27, the establishment press in the United States admitted that the main constituency of the rebellion consists of Salafist militants. “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the New York Times reported on April 27.

Earlier this year, we reported that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that al-Qaeda and other Salafist groups on the State Department’s terror list are supported by the United States.

In February, 2012, we cited an Arab League report stating that the armed opposition in Syria is trained and supported by MI6, the CIA, and British SAS and is comprised largely of militants from the Muslim Brotherhood, an asset of British intelligence.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, Britain’s most senior military officer, General Sir David Richards, warned prime minister David Cameron that an intervention in Syria would result in all-out war in the region. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has warned that an intervention in Syria would be “unlikely to produce predictable outcomes.”

Recent developments reveal that the United States and its allies are ramping up a military response to the tenacity of the al-Assad regime and its resistance to the U.S. and British armed and trained opposition.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration signaled it may be ready to impose a no-fly zone over the county despite the fact this would come at significant cost to American forces, according to James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.

“Doing a no-fly zone, even a partial one, is not a trivial undertaking,” Clapper told lawmakers.

Both Republicans and Democrats favor a no-fly zone over Syria. In March, the Democrat chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, said he supports establishing a no-fly zone and attacking Syria’s air defenses.

Other Democrats support direct military intervention. “I don’t think you want to ever rule it out because I think this is, kind of, as — as [Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia] said, this thing has really deteriorated, and it’s not really at a tipping point,” said Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill on Sunday. “So I don’t think you ever want to say absolutely not. Obviously, we don’t want to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary.”

“Once you set up a military no-fly zone or safe zone, you’re on a slippery slope, mission creep and before you know it, you have boots on the ground,” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, told Reuters last week.

“Or you end up like Libya where you don’t really have a control mechanism for the end-game, should you end up with chaos.”