Thursday, December 31, 2015
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Mark Dankof on Katie Zavadski of The Daily Beast: The Sting Beats The Beast at the End of History
Finally, a more reasonable look at the facts will reinforce the public perception around the world that it is the agents and organs of the Israeli Lobby who are the pernicious purveyors of venom and hate, both in the United States and around the world. What is striking is that despite all of the money, influence, technological capabilities, and virtually monolithic control of American elections and media, the air of frustration and panic evidenced in the Kosher Yellow Journalism of Katie Zavadski and The Daily Beast in their attack upon me is paradoxically reassuring and reenergizing. It tells the world who is really winning in a 21st Century War where Guerrilla Warfare and Asymmetrical Warfare with the Word Processor, the Internet, Alternative Media, Foreign Media, and Social Media have created an entirely new world that has the New World Order increasingly confounded.
The legendary Dr. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars put it best to me today with his usual wit and self deprecating humor: “Mark, I would take this article as a tribute to the effectiveness of what you are doing. In case you haven’t noticed, I am still in the realm of ‘dynamic silence.’“
And for me The Sting in 2015 leading into the Presidential Election Cycle of 2016 began in Vienna, Virginia, so long ago, in The Sting of 2000. The Biblical narrative tells us who will win this fight at the end of history. The Beast will lose in the final analysis. And so will those who follow him to his bitter and eternal end, including his well-paid presstitutes at The Daily Beast.
Read the entire article
The legendary Dr. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars put it best to me today with his usual wit and self deprecating humor: “Mark, I would take this article as a tribute to the effectiveness of what you are doing. In case you haven’t noticed, I am still in the realm of ‘dynamic silence.’“
And for me The Sting in 2015 leading into the Presidential Election Cycle of 2016 began in Vienna, Virginia, so long ago, in The Sting of 2000. The Biblical narrative tells us who will win this fight at the end of history. The Beast will lose in the final analysis. And so will those who follow him to his bitter and eternal end, including his well-paid presstitutes at The Daily Beast.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Monday, December 28, 2015
Russia Turns to Christianity While Obama Faces East
Russia (aka the former Soviet Union) was America’s greatest adversary. Ronald Reagan called the Soviets “Evil Empire” in reference to the popular Star Wars movies of the time. In fact, the fear of the Russian people and their government was so severe that the well-known phrase “One nation under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 in response to the threat posed by “Godless Communism.” In contrast, our leaders told us that the United States was different because we believed in God and the Russians were atheistic and would not hesitate to commit genocide against the American people if given the chance.
“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”
The Christian Russian Military
The United States Air Force drops the time-honored phrase “So help me God”, while the Russian Air Force provides Christian blessings to their weapons systems.
Read the entire article
“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”
The Christian Russian Military
The United States Air Force drops the time-honored phrase “So help me God”, while the Russian Air Force provides Christian blessings to their weapons systems.
Read the entire article
Friday, December 25, 2015
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Putin and Israel – a complex and multi-layered relationship
The recent murder of Samir Kuntar by Israel has, yet again, inflamed the discussion about Putin’s relation to Israel. This is an immensely complicated topic and those who like simple, canned, “explanations” should stop reading right now. The truth is, the relationship between Russia and Israel and, even before that, between Jews and Russians would deserve an entire book. In fact, Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written exactly such a book, it is entitled “200 years together”, but due to the iron grip of the Zionists on the Anglo media, it has still not been translated into English. That should already tell you something right there – an author acclaimed worldwide who got the Nobel Prize for literature cannot get his book translated into English because its contents might undermine the official narrative about Russian-Jewish relations in general and about the role Jews played in Russian 20th century politics in particular! What other proof of the reality of the subordination of the former British Empire to Zionists interest does one need?
I have already written about this topic in the past and, at the very least, I will ask you to read the following two background articles before continuing to read:
AngloZionist: Short primer for the newcomers
How a medieval concept of ethnicity makes NATO commit yet another a dangerous blunder
Before looking into some of the idiosyncrasies of the Russian-Israeli relationship I want to stress one very important thing: you should not simply assume that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in Russia is similar to what it is in the West. This is not the case. Without going through a detailed discussion of the emancipation of Jews in the West and their long track from their rabbi-run shtetls to the boardrooms of the biggest western corporations, I will just say that for Russian Jews this process of emancipation happened in a much more violent and catastrophic way. The second big difference between western Jews and Russian Jews is that roughly between 1917 and 1939 a specific subset of Jews (Bolshevik Jews) were in quasi total control of Russia. During that period the Bolshevik Jews persecuted Russians and, especially, Orthodox Christians with a truly genocidal hate. This is a fact of history which most Russians are very much aware of, even if this is still considered crimethink in most western circles. It is also important to stress here that the Bolshevik Jews persecuted not only Orthodox Christians, but all religious groups, including, by the way, Judaics. Putin is very much aware of all these facts which he addressed when speaking to a group of Judaics in Moscow:
Read the entire article
I have already written about this topic in the past and, at the very least, I will ask you to read the following two background articles before continuing to read:
AngloZionist: Short primer for the newcomers
How a medieval concept of ethnicity makes NATO commit yet another a dangerous blunder
Before looking into some of the idiosyncrasies of the Russian-Israeli relationship I want to stress one very important thing: you should not simply assume that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in Russia is similar to what it is in the West. This is not the case. Without going through a detailed discussion of the emancipation of Jews in the West and their long track from their rabbi-run shtetls to the boardrooms of the biggest western corporations, I will just say that for Russian Jews this process of emancipation happened in a much more violent and catastrophic way. The second big difference between western Jews and Russian Jews is that roughly between 1917 and 1939 a specific subset of Jews (Bolshevik Jews) were in quasi total control of Russia. During that period the Bolshevik Jews persecuted Russians and, especially, Orthodox Christians with a truly genocidal hate. This is a fact of history which most Russians are very much aware of, even if this is still considered crimethink in most western circles. It is also important to stress here that the Bolshevik Jews persecuted not only Orthodox Christians, but all religious groups, including, by the way, Judaics. Putin is very much aware of all these facts which he addressed when speaking to a group of Judaics in Moscow:
Read the entire article
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war
Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.
The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey.’ The assessment was bleak: there was no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad, and the US was arming extremists.
Read the entire article
The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey.’ The assessment was bleak: there was no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad, and the US was arming extremists.
Read the entire article
Monday, December 21, 2015
Friday, December 18, 2015
Syria Shatters Pentagon Dream
No wonder Full Spectrum Dominance practitioners in the Beltway and beyond are consumed by deep denial.
They look at the Syrian chessboard and as power projection goes, they see Russia comfortably settling down, with a serious land and air base, to conduct all sorts of operations across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) in the near future. The Pentagon obviously never saw it coming.
And that’s just the beginning. Further on down the road there’s bound to be increased military interaction between Russia, China and Iran across Southwest Asia. The Pentagon qualifies Russia, China and Iran – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – as threats.
Russia getting deeper into Syria – and in the long run MENA – progresses just as Moscow insists on dealing with assorted NATO members as «partners» in the war against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Some stab Moscow in the back, like Turkey. Some may share sensitive military intel, like France. Some may profess the desire to collaborate, like Britain. And some are a geyser of ambiguity, like the US.
Read the entire article
They look at the Syrian chessboard and as power projection goes, they see Russia comfortably settling down, with a serious land and air base, to conduct all sorts of operations across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) in the near future. The Pentagon obviously never saw it coming.
And that’s just the beginning. Further on down the road there’s bound to be increased military interaction between Russia, China and Iran across Southwest Asia. The Pentagon qualifies Russia, China and Iran – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – as threats.
Russia getting deeper into Syria – and in the long run MENA – progresses just as Moscow insists on dealing with assorted NATO members as «partners» in the war against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Some stab Moscow in the back, like Turkey. Some may share sensitive military intel, like France. Some may profess the desire to collaborate, like Britain. And some are a geyser of ambiguity, like the US.
Read the entire article
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Trump’s “Fascism” Is Just White America Finally Hitting BACK
On the eve of the final GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Conservatism Inc. still hasn’t decided whether to denounce Donald Trump as a RINO or a fascist. But the Left is voting for “fascist” and Conservatism Inc. notoriously ends up doing what the Left wants.
George Orwell famously wrote, “[A]s used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.” But to the Main Stream Media, fascism has an obvious meaning. A “fascist” is anyone who supports Donald Trump.
In response to Donald Trump echoing Peter Brimelow’s call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, glorified celebrity gossip site The Huffington Post declared Trump had gone “full fascist.” By the standards of Godwin’s Law, Trump has already won the election, as comparisons to the Fuhrer are now practically cliché. [Philly paper: Trump is literally Hitler, by Josh Fatzick, Daily Caller, December 8, 2015] The Main Stream Media dug up former New Jersey Governor (and faux Republican) Christine Todd Whitman to describe Trump’s speeches as “the kind of rhetoric that allowed Hitler to move forward” [Christine Todd Whitman: Donald Trump’s Muslim comments like Hitler’s, by Tom Lo Bianoco, CNN, December 9, 2015]. Even before his proposed Muslim travel ban, the former humor site Cracked earnestly lectured its readers about “5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler’s Rise to Power” [by Adam Tod Brown, October 1, 2015]
The Donald had a typically Alpha Male response when asked if he was bothered by such comparisons. He said, simply, “I don’t care,” prompting a new outbreak of inadvertently hilarious passive aggressive whining from the MSM [‘I. Don’t. Care.’: Trump brushes off horrified reaction to his Muslim ban, by Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, December 8, 2015]. One can’t help but wonder if he’s reading some of the material on the Alt Right [I Don’t Care, by Jack Donovan, Radix, October 31, 2014]
It’s a strange history where a proposal for temporary halt in Visas and an expansion of an already existing religious test is immediately linked with Panzer divisions merrily rolling through Poland. Of course, to normal people, a hypothetical America festooned with giant red and white banners reading “Can’t Stump the Trump” and schools full of children forced to read “The Art of the Deal” is absurd and hilarious. Nonetheless, Leftist reporters seem genuinely terrified such a thing is about to happen.
Read the entire article
George Orwell famously wrote, “[A]s used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.” But to the Main Stream Media, fascism has an obvious meaning. A “fascist” is anyone who supports Donald Trump.
In response to Donald Trump echoing Peter Brimelow’s call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, glorified celebrity gossip site The Huffington Post declared Trump had gone “full fascist.” By the standards of Godwin’s Law, Trump has already won the election, as comparisons to the Fuhrer are now practically cliché. [Philly paper: Trump is literally Hitler, by Josh Fatzick, Daily Caller, December 8, 2015] The Main Stream Media dug up former New Jersey Governor (and faux Republican) Christine Todd Whitman to describe Trump’s speeches as “the kind of rhetoric that allowed Hitler to move forward” [Christine Todd Whitman: Donald Trump’s Muslim comments like Hitler’s, by Tom Lo Bianoco, CNN, December 9, 2015]. Even before his proposed Muslim travel ban, the former humor site Cracked earnestly lectured its readers about “5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler’s Rise to Power” [by Adam Tod Brown, October 1, 2015]
The Donald had a typically Alpha Male response when asked if he was bothered by such comparisons. He said, simply, “I don’t care,” prompting a new outbreak of inadvertently hilarious passive aggressive whining from the MSM [‘I. Don’t. Care.’: Trump brushes off horrified reaction to his Muslim ban, by Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, December 8, 2015]. One can’t help but wonder if he’s reading some of the material on the Alt Right [I Don’t Care, by Jack Donovan, Radix, October 31, 2014]
It’s a strange history where a proposal for temporary halt in Visas and an expansion of an already existing religious test is immediately linked with Panzer divisions merrily rolling through Poland. Of course, to normal people, a hypothetical America festooned with giant red and white banners reading “Can’t Stump the Trump” and schools full of children forced to read “The Art of the Deal” is absurd and hilarious. Nonetheless, Leftist reporters seem genuinely terrified such a thing is about to happen.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015
In Congress, Christmas is a time of giving—and receiving
The one bipartisan thing on which both Democrats and Republicans agree: at holiday time a little something tucked away in legislation in exchange for campaign largesse is the greatest gift of all.
Writing in last Monday’s Washington Post, Greg Sargent noted that all that inertia on Capitol Hill has been caused “less by a roughly equivalent failure by both major parties to make the incremental concessions needed to reach common ground, and more by a searing intra-GOP argument over whether the Republican Party should make such concessions to reach the common ground that has always been sitting right there in plain sight . . .”
Citing Ryan Lizza’s superb analysis of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus in The New Yorker last week, Sargent writes that the radical caucus members believe, “Republicans lose ground when they govern along with Democrats, because achieving bipartisan governing compromise inherently represents capitulation to Dems, in the sense that when government functions, it affirms the Dem vision.”
It’s really a profound pity—tragic, in fact, and deadly dangerous to democracy. In an alternative universe, I could see senators and House members racing home to spend holiday time with friends and family, drinking hot cocoa with peppermint sticks, making snow angels and redistributing their campaign contributions to the poor. Instead, they will spend much of the off time plotting on behalf of or against the lunacy of the right (refueled each day by Fox, talk radio and a hyperventilating Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio) while hitting up donors and listening to their requests for all the favors expected in return. Even Santa couldn’t keep track of their list.
Read the entire article
Writing in last Monday’s Washington Post, Greg Sargent noted that all that inertia on Capitol Hill has been caused “less by a roughly equivalent failure by both major parties to make the incremental concessions needed to reach common ground, and more by a searing intra-GOP argument over whether the Republican Party should make such concessions to reach the common ground that has always been sitting right there in plain sight . . .”
Citing Ryan Lizza’s superb analysis of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus in The New Yorker last week, Sargent writes that the radical caucus members believe, “Republicans lose ground when they govern along with Democrats, because achieving bipartisan governing compromise inherently represents capitulation to Dems, in the sense that when government functions, it affirms the Dem vision.”
It’s really a profound pity—tragic, in fact, and deadly dangerous to democracy. In an alternative universe, I could see senators and House members racing home to spend holiday time with friends and family, drinking hot cocoa with peppermint sticks, making snow angels and redistributing their campaign contributions to the poor. Instead, they will spend much of the off time plotting on behalf of or against the lunacy of the right (refueled each day by Fox, talk radio and a hyperventilating Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio) while hitting up donors and listening to their requests for all the favors expected in return. Even Santa couldn’t keep track of their list.
Read the entire article
Friday, December 11, 2015
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Saudi Arabia’s Royal Family to Select the West’s “Moderate” Jihadists Who Will Take Over Syria
The Saud family, Saudi Arabia’s royals, have called together a meeting on December 15th in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, of their fellow fundamentalist Sunnis who are fighting against the secular Assad government to take over Syria, and the Sauds will announce after the conference which groups will have the West’s blessings.
The only armed group that has thus far been announced to have been invited is Jaysh al-Islam, which is a Salafist-Wahhabist fundamentalist organization, and like all Salafists and Wahhabists, is rabidly anti-Shiite. By contrast, Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad, is a Shiite, and, furthermore, he has always insisted upon a strict separation of church-and-state; so, he’s considered like the devil, by the Sauds and other Wahhabists and Salafists (including the leaders of America’s other Arabic allies: Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain).
This hatred against Shiites, and, really, all non-Sunnis, originated long ago:
In 1744, the two founders of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad Ibn Saud and Muhammad Ibn Wahhab, swore their mutual oath that the Sauds would exterminate Shiites, and that Wahhabist clergy would recognize the Sauds as the rulers appointed by God. From that time to this, little has changed in Saudi Arabia, except the discovery in 1938 of the world’s largest reserves of oil, which, moreover, is the cheapest-to-produce type of oil. The United States allied with the Saud family in 1945 so as to guarantee to America lots of cheap oil, and to guarantee to the Sauds lots of American military support for keeping the Saud family in power there.
Read the entire article
The only armed group that has thus far been announced to have been invited is Jaysh al-Islam, which is a Salafist-Wahhabist fundamentalist organization, and like all Salafists and Wahhabists, is rabidly anti-Shiite. By contrast, Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad, is a Shiite, and, furthermore, he has always insisted upon a strict separation of church-and-state; so, he’s considered like the devil, by the Sauds and other Wahhabists and Salafists (including the leaders of America’s other Arabic allies: Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain).
This hatred against Shiites, and, really, all non-Sunnis, originated long ago:
In 1744, the two founders of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad Ibn Saud and Muhammad Ibn Wahhab, swore their mutual oath that the Sauds would exterminate Shiites, and that Wahhabist clergy would recognize the Sauds as the rulers appointed by God. From that time to this, little has changed in Saudi Arabia, except the discovery in 1938 of the world’s largest reserves of oil, which, moreover, is the cheapest-to-produce type of oil. The United States allied with the Saud family in 1945 so as to guarantee to America lots of cheap oil, and to guarantee to the Sauds lots of American military support for keeping the Saud family in power there.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Think Before You Rush to War
Concentration of forces is the most basic law of military science. Victory on the battlefield is won by amassing as many troops as possible at the key point of attack, or ‘schwerpunkt,’ as it’s known in German.
Unfortunately, the amateur strategists in the White House seem to have been studying social anthropology and women’s issues instead of basic military science. What they want is, to use the term coined by Russian poet Yevtuschenko, a half war.
This week, Pentagon chief Ash Carter, announced the US would send about 200 more special forces troops to Iraq and Syrian to fight the Islamic State. After vowing not to send troops to the Mideast, President Obama has by now deployed 3,500 new US soldiers to Iraq for “training.”
The best way to lose or at least prolong a war is by committing penny packets of troops. The US did precisely this in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan – and lost all these wars. Now, we’re on to more half-measures in the Levant.
President Barack Obama’s first instincts to avoid any more wars were absolutely correct. But the course of political events and the Paris massacre have dragged him into more rather than less military misadventures in the Mideast and Afghanistan. Obama’s senior strategic advisors, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, have been steadily providing wrong-headed, even calamitous advice.
Read the entire article
Unfortunately, the amateur strategists in the White House seem to have been studying social anthropology and women’s issues instead of basic military science. What they want is, to use the term coined by Russian poet Yevtuschenko, a half war.
This week, Pentagon chief Ash Carter, announced the US would send about 200 more special forces troops to Iraq and Syrian to fight the Islamic State. After vowing not to send troops to the Mideast, President Obama has by now deployed 3,500 new US soldiers to Iraq for “training.”
The best way to lose or at least prolong a war is by committing penny packets of troops. The US did precisely this in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan – and lost all these wars. Now, we’re on to more half-measures in the Levant.
President Barack Obama’s first instincts to avoid any more wars were absolutely correct. But the course of political events and the Paris massacre have dragged him into more rather than less military misadventures in the Mideast and Afghanistan. Obama’s senior strategic advisors, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, have been steadily providing wrong-headed, even calamitous advice.
Read the entire article
Monday, December 7, 2015
Friday, December 4, 2015
The War on Terror Is Creating More Terror
The interventionists will do anything to prevent Americans from seeing that their foreign policies are perpetuating terrorism and inspiring others to seek to harm us. The neocons know that when it is understood that blowback is real – that people seek to attack us not because we are good and free but because we bomb and occupy their countries – their stranglehold over foreign policy will begin to slip.
That is why each time there is an event like the killings in Paris earlier this month, they rush to the television stations to terrify Americans into agreeing to even more bombing, more occupation, more surveillance at home, and more curtailment of our civil liberties. They tell us we have to do it in order to fight terrorism, but their policies actually increase terrorism.
If that sounds harsh, consider the recently-released 2015 Global Terrorism Index report. The report shows that deaths from terrorism have increased dramatically over the last 15 years – a period coinciding with the “war on terrorism” that was supposed to end terrorism.
According to the latest report:
Terrorist activity increased by 80 per cent in 2014 to its highest recorded level. …The number of people who have died from terrorist activity has increased nine-fold since the year 2000.
Read the entire article
That is why each time there is an event like the killings in Paris earlier this month, they rush to the television stations to terrify Americans into agreeing to even more bombing, more occupation, more surveillance at home, and more curtailment of our civil liberties. They tell us we have to do it in order to fight terrorism, but their policies actually increase terrorism.
If that sounds harsh, consider the recently-released 2015 Global Terrorism Index report. The report shows that deaths from terrorism have increased dramatically over the last 15 years – a period coinciding with the “war on terrorism” that was supposed to end terrorism.
According to the latest report:
Terrorist activity increased by 80 per cent in 2014 to its highest recorded level. …The number of people who have died from terrorist activity has increased nine-fold since the year 2000.
Read the entire article
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
The US-Russia Proxy War in Syria
Belatedly, at a sidebar meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Paris climate summit on Monday, President Barack Obama reportedly expressed regret for last week’s killing of a Russian pilot who was shot down by a Turkish air-to-air missile fired by a U.S.-supplied F-16 and the subsequent death of a Russian marine on a search-and-rescue mission, apparently killed by a U.S.-made TOW missile.
But Obama administration officials continued to take the side of Turkey, a NATO “ally” which claims implausibly that it was simply defending its air space and that the Russian pilot of the SU-24 warplane had ignored repeated warnings. According to accounts based on Turkish data, the SU-24 may have strayed over a slice of Turkish territory for 17 seconds. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Facts Back Russia on Turkish Attack.”]
Immediately after the incident on Nov. 24, Obama offered a knee-jerk justification of Turkey’s provocative action which appears to have been a deliberate attack on a Russian warplane to deter continued bombing of Syrian jihadists, including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamist, has supported various jihadists as his tip of the spear in his goal to overthrow the secular regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
In his first public comments about the Turkish attack, Obama gracelessly asserted Turkey’s right to defend its territory and air space although there was never any indication that the SU-24 – even if it had strayed momentarily into Turkish air space – had any hostile intentions against Turkey. Indeed, Turkey and the United States were well aware that the Russian planes were targeting the Islamic State, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other jihadist rebels.
Read the entire article
But Obama administration officials continued to take the side of Turkey, a NATO “ally” which claims implausibly that it was simply defending its air space and that the Russian pilot of the SU-24 warplane had ignored repeated warnings. According to accounts based on Turkish data, the SU-24 may have strayed over a slice of Turkish territory for 17 seconds. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Facts Back Russia on Turkish Attack.”]
Immediately after the incident on Nov. 24, Obama offered a knee-jerk justification of Turkey’s provocative action which appears to have been a deliberate attack on a Russian warplane to deter continued bombing of Syrian jihadists, including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamist, has supported various jihadists as his tip of the spear in his goal to overthrow the secular regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
In his first public comments about the Turkish attack, Obama gracelessly asserted Turkey’s right to defend its territory and air space although there was never any indication that the SU-24 – even if it had strayed momentarily into Turkish air space – had any hostile intentions against Turkey. Indeed, Turkey and the United States were well aware that the Russian planes were targeting the Islamic State, Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other jihadist rebels.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Monday, November 30, 2015
The Reign of Absurdiocy
There is no such thing as "international terrorism".
To declare war on "international terrorism" is nonsense. Politicians who do so are either fools or cynics, and probably both.
Terrorism is a weapon. Like cannon. We would laugh at somebody who declares war on "international artillery". A cannon belongs to an army, and serves the aims of that army. The cannon of one side fire against the cannon of the other.
Terrorism is a method of operation. It is often used by oppressed peoples, including the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW II. We would laugh at anyone who declared war on “international resistance”.
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military thinker, famously said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means". If he had lived with us today, he might have said: "Terrorism is a continuation of policy by other means."
Terrorism means, literally, to frighten the victims into surrendering to the will of the terrorist.
Read the entire article
To declare war on "international terrorism" is nonsense. Politicians who do so are either fools or cynics, and probably both.
Terrorism is a weapon. Like cannon. We would laugh at somebody who declares war on "international artillery". A cannon belongs to an army, and serves the aims of that army. The cannon of one side fire against the cannon of the other.
Terrorism is a method of operation. It is often used by oppressed peoples, including the French Resistance to the Nazis in WW II. We would laugh at anyone who declared war on “international resistance”.
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military thinker, famously said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means". If he had lived with us today, he might have said: "Terrorism is a continuation of policy by other means."
Terrorism means, literally, to frighten the victims into surrendering to the will of the terrorist.
Read the entire article
Friday, November 27, 2015
Thursday, November 26, 2015
This Thanksgiving, let’s say ‘no thanks’ to the tyranny of the American police state
Thanksgiving is not what it once was.
Then again, America is not what she once was.
Americans have become so enthralled by the “bread and circuses” of our age—tables groaning under the weight of an abundance of rich foods, televisions tuned to sports and entertainments spectacles, stores competing for Black Friday shoppers, and a general devotion to excess and revelry—that we have lost sight of the true purpose of Thanksgiving.
Indeed, the following is a lesson in how far we have traveled—and how low we have fallen—in the more than 200 years since George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation, calling upon the nation to give thanks for a government whose purpose was ensuring the safety and happiness of its people and for a Constitution designed to safeguard civil and religious liberty.
This Thanksgiving finds us saddled with a government that is a far cry from Washington’s vision of a government that would be a blessing to all the people:
Read the entire article
Then again, America is not what she once was.
Americans have become so enthralled by the “bread and circuses” of our age—tables groaning under the weight of an abundance of rich foods, televisions tuned to sports and entertainments spectacles, stores competing for Black Friday shoppers, and a general devotion to excess and revelry—that we have lost sight of the true purpose of Thanksgiving.
Indeed, the following is a lesson in how far we have traveled—and how low we have fallen—in the more than 200 years since George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation, calling upon the nation to give thanks for a government whose purpose was ensuring the safety and happiness of its people and for a Constitution designed to safeguard civil and religious liberty.
This Thanksgiving finds us saddled with a government that is a far cry from Washington’s vision of a government that would be a blessing to all the people:
Read the entire article
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Jacob Rothschild Says Putin is “A Traitor to the New World Order”
Putin’s refusal to tow the NWO line makes Jacob Rothschild nervous, as he needs Russia on their side in order to fulfill the Illuminati agenda.
Conspiracyclub.co reports:
Obama is really getting on Putin’s nerves though because he can’t see why he’s doing the things he’s doing to his own people and warning Americans “Keep your Guns”!
Read the entire article
Conspiracyclub.co reports:
Obama is really getting on Putin’s nerves though because he can’t see why he’s doing the things he’s doing to his own people and warning Americans “Keep your Guns”!
Read the entire article
Monday, November 23, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
The End of Obamaworld
In denouncing Republicans as “scared of widows and orphans,” and castigating those who prefer Christian refugees to Muslims coming to America, Barack Obama has come off as petulant and unpresidential.
Clearly, he is upset. And with good reason.
He grossly, transparently underestimated the ability of ISIS, the “JV” team, to strike outside the caliphate into the heart of the West, and has egg all over his face. More critically, the liberal world order he has been preaching and predicting is receding before our eyes.
Suddenly, his rhetoric is discordantly out of touch with reality. And, for his time on the global stage, the phrase “failed president” comes to mind.
What happened in Paris, said President Obama, “was an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
And just what might those “universal values” be?
At a soccer game between Turkey and Greece in Istanbul, Turks booed during the moment of silence for the Paris dead and chanted “Allahu Akbar.” Among 1.6 billion Muslims, hundreds of millions do not share our values regarding women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, free speech, or the equality of all religious faiths.
Read the entire article
Clearly, he is upset. And with good reason.
He grossly, transparently underestimated the ability of ISIS, the “JV” team, to strike outside the caliphate into the heart of the West, and has egg all over his face. More critically, the liberal world order he has been preaching and predicting is receding before our eyes.
Suddenly, his rhetoric is discordantly out of touch with reality. And, for his time on the global stage, the phrase “failed president” comes to mind.
What happened in Paris, said President Obama, “was an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
And just what might those “universal values” be?
At a soccer game between Turkey and Greece in Istanbul, Turks booed during the moment of silence for the Paris dead and chanted “Allahu Akbar.” Among 1.6 billion Muslims, hundreds of millions do not share our values regarding women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, free speech, or the equality of all religious faiths.
Read the entire article
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
French false flag? .01%: ‘We’re an empire, and create our own reality.
We the People have obvious reasons to challenge “Paris terror” as a .01% false flag attack, including game-changing histories of creating ISIS, supplying them, and usual use of false flag attacks to sell the 99.99% on offensive war; this time on Syria.
We the People were told the .01% will act as Empire to create reality for us as they see fit: three weeks before W. Bush’s election for a second term in 2004, his Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind. Rove said:
Guys like [Suskind] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Whatever happened in Paris, We the People have the power of endgame anytime we’re ready: demand arrests of .01% “leaders” for obvious crimes centering in war, money, and media lies to “cover” these crimes.
Read the entire article
We the People were told the .01% will act as Empire to create reality for us as they see fit: three weeks before W. Bush’s election for a second term in 2004, his Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind. Rove said:
Guys like [Suskind] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Whatever happened in Paris, We the People have the power of endgame anytime we’re ready: demand arrests of .01% “leaders” for obvious crimes centering in war, money, and media lies to “cover” these crimes.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
Paris under Attack – Smells like False Flag all Over
"France is at war!" - Exclaimed President Hollande several times in each of his three what appeared like scripted speeches he gave within 12 hours after the attack. He knew the names of the attackers and where they are from, while police was still struggling to put the puzzles together, and news reporting was sketchy, confusing and chaotic. He accused Daesh as the perpetrator before anyone claimed responsibility for the attack. That supposed ‘claim’ from ISIS came much later in the course of Saturday morning, the morning after.
France is at war – words reminiscent to George Bush and his clan after 9/11. President Hollande declared a state of emergency not unlike Bush’s state of emergency after 9/11 – and the new Homeland Security / Patriot Act, waiting in the drawers to be quickly ratified after 9/11. Hollande also decreed three days of national mourning.
Similar rules are in place in France since this blood-soaked Saturday morning – a swat of civil rights suspensions, including searches without warrants, curfew, government control of media, increased surveillance, strict border controls, road blocks and traffic control, suppression of protests and manifestations – and more.
Early Saturday afternoon, the media reported that a Syrian passport was found at one of the shooting places. This was a false flag give-away. As people started making the connection with the ‘lost ID’ of one of the ‘terrorists’ in the Charlie Hebdo get-away car, and the intact Saudi passport in the rubbles of the 9/11 twin-towers, and in an attempt to safe some of the credibility of the made-up stories, the Syrian passport trove was downgraded as having been found on the body of a Syrian refugee.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Thursday, November 12, 2015
The US-NATO-Israel Sponsored Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Who Was Behind The 2011 “Protest Movement”?
Recent reports have finally acknowledged that the so-called “protest movement” in Syria was instigated by Washington.
This was known and documented from the very inception of the Syrian crisis in March 2011.
It was not a protest movement, it was an armed insurgency integrated by US-Israeli and allied supported “jihadist” death squads?
From Day One, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command. According to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka, August 14, 2011):
NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)
This initiative, which was also supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, involved a process of organized recruitment of thousands of jihadist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
Read the entire article
This was known and documented from the very inception of the Syrian crisis in March 2011.
It was not a protest movement, it was an armed insurgency integrated by US-Israeli and allied supported “jihadist” death squads?
From Day One, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command. According to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka, August 14, 2011):
NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)
This initiative, which was also supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, involved a process of organized recruitment of thousands of jihadist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
Read the entire article
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Bush-41 Finally Speaks on Iraq War
Media reports on Jon Meacham’s biography of George H. W. Bush, the 41st President, have brought me a painful flashback to the deceptive, destructive – yet at the same time highly instructive – years 2002 and 2003, when his son George W. Bush, the 43rd President, attacked Iraq.
Reality should trump rhetoric regarding that godforsaken war – in my view the most unprincipled and consequential foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. This may be reason enough to renew focus on those years because, for many Americans, those events remain cloaked in mystery and misunderstanding.
With his candor about his eldest son, the 91-year-old Bush patriarch also has sounded what may be the death knell for the moribund campaign of his younger son Jeb to be president #45. I do not suggest that #41 did that consciously. His unusually unguarded remarks, though, will lead voters to be chary of yet another Bush, if only on the “fool me once … fool me twice” aphorism that Jeb’s big brother had trouble remembering.
Meacham’s Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush will not be available to the hoi polloi until next week. Details already reported on the critical years of 2002 and 2003, however, permit – I think, rather, dictate – some preliminary analysis, before the Karl Roves of this world create still more “new history.”
Read the entire article
Reality should trump rhetoric regarding that godforsaken war – in my view the most unprincipled and consequential foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. This may be reason enough to renew focus on those years because, for many Americans, those events remain cloaked in mystery and misunderstanding.
With his candor about his eldest son, the 91-year-old Bush patriarch also has sounded what may be the death knell for the moribund campaign of his younger son Jeb to be president #45. I do not suggest that #41 did that consciously. His unusually unguarded remarks, though, will lead voters to be chary of yet another Bush, if only on the “fool me once … fool me twice” aphorism that Jeb’s big brother had trouble remembering.
Meacham’s Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush will not be available to the hoi polloi until next week. Details already reported on the critical years of 2002 and 2003, however, permit – I think, rather, dictate – some preliminary analysis, before the Karl Roves of this world create still more “new history.”
Read the entire article
Monday, November 9, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
The Suspicious Downing of Russia’s Metrojet Airbus A321-200. “The ISIS is a Creation of the CIA”
The explosion and crash of Russian Metrojet Airbus A321-200 over Egypt’s Sinai peninsula raises ominous new questions. There are going to be numerous theories bandied about in the course of another long international “investigation”, accompanied with endless political spin from all sides.
We hear numerous variations that boil down to two basic theories: catastrophic mechanical failure or bomb.
Many officials have already ruled out a missile strike because there was no evidence of a missile launch nor an engine burn. US satellites detected heat around the plane before the explosion, but the cause of the heat is unknown. In an Associated Press account, US aviation analyst Paul Beaver stated, “It doesn’t tell us if it was a bomb, or if someone had a fight in the airplane with a gun—there is a whole raft of things that could happen in this regard.” Adding to the mystery, Beaver also noted that in the event of a fuel tank or engine explosion, “engines are designed so that if something malfunctions or breaks off, it is contained within the engine”. The plane broke up at high altitude.
Most recently, British officials have more strongly suggested that a bomb was the cause. And now, US intelligence officials are coming forward to embrace the idea of a bomb.
Looking past the political smoke, one scenario deserves scrutiny.
The Islamic State (IS) has taken responsibility for the incident. In a manifesto, the IS claimed to have brought down the Russian plane in retaliation for Russian military intervention in Syria.
Read the entire article
We hear numerous variations that boil down to two basic theories: catastrophic mechanical failure or bomb.
Many officials have already ruled out a missile strike because there was no evidence of a missile launch nor an engine burn. US satellites detected heat around the plane before the explosion, but the cause of the heat is unknown. In an Associated Press account, US aviation analyst Paul Beaver stated, “It doesn’t tell us if it was a bomb, or if someone had a fight in the airplane with a gun—there is a whole raft of things that could happen in this regard.” Adding to the mystery, Beaver also noted that in the event of a fuel tank or engine explosion, “engines are designed so that if something malfunctions or breaks off, it is contained within the engine”. The plane broke up at high altitude.
Most recently, British officials have more strongly suggested that a bomb was the cause. And now, US intelligence officials are coming forward to embrace the idea of a bomb.
Looking past the political smoke, one scenario deserves scrutiny.
The Islamic State (IS) has taken responsibility for the incident. In a manifesto, the IS claimed to have brought down the Russian plane in retaliation for Russian military intervention in Syria.
Read the entire article
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Kerry’s Debacle in Vienna
Can someone explain to me why President Obama decided to announce that he’s going to deploy U.S. Special Forces to Syria on the same day that Secretary of State John Kerry was scheduled to meet with Russian and Iranian diplomats to discuss how to end the four and a half year-long war?
What was that all about?
Did he think he was going to scare the Russians and Iranians by rattling a few sabers?
Did he think that they’d call off their military offensive and withdraw their support for Assad?
What was he thinking?
Even Kerry was embarrassed by the announcement, which accomplished nothing except to convince the attendees that US foreign policy is concocted by amateurs who have no idea what they’re doing. That’s all it achieved.
Read the entire article
What was that all about?
Did he think he was going to scare the Russians and Iranians by rattling a few sabers?
Did he think that they’d call off their military offensive and withdraw their support for Assad?
What was he thinking?
Even Kerry was embarrassed by the announcement, which accomplished nothing except to convince the attendees that US foreign policy is concocted by amateurs who have no idea what they’re doing. That’s all it achieved.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Monday, November 2, 2015
The Demobilization of the American People and the Spectacle of Election 2016
You may not know it, but you’re living in a futuristic science fiction novel. And that’s a fact. If you were to read about our American world in such a novel, you would be amazed by its strangeness. Since you exist right smack in the middle of it, it seems like normal life (Donald Trump and Ben Carson aside). But make no bones about it, so far this has been a bizarre American century.
Let me start with one of the odder moments we’ve lived through and give it the attention it’s always deserved. If you follow my train of thought and the history it leads us into, I guarantee you that you’ll end up back exactly where we are -- in the midst of the strangest presidential campaign in our history.
To get a full frontal sense of what that means, however, let’s return to late September 2001. I’m sure you remember that moment, just over two weeks after those World Trade Center towers came down and part of the Pentagon was destroyed, leaving a jangled secretary of defense instructing his aides, “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
I couldn’t resist sticking in that classic Donald Rumsfeld line, but I leave it to others to deal with Saddam Hussein, those fictional weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq, and everything that’s happened since, including the establishment of a terror “caliphate” by a crew of Islamic extremists brought together in American military prison camps -- all of which you wouldn’t believe if it were part of a sci-fi novel. The damn thing would make Planet of the Apeslook like outright realism.
Read the entire article
Let me start with one of the odder moments we’ve lived through and give it the attention it’s always deserved. If you follow my train of thought and the history it leads us into, I guarantee you that you’ll end up back exactly where we are -- in the midst of the strangest presidential campaign in our history.
To get a full frontal sense of what that means, however, let’s return to late September 2001. I’m sure you remember that moment, just over two weeks after those World Trade Center towers came down and part of the Pentagon was destroyed, leaving a jangled secretary of defense instructing his aides, “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”
I couldn’t resist sticking in that classic Donald Rumsfeld line, but I leave it to others to deal with Saddam Hussein, those fictional weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq, and everything that’s happened since, including the establishment of a terror “caliphate” by a crew of Islamic extremists brought together in American military prison camps -- all of which you wouldn’t believe if it were part of a sci-fi novel. The damn thing would make Planet of the Apeslook like outright realism.
Read the entire article
Friday, October 30, 2015
Thursday, October 29, 2015
We Must Oppose Obama’s Escalation in Syria and Iraq!
On Monday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to outline a new US military strategy for the Middle East. The Secretary admitted the failure of the US “train and equip” program for rebels in Syria, but instead of taking the appropriate lessons from that failure and get out of the “regime change” business, he announced the opposite. The US would not only escalate its “train and equip” program by removing the requirement that fighters be vetted for extremist ideology, but according to the Secretary the US military would for the first time become directly and overtly involved in combat in Syria and Iraq.
As Secretary Carter put it, the US would begin “supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS), or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground.”
“Direct action on the ground” means US boots on the ground, even though President Obama supposedly ruled out that possibility when he launched air strikes against Iraq and Syria last year. Did anyone think he would keep his word?
President Obama claims his current authority to conduct war in Iraq and Syria comes from the 2001 authorization for the use of force against those who attacked the US on 9/11, or from the 2002 authorization for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Neither of these claims makes any sense. The 2002 authorization said nothing about ISIS because at the time there was no ISIS, and likewise the 2001 authorization pertained to an al-Qaeda that did not exist in Iraq or Syria at the time.
Read the entire article
As Secretary Carter put it, the US would begin “supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS), or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground.”
“Direct action on the ground” means US boots on the ground, even though President Obama supposedly ruled out that possibility when he launched air strikes against Iraq and Syria last year. Did anyone think he would keep his word?
President Obama claims his current authority to conduct war in Iraq and Syria comes from the 2001 authorization for the use of force against those who attacked the US on 9/11, or from the 2002 authorization for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Neither of these claims makes any sense. The 2002 authorization said nothing about ISIS because at the time there was no ISIS, and likewise the 2001 authorization pertained to an al-Qaeda that did not exist in Iraq or Syria at the time.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Israel Bars “Refugees,” Builds Wall—While Jews Support “Refugee” Invasion of Europe
In yet another astonishing display of hypocritical Jewish Supremacism, the Israeli government has refused to accept any “refugees” from Syria or Africa—and is building a new wall to keep them out—while Israel-supporting Jews in Europe and America continue to demand that non-Jewish countries accept all Third World invaders without question.
According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel “won’t accept refugees from Syria.”
The Jerusalem Post quoted Netanyahu as saying that “We are beginning today the construction of a security fence on our eastern border, as a continuation of the security fence that we built on the border with Egypt, and which will join up in the end with the security fence that we built on the Golan Heights.
“The aim of the fence is to replicate what was done on the Egyptian border, where the completion of the security fence has for all intents and purposes stopped the flood of illegal migrants into the country.”
Read the entire article
According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that Israel “won’t accept refugees from Syria.”
The Jerusalem Post quoted Netanyahu as saying that “We are beginning today the construction of a security fence on our eastern border, as a continuation of the security fence that we built on the border with Egypt, and which will join up in the end with the security fence that we built on the Golan Heights.
“The aim of the fence is to replicate what was done on the Egyptian border, where the completion of the security fence has for all intents and purposes stopped the flood of illegal migrants into the country.”
Read the entire article
Monday, October 26, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Washington Plans up to $1 Billion Hike in US Military Aid to Israel
Israeli and American teams are putting together a plan to increase annual U.S. military aid to Israel by as much as $1 billion, on top of the current $3.1 billion, a source close to the military aid process said Wednesday.
Talks on military aid started recently, and are now being discussed by the professional staffs of the two countries’ defense establishments. For now, Israeli defense officials are calling news of the large aid increase “rumors.”
Israel refused to hold talks on the military aid framework and the “compensation package” it will receive because of the Iranian nuclear agreement, until that agreement was approved.
A senior defense official said that because the Iranian nuclear agreement would require the arming of various Arab countries, particularly the Gulf states, “an answer for preserving [Israel’s] qualitative military edge was required — and everyone is aware of this.”
The Israeli decision to wait until the final approval of the Iranian nuclear agreement was not well received in the Obama administration, which saw the postponing of the talks as a waste of time in improving Israel’s defensive capabilities with the American aid.
Read the entire article
Talks on military aid started recently, and are now being discussed by the professional staffs of the two countries’ defense establishments. For now, Israeli defense officials are calling news of the large aid increase “rumors.”
Israel refused to hold talks on the military aid framework and the “compensation package” it will receive because of the Iranian nuclear agreement, until that agreement was approved.
A senior defense official said that because the Iranian nuclear agreement would require the arming of various Arab countries, particularly the Gulf states, “an answer for preserving [Israel’s] qualitative military edge was required — and everyone is aware of this.”
The Israeli decision to wait until the final approval of the Iranian nuclear agreement was not well received in the Obama administration, which saw the postponing of the talks as a waste of time in improving Israel’s defensive capabilities with the American aid.
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
World Bank: $Billions More for Climate Policies That Created Millions of Refugees
The World Bank has pledged to bump up its “climate finance” program by one-third, potentially to $29 billion annually, even though its genocidal “green” programs have caused death, desolation, and millions of refugees.
World Bank President Jim Yong Kim (shown) has announced that the World Bank Group plans to boost its spending on “climate finance” by one-third, to as much as $29 billion annually, “to help countries tackle the impacts of climate change and move toward low-carbon growth.” Kim made the announcement on October 9, in Lima, Peru, where the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund were holding their annual meeting with national finance ministers and central bankers.
The funding scale-up, according to the World Bank press release, is being planned in anticipation of world leaders adopting a new global warming compact at the fast-approaching United Nations climate summit in Paris. “The climate meeting will be held in Paris at the end of November and December and aims to strike a global agreement on climate, which includes delivering on a promise to provide developing countries with $100 billion a year in climate financing by 2020,” the release stated, and continued, “The World Bank Group’s announcement responds to developing countries’ calls for new resources to help address climate challenges.”
“We are committed to scaling up our support for developing countries to battle climate change,” Jim Yong Kim said. “As we move closer to Paris, countries have identified trillions of dollars of climate-related needs. The Bank, with the support of our members, will respond ambitiously to this great challenge.”
“From Billions to Trillions”
Read the entire article
World Bank President Jim Yong Kim (shown) has announced that the World Bank Group plans to boost its spending on “climate finance” by one-third, to as much as $29 billion annually, “to help countries tackle the impacts of climate change and move toward low-carbon growth.” Kim made the announcement on October 9, in Lima, Peru, where the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund were holding their annual meeting with national finance ministers and central bankers.
The funding scale-up, according to the World Bank press release, is being planned in anticipation of world leaders adopting a new global warming compact at the fast-approaching United Nations climate summit in Paris. “The climate meeting will be held in Paris at the end of November and December and aims to strike a global agreement on climate, which includes delivering on a promise to provide developing countries with $100 billion a year in climate financing by 2020,” the release stated, and continued, “The World Bank Group’s announcement responds to developing countries’ calls for new resources to help address climate challenges.”
“We are committed to scaling up our support for developing countries to battle climate change,” Jim Yong Kim said. “As we move closer to Paris, countries have identified trillions of dollars of climate-related needs. The Bank, with the support of our members, will respond ambitiously to this great challenge.”
“From Billions to Trillions”
Read the entire article
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
US Asia-Pacific Hegemony vs. A Rising China
The complexity and history behind the current tensions in Asia Pacific are belied by simplistic narratives underpinned by superficial nationalism. China’s portrayal across the Western media as a regional “bully” versus its victims across Southeast Asia is dividing the general public down two sides of a predictable line.
On one side are those who welcome the rise of China as a counterbalance for longstanding Western hegemony across Asia Pacific, on the other are those that fear China will simply replace a “benevolent” Western hegemony with its own brand of regional domination.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but to arrive there, one must understand the true nature of the unfolding, and very unnecessary tensions in the South China Sea.
Enduring Imperialism
The Pacific, and in particular much of China and Southeast Asia, was under the control of colonial European powers with Britain controlling Malaysia, Myanmar (then called Burma), and parts of China, and France controlling Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos.
Read the entire article
On one side are those who welcome the rise of China as a counterbalance for longstanding Western hegemony across Asia Pacific, on the other are those that fear China will simply replace a “benevolent” Western hegemony with its own brand of regional domination.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but to arrive there, one must understand the true nature of the unfolding, and very unnecessary tensions in the South China Sea.
Enduring Imperialism
The Pacific, and in particular much of China and Southeast Asia, was under the control of colonial European powers with Britain controlling Malaysia, Myanmar (then called Burma), and parts of China, and France controlling Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos.
Read the entire article
Friday, October 16, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
The Debate and the Myth of the Antiwar Democrat
On Tuesday, CNN hosted the first Democrat debate of the 2016 presidential election. Present and accounted for were former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Rhode Island Governor (but also Republican Senator) Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley.
A lot of domestic issues were raised and debated. Sanders continued to feel most like the new Obama, in that he’d said some nice things about not going to war, but didn’t sound adamant about that. Nobody was very pro Edward Snowden except Chafee, and Clinton was the most adamantly opposed to the whistleblower’s actions.
The most heartening moment for antiwar principle might have been when Chafee and Sanders piled onto Clinton over her vote for the 2003 Iraq invasion and called her trustworthiness into question. Clinton, in true political style, responded more or less with but the president liked me enough to appoint me Secretary of State, which is not an answer. As Vox.com’s Zack Beauchamp noted, this evasion was not challenged by any of the other candidates.
Fundamentally, nobody on the debate stage sounded as overtly hawkish as nearly all GOP candidates do when they are running for the highest office in the land. Clinton has hawk credentials, but she plays a delicate game by not acting ashamed of them because they make her more “experienced” and therefore fit for office, while not exactly trumpeting them because they are not what Democrats like to think of themselves as (warmongering). This absurd balancing act makes Clinton appear even more of a weasel (to mix my animal metaphors).
Read the entire article
A lot of domestic issues were raised and debated. Sanders continued to feel most like the new Obama, in that he’d said some nice things about not going to war, but didn’t sound adamant about that. Nobody was very pro Edward Snowden except Chafee, and Clinton was the most adamantly opposed to the whistleblower’s actions.
The most heartening moment for antiwar principle might have been when Chafee and Sanders piled onto Clinton over her vote for the 2003 Iraq invasion and called her trustworthiness into question. Clinton, in true political style, responded more or less with but the president liked me enough to appoint me Secretary of State, which is not an answer. As Vox.com’s Zack Beauchamp noted, this evasion was not challenged by any of the other candidates.
Fundamentally, nobody on the debate stage sounded as overtly hawkish as nearly all GOP candidates do when they are running for the highest office in the land. Clinton has hawk credentials, but she plays a delicate game by not acting ashamed of them because they make her more “experienced” and therefore fit for office, while not exactly trumpeting them because they are not what Democrats like to think of themselves as (warmongering). This absurd balancing act makes Clinton appear even more of a weasel (to mix my animal metaphors).
Read the entire article
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
US, Russia & Syria: The Problem With Faking It
The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up.
This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight against ISIL.
And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites are not happy about it.
You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another generation.
How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements issued over the last several decades.
The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.
Read the entire article
This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight against ISIL.
And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites are not happy about it.
You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another generation.
How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements issued over the last several decades.
The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.
Read the entire article
Monday, October 12, 2015
Friday, October 9, 2015
One Bank to Rule Them All: The Bank for International Settlements
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an organization that is shrouded in mystery, mainly due to the fact that the majority of people don’t even know of its existence. According to the BIS itself, the main purpose of the Bank is to “to promote the cooperation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international financial operations” and “act as trustee or agent in regard to international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements of the parties concern.”[1] This means that the BIS is to have the central banks work with one another to facilitate international operations and to oversee any international financial settlements.
The Bank has a Board of Directors, which “may have up to 21 members, including six ex officio directors, comprising the central bank Governors of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each ex officio member may appoint another member of the same nationality. Nine Governors of other member central banks may be elected to the Board.”[2] BIS also has a management wing in the form of a General and Deputy General Manager, both of whom are responsible to the board and supported by Executive, Finance, and Compliance and Operational Risk Committees.[3]
However, its purpose has changed and evolved over the decades, however, it has always been a club for central bankers, yet in many ways it can aid some countries more than others.
The origins of the BIS lie in the United States, specifically New York City. The individuals involved were international bankers who, despite past differences, “worked together to establish a world financial order that would incorporate the federal principle of the American central banking system.”[4] Specifically among them were people such as “Owen D. Young, J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont, S. Parker Gilbert, Gates W. McGarrah, and Jackson Reynolds, who, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, sought to extend the principle of central bank cooperation to the international sphere.”[5]Before delving any further into the creation of the Bank, it is necessary to examine some of the more notable of these individuals to better understand why they would be involved in the creation of an international bank.
Read the entire article
The Bank has a Board of Directors, which “may have up to 21 members, including six ex officio directors, comprising the central bank Governors of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each ex officio member may appoint another member of the same nationality. Nine Governors of other member central banks may be elected to the Board.”[2] BIS also has a management wing in the form of a General and Deputy General Manager, both of whom are responsible to the board and supported by Executive, Finance, and Compliance and Operational Risk Committees.[3]
However, its purpose has changed and evolved over the decades, however, it has always been a club for central bankers, yet in many ways it can aid some countries more than others.
The origins of the BIS lie in the United States, specifically New York City. The individuals involved were international bankers who, despite past differences, “worked together to establish a world financial order that would incorporate the federal principle of the American central banking system.”[4] Specifically among them were people such as “Owen D. Young, J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont, S. Parker Gilbert, Gates W. McGarrah, and Jackson Reynolds, who, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, sought to extend the principle of central bank cooperation to the international sphere.”[5]Before delving any further into the creation of the Bank, it is necessary to examine some of the more notable of these individuals to better understand why they would be involved in the creation of an international bank.
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Trump Against the War Party
War is the great clarifier. The Russian move to quash both ISIS and the US-backed jihadist movement aimed at overthrowing Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad has defined the lines of demarcation between the candidates for US President in both parties, and shown us what they are made of.
The issue at hand: should the US impose a “no-fly” zone in Syria, or parts of it, in order to stop the Russians from spoiling our little party?
On the one side, we have the President of the United States, who – foiled by popular opinion when he last tried to massively intervene in Syria’s civil war – has apparently learned his lesson. He opposes a no-fly zone, at least for the moment. The Russian attempt to “prop up” Assad” is “just going to get them stuck in a quagmire,” he said at a news conference, “and it won’t work, and they will be there for a while if they don’t take a different course.” He went on to describe “half-baked” ideas about what to do in response to the Russian move, later claiming that he wasn’t talking about Hillary Clinton’s support for a no-fly zone – although it’s hard to take him at his word on that. Clinton "is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” he said, but "there’s a difference between running for president and being president. And the decisions that are being made and the discussions that I’m having with the Joint Chiefs become much more specific and require, I think, a different kind of judgment. If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments.”
Speaking of the Joint Chiefs, as a presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have to deal with the Pentagon, which is reportedly against imposing a no-fly zone – since they will be charged with enforcing it while somehow avoiding a clash with the Russians over Syrian airspace. In short, if the War Party has its way, the US military will once again be charged with an impossible task, and the Pentagon is none too eager to be blamed for the inevitable resulting disaster.
Freed of the Pentagon’s restraining hand, Clinton, for her part, told a Boston television station:
Read the entire article
The issue at hand: should the US impose a “no-fly” zone in Syria, or parts of it, in order to stop the Russians from spoiling our little party?
On the one side, we have the President of the United States, who – foiled by popular opinion when he last tried to massively intervene in Syria’s civil war – has apparently learned his lesson. He opposes a no-fly zone, at least for the moment. The Russian attempt to “prop up” Assad” is “just going to get them stuck in a quagmire,” he said at a news conference, “and it won’t work, and they will be there for a while if they don’t take a different course.” He went on to describe “half-baked” ideas about what to do in response to the Russian move, later claiming that he wasn’t talking about Hillary Clinton’s support for a no-fly zone – although it’s hard to take him at his word on that. Clinton "is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” he said, but "there’s a difference between running for president and being president. And the decisions that are being made and the discussions that I’m having with the Joint Chiefs become much more specific and require, I think, a different kind of judgment. If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments.”
Speaking of the Joint Chiefs, as a presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have to deal with the Pentagon, which is reportedly against imposing a no-fly zone – since they will be charged with enforcing it while somehow avoiding a clash with the Russians over Syrian airspace. In short, if the War Party has its way, the US military will once again be charged with an impossible task, and the Pentagon is none too eager to be blamed for the inevitable resulting disaster.
Freed of the Pentagon’s restraining hand, Clinton, for her part, told a Boston television station:
Read the entire article
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Monday, October 5, 2015
President Bashar Assad Is No Great Satan
Could anyone in the Obama administration have been so slow-witted to imagine that Russia wouldn’t move hard to counter US efforts to overthrow Moscow’s ally, Syria?
The Syrian war began almost five years ago by the US, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Syria’s Iranian and Russian-backed government. The result so far: 250,000 dead, 9.5 million refugees flooding Europe and Syria shattered.
This is nothing new: the first CIA coup attempt to overthrow a Syrian ruler Gen. Husni Zaim was in 1949.
A combination of imperial hubris and ignorance has led Washington to believe it could overthrow any government that was disobedient or uncooperative. Syria was chosen as the latest target of regime change because the Assad regime – a recognized, legitimate government and UN member –was a close ally of America’s Great Satan, Iran. Formerly it had been cooperating with Washington.
After watching Syria be slowly destroyed, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, moved his rook onto the Syrian chessboard. For the first time since 1991, Moscow sent a small expeditionary unit of 50 warplanes to Syria both to shore up the Assad regime and to reaffirm that Russia has long-standing strategic interests in Syria.
Read the entire article
The Syrian war began almost five years ago by the US, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Syria’s Iranian and Russian-backed government. The result so far: 250,000 dead, 9.5 million refugees flooding Europe and Syria shattered.
This is nothing new: the first CIA coup attempt to overthrow a Syrian ruler Gen. Husni Zaim was in 1949.
A combination of imperial hubris and ignorance has led Washington to believe it could overthrow any government that was disobedient or uncooperative. Syria was chosen as the latest target of regime change because the Assad regime – a recognized, legitimate government and UN member –was a close ally of America’s Great Satan, Iran. Formerly it had been cooperating with Washington.
After watching Syria be slowly destroyed, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, moved his rook onto the Syrian chessboard. For the first time since 1991, Moscow sent a small expeditionary unit of 50 warplanes to Syria both to shore up the Assad regime and to reaffirm that Russia has long-standing strategic interests in Syria.
Read the entire article
Friday, October 2, 2015
Thursday, October 1, 2015
P. J. O’Rourke on Ann Coulter: Not-So-Deep Thinking about Race, Anti-Semitism, etc.
I suppose I should cut P. J. O’Rourke some slack. Like him, I was once on the hippie-dippy left during the 60s, and I know it’s hard to get over that. But there are limits. His “She said what?” in the Weekly Standard is an important reminder of how far there is to go to have intelligent discussion of Jewish issues in the mainstream media. O’Rourke, who, it must be stipulated, is a very entertaining writer, wants to call himself a conservative. The sad reality is that he is just the sort of cuckservative who is welcome at The Weekly Standard. As James Fulford points out at VDARE, he has Utopian ideas on race, maintaining that Haitians immigrants are just as acceptable as the Irish — or perhaps even more so if they had to struggle to get here, because, after all, being aggressive enough to get here illegally means that you would be crime free, have a high IQ, and not be assertive about demanding free stuff paid for by previous waves of White immigrants. Or maybe not.
The main point of this is to discuss O’Rourke’s ideas on Jews and anti-Semitism, but a few preliminaries are in order. He thinks that because the Indians got here first, that Europeans have no right to defend their conquest:
She’s from Connecticut and is very upset about immigrants. I am willing to lend a sympathetic ear to people from Connecticut who are very upset about immigrants, if they have a tribal casino.
But why stop at Native Americans? What about the tsunami of migrants entering European homelands? Would nativism and nationalism by native Europeans be okay? But the same attitudes and forces welcoming the displacement of Europeans in the US are resulting in the displacement of Europeans from lands they have dominated for thousands of years. And we hear the same charges of “racism” and “Nazism” thrown at opponents of immigration in both Europe and the U.S. Focusing on the tribal casinos ignores the problems facing European societies everywhere.
Read the entire article
The main point of this is to discuss O’Rourke’s ideas on Jews and anti-Semitism, but a few preliminaries are in order. He thinks that because the Indians got here first, that Europeans have no right to defend their conquest:
She’s from Connecticut and is very upset about immigrants. I am willing to lend a sympathetic ear to people from Connecticut who are very upset about immigrants, if they have a tribal casino.
But why stop at Native Americans? What about the tsunami of migrants entering European homelands? Would nativism and nationalism by native Europeans be okay? But the same attitudes and forces welcoming the displacement of Europeans in the US are resulting in the displacement of Europeans from lands they have dominated for thousands of years. And we hear the same charges of “racism” and “Nazism” thrown at opponents of immigration in both Europe and the U.S. Focusing on the tribal casinos ignores the problems facing European societies everywhere.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
A Nation of Liars
The top 25 American lies of all time
1. 9/11 done by Muslims.
1a. Airplanes brought towers down.
1b. Jews were not involved.
2. Hitler was evil, started WW2.
2a. 6 million Jews died in WW2.
3. Lone assassins killed JFK, RFK, MLK.
4. Iraq had WMDs, had to be invaded
5. Vaccines are safe and effective.
5a. GMOs make healthy food.
6. Chemtrails don’t exist.
6a. The weather is not controlled.
7. Qaddafi was a bad man.
8. Israel is America’s friend.
8a. Palestinians are vicious terrorists.
9. Astronauts went to the moon.
10. Children were killed at Sandy Hook.
11. AIDS came from monkeys.
11a. Ebola a naturally occurring disease.
12. Syria gassed children.
13. Russia invaded Ukraine.
14. Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden.
15. Blacks contribute much to society.
16. White people are evil.
17. There is strength in diversity.
18. U.S. elections are not fixed.
18a. U.S. Constitution still in force.
19. America has a free press not controlled by Jews.
20. Homosexuals don’t molest children.
20a. Pedophilia is a lifestyle choice.
21. Marijuana is harmful.
22. Civil war was about slavery.
23. Holistic doctors dying accidentally.
24. Fluoride helps keep your teeth healthy.
25. Jews are the chosen people.
Read the entire article
1. 9/11 done by Muslims.
1a. Airplanes brought towers down.
1b. Jews were not involved.
2. Hitler was evil, started WW2.
2a. 6 million Jews died in WW2.
3. Lone assassins killed JFK, RFK, MLK.
4. Iraq had WMDs, had to be invaded
5. Vaccines are safe and effective.
5a. GMOs make healthy food.
6. Chemtrails don’t exist.
6a. The weather is not controlled.
7. Qaddafi was a bad man.
8. Israel is America’s friend.
8a. Palestinians are vicious terrorists.
9. Astronauts went to the moon.
10. Children were killed at Sandy Hook.
11. AIDS came from monkeys.
11a. Ebola a naturally occurring disease.
12. Syria gassed children.
13. Russia invaded Ukraine.
14. Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden.
15. Blacks contribute much to society.
16. White people are evil.
17. There is strength in diversity.
18. U.S. elections are not fixed.
18a. U.S. Constitution still in force.
19. America has a free press not controlled by Jews.
20. Homosexuals don’t molest children.
20a. Pedophilia is a lifestyle choice.
21. Marijuana is harmful.
22. Civil war was about slavery.
23. Holistic doctors dying accidentally.
24. Fluoride helps keep your teeth healthy.
25. Jews are the chosen people.
Read the entire article
Monday, September 28, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
A Muslim President? Was Ben Carson Right?
Beliefs matter. “Ideas Have Consequences,” as conservative scholar Richard Weaver wrote in his classic of that title in 1948.
Yet, for so believing, and so saying, Dr. Ben Carson has been subjected to a Rodney King-style night-sticking by the P.C. police.
Asked by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” whether he could support a Muslim for president, Carson replied, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
Carson was not out of the studio before the airwaves were filled with denunciations. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said CAIR is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”
In the name of tolerance, says CAIR, we cannot tolerate Carson.
And what does the Constitution say?
Read the entire article
Yet, for so believing, and so saying, Dr. Ben Carson has been subjected to a Rodney King-style night-sticking by the P.C. police.
Asked by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” whether he could support a Muslim for president, Carson replied, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
Carson was not out of the studio before the airwaves were filled with denunciations. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said CAIR is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”
In the name of tolerance, says CAIR, we cannot tolerate Carson.
And what does the Constitution say?
Read the entire article
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
“Counterproductive”?: Russia and the Warring in Syria
The Pentagon and State Department, echoed as usual by the corporate press, have expressed “concern” about Russian deliveries of the most modern tanks, fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles and other military equipment to Syria. They call them “counterproductive,” although it’s not clear what sort of productive cause they counter.
They say these shipments–which they’ve tried to thwart by instructing NATO allies to deny delivery flights through their airspace–are likely “to prolong the war” in that tragically suffering country. Cable news anchors, with furrowed brows and glaring eyes, warn their viewers that Moscow’s stepped-up support for the Assad regime is a “worrisome development.”
Moscow responds blandly that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have been allied to the Syrian government since the 1950s, when (like the U.S., actually) it saw the secular Baathists as a preferable alternative to Islamists throughout the region. Russia has been Syria’s main arms supplier for decades, and is (according to RT television) currently filling contracts with Damascus signed years ago.
(Moscow might add that it has maintained a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian coast since 1971, and an airbase at Latakia. These are among Russia’s foreign military basis, which you can count on one hand. The U.S. in contrast has, as you know, well over 700 military bases in over 135 countries where around 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed.)
Read the entire article
They say these shipments–which they’ve tried to thwart by instructing NATO allies to deny delivery flights through their airspace–are likely “to prolong the war” in that tragically suffering country. Cable news anchors, with furrowed brows and glaring eyes, warn their viewers that Moscow’s stepped-up support for the Assad regime is a “worrisome development.”
Moscow responds blandly that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have been allied to the Syrian government since the 1950s, when (like the U.S., actually) it saw the secular Baathists as a preferable alternative to Islamists throughout the region. Russia has been Syria’s main arms supplier for decades, and is (according to RT television) currently filling contracts with Damascus signed years ago.
(Moscow might add that it has maintained a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian coast since 1971, and an airbase at Latakia. These are among Russia’s foreign military basis, which you can count on one hand. The U.S. in contrast has, as you know, well over 700 military bases in over 135 countries where around 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed.)
Read the entire article
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Monday, September 21, 2015
US-China Relations: the Pentagon versus High Tech
Step by step, Washington is inexorably setting up a major provocation against China. Until now, the Obama regime tightened a military encirclement of China, expanding its armed forces agreements with Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In addition, it has promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a regional trade agreement which openly excludes China. Obama has ordered a major naval build-up in the South China Sea and embarked on extensive cyber-espionage of Chinese industries and the government via major US high-tech companies, as revealed by Edward Snowden in his release of confidential NSA documents.
As President Xi Jinping prepares for his first US visit as China’s leader on September 25, with the aim of extending economic ties between Chinese and US business (especially with the high tech corporations in Seattle and Silicon Valley), the Obama regime has threatened to impose a series of punitive sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals for ‘cyber-espionage’, essentially undermining the purpose of his trip.
Characterizing the Chinese as ‘cyber-thieves’ and imposing sanctions on Chinese businesses on the eve of Xi’s visit will be justifiably seen as a deliberate humiliation and a provocation, designed to treat China as a mere vassal state of Washington.
This will force the Chinese government to retaliate on behalf of Chinese businesses – and President Xi is fully capable of imposing retaliatory sanctions against multi-billion dollar high tech US corporations, which had been flourishing – up to now – in China.
Read the entire article
As President Xi Jinping prepares for his first US visit as China’s leader on September 25, with the aim of extending economic ties between Chinese and US business (especially with the high tech corporations in Seattle and Silicon Valley), the Obama regime has threatened to impose a series of punitive sanctions against Chinese companies and individuals for ‘cyber-espionage’, essentially undermining the purpose of his trip.
Characterizing the Chinese as ‘cyber-thieves’ and imposing sanctions on Chinese businesses on the eve of Xi’s visit will be justifiably seen as a deliberate humiliation and a provocation, designed to treat China as a mere vassal state of Washington.
This will force the Chinese government to retaliate on behalf of Chinese businesses – and President Xi is fully capable of imposing retaliatory sanctions against multi-billion dollar high tech US corporations, which had been flourishing – up to now – in China.
Read the entire article
Friday, September 18, 2015
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Record Tax Revenues, and Still the Debt Ceiling Needs an Increase?
As Congress once again prepares to increase the government’s borrowing authority above the already-absurd $18.1 trillion cap and avoid a federal default, the time to call lawmakers out on the carpet over the federal spending is long overdue. According to the Monthly Treasury Statement, released on September 11, the federal government received a record $2 trillion ($2,883,250,000,000) in tax revenues in the first 11 months of fiscal 2015, approximately $19,346 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in the same period. Why then does the spending cap need to be raised once again?
CNS News answers that question rather simply: “Despite the record tax revenues of $2,883,250,000,000 in the first eleven months of this fiscal year, the government spent $3,413,210,000,000 in those eleven months, and, thus, ran up a deficit of $529,960,000,000 during the period.”
Source
CNS News answers that question rather simply: “Despite the record tax revenues of $2,883,250,000,000 in the first eleven months of this fiscal year, the government spent $3,413,210,000,000 in those eleven months, and, thus, ran up a deficit of $529,960,000,000 during the period.”
Source
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The Syrian Crisis: A War Waged on Russia by US-NATO
It seems clear now that the West wants to defeat Russia in Syria at all costs. This latest protracted confrontation in the Middle East can be understood as a proxy war of the US and NATO against Putin’s resurgent Russia. But Syria is just one zone of engagement in a much wider war against Russia that has been taking place since Putin started to stand up to the West. The same confrontation also occurs in Ukraine and formerly in Georgia, where Russia successfully halted, albeit temporarily, the Western advance. This amounts to a new Cold War or an undeclared war where East and West are once more in global confrontation.
To date the policy to unseat Assad has failed miserably despite the West’s imposition of punishing economic sanctions, its bombing of the country and the sponsoring, financing and training of what are little more than terrorist mercenaries. It is virtually impossible to distinguish the moderate rebels from the Islamist fanatics of ISIS (Islamic State).
In reality the root of the current refugee crisis in Syria lies in the strategy of “regime change” adopted by the West over many years. After its failure to effect regime change in Syria, the West now appears intent on ruthlessly exploiting the misery of the Syrian people that the West itself has contributed towards creating in the first place, using the human desperation as the latest leverage to weaken and inflict a final defeat on a country that has been outside its control for decades.
From this perspective the generous German ‘offer’ to take in 500 thousand Syrian refugees a year can be interpreted as a cynical strategic ploy to persuade the Syrian population to break their attachment to Russia’s last remaining ally in the Middle East; thus bribing a desperate people weakened by years of conflict. Such an enticement to escape from increasingly intolerable conditions will effectively decant Syria of the most able-bodied members of its population, who will be vital to help rebuild its economy in the future.
Read the entire article
To date the policy to unseat Assad has failed miserably despite the West’s imposition of punishing economic sanctions, its bombing of the country and the sponsoring, financing and training of what are little more than terrorist mercenaries. It is virtually impossible to distinguish the moderate rebels from the Islamist fanatics of ISIS (Islamic State).
In reality the root of the current refugee crisis in Syria lies in the strategy of “regime change” adopted by the West over many years. After its failure to effect regime change in Syria, the West now appears intent on ruthlessly exploiting the misery of the Syrian people that the West itself has contributed towards creating in the first place, using the human desperation as the latest leverage to weaken and inflict a final defeat on a country that has been outside its control for decades.
From this perspective the generous German ‘offer’ to take in 500 thousand Syrian refugees a year can be interpreted as a cynical strategic ploy to persuade the Syrian population to break their attachment to Russia’s last remaining ally in the Middle East; thus bribing a desperate people weakened by years of conflict. Such an enticement to escape from increasingly intolerable conditions will effectively decant Syria of the most able-bodied members of its population, who will be vital to help rebuild its economy in the future.
Read the entire article
Monday, September 14, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked
More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military's Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.
The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.
Read the entire article
The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)