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

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

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

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

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

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’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

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

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

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

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