MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Here’s how area members of Congress voted on major issues during the legislative week – Erie Times E-Edition Article

Posted by M. C. on February 2, 2020

The Constitution declares the ability to declare war rests with congress.

Representatives Kelly and Thompson continue to defy the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Their allegiance does not rest with you. It lays with the warparty and the military/industrial/bankster/congressional complex.
http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=04e38c515

Voterama

Asserting congressional control over war with Iran: Voting 228-175, the House on Thursday adopted an amendment to HR 550 that would deny funding of any U.S. military action against Iran or its proxy forces without congressional authorization, except when there is an imminent threat to the United States, its armed forces or its territories. The measure asserts the sole constitutional power of Congress to declare war as spelled out in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The president would have to notify Congress within 48 hours if he marshals the U.S. military against Iran, then withdraw the forces within a specified time unless Congress votes to authorize the action. A yes vote was to amend the bill and send it to the Senate. Kelly: No. Thompson: No.

Repealing Iraq war resolution: Voting 236-166, the House on Thursday adopted an amendment to HR 550 (above) that would repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution, which has been cited as the legal basis of U.S. military actions in Iraq and other global theaters since, including the recent U.S. assassination at the Baghdad airport of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Congress would have six months to update U.S. war authority. Until it does, the president could immediately deploy forces to protect national security without seeking congressional approval. Opponents said the lapse would endanger U.S. troops and increase American exposure to terrorist attacks. A yes vote was to amend the bill and send it to the Senate. Kelly: No. Thompson: No.

Be seeing you

4ec7b-iu

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

America Has Come Full Circle in the Middle East – Defense One

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2020

In US interventionist foreign policy circles this is considered progress.

Eisenhower hastily convened a meeting with his top national-security advisers on the day of the Iraqi king’s downfall. John Foster Dulles, a consummate Cold Warrior and the U.S. secretary of state at the time, argued that a failure to heed Chamoun’s call would signal to the Soviets that the United States wasn’t ready to take risks for its allies, and would thus mean “the decline and indeed the elimination of our influence—from Indonesia to Morocco.”

More than half a century later, the future of the United States’ military presence in the Middle East is once again up for discussion, as Iraq calls on the U.S. to end its roughly 5,000-strong troop presence in the country and Trump struggles to remove American forces from Syria and Afghanistan as well. U.S. politicians are now grappling with the possibility of a post-American period in the region.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/01/america-has-come-full-circle-middle-east/162655/?oref=d-river

“We are opening a Pandora’s Box,” Dwight Eisenhower warned when he ordered the first U.S. combat mission in the region. Little did he know how right he would be.

In 1958, U.S. leaders stood at the threshold of an American era in the Middle East, conflicted about whether it was worth the trouble to usher in.

A year earlier, in the context of the emergent Cold War and fading British and French power in the region, Dwight Eisenhower had articulated and received congressional approval for what became known as the Eisenhower doctrine. The United States had for the first time staked out national interests in the Middle East—oil, U.S. bases and allies, Soviet containment—and declared that it was prepared to defend them with military force.

Sixty-two years before President Donald Trump dispatched a drone to Baghdad to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, this is how American combat missions in the post–World War II Middle East began.

Eisenhower felt compelled to issue his doctrine following a showdown over the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, an Arab nationalist whom U.S. officials perceived as allied with the Soviet Union. The U.S. president had pledged to honor requests for American military assistance by countries facing aggression from proponents of “international communism.”

That U.S. commitment was tested when insurrectionist Iraqi army officers executed their country’s last king, the Western-friendly Faisal II, in Baghdad in the summer of 1958. Camille Chamoun, the Christian leader of Lebanon and an opponent of Nasser, asked for American aid against the backdrop of the coup in Iraq and looming civil war in his own country. (The revolution in Iraq had little connection to Nasser, but the U.S. didn’t initially grasp that.) In keeping with the grand domino theorizing of that period, U.S. officials worried that if they didn’t act decisively, U.S. partners such as Lebanon and Jordan would be next to fall to Nasserite nationalism and, by extension, Soviet communism.

Eisenhower hastily convened a meeting with his top national-security advisers on the day of the Iraqi king’s downfall. John Foster Dulles, a consummate Cold Warrior and the U.S. secretary of state at the time, argued that a failure to heed Chamoun’s call would signal to the Soviets that the United States wasn’t ready to take risks for its allies, and would thus mean “the decline and indeed the elimination of our influence—from Indonesia to Morocco.” In a calculation that has been turned on its head today, the president maintained that “to lose this area by inaction would be far worse than the loss in China, because of the strategic position and resources of the Middle East.” His team insisted that the U.S. was on sound footing to intercede militarily in another country’s civil war, because Lebanon’s president had invited them in, a poignant point to read today as Iraqi officials seek to kick the U.S. military out of the country in retaliation forSoleimani’s killing. As for intervening in Iraq as well, Eisenhower, a celebrated World War II general who was typically cautious about taking military action, dismissed the notion as unworkable. In an illustration of just how new all this was to Americans, Eisenhower’s speech announcing the operation included a geography lesson, noting that Lebanon was “a small country, a little less than the size of Connecticut” and that Iraq was “nearby.” He was also mindful of the risks. “I realize we are opening a Pandora’s Box here,” a jumpy Eisenhower told Britain’s equally nervous prime minister on the eve of deploying the Marines to Lebanon.

The episode and its aftermath are essential to understanding how the United States went from being deeply apprehensive about getting involved militarily in the Middle East to conducting more military interventions there than in any other region in the world. The trajectory of U.S. involvement is one of American leaders gradually putting stock in their ability to achieve their objectives through discrete military action and then investing everything in costly military misadventures, to the point that we’ve come full circle: The American public and its leaders are profoundly ambivalent about even limited and critical missions, such as the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Even in 1958, now-familiar patterns of military intervention in the Middle East were evident. Though he advocated for a troop deployment to Lebanon, for example, Dulles warned that the United States was entering a situation in which “it will be easy to get ourselves involved, and very hard to get out.” Then, as now, military inaction was equated with the United States renouncing its interests in the region. “We must act [in Lebanon], or get out of the Middle East entirely,” Eisenhower told his aides, presenting a stark choice that Trump is surely acquainted with. Then, as now, the White House debated whether it needed congressional authorization for its combat operations. Then, as now, U.S. leaders offered the public misleading justifications for their use of force; Eisenhower greatly inflated the situation in Lebanon to be about avoiding another world war by refusing to appease the Soviet Union, when it mostly had to do with internal Lebanese politics.

Despite Eisenhower’s soaring rhetoric, the actual U.S. objective was narrow in scope: to prop up a friendly government. And that goal was achieved with surprising ease. Dulles had predicted that the military intervention would generate blowback, such as an oil crisis as Egypt and its ally Syria retaliated against commercial infrastructure, or “a wave of anti-Western feeling in the Arab world.” Yet when hundreds of U.S. marines came ashore in Beirut on July 15, 1958—backed up by three aircraft carriers and dozens of warships in the Mediterranean Sea, plus the threat of the U.S. deploying nuclear weapons from Germany—they were greeted merely by sunbathers and vendors on the beach. U.S. diplomats soon negotiated a political settlement that eased Chamoun out of power. American forces, eventually numbering in the thousands, left the country in October after suffering only one fatality, from sniper fire, during the three-month deployment. They got in easily, they stabilized the situation, and they got out easily.

More than half a century later, the future of the United States’ military presence in the Middle East is once again up for discussion, as Iraq calls on the U.S. to end its roughly 5,000-strong troop presence in the country and Trump struggles to remove American forces from Syria and Afghanistan as well. U.S. politicians are now grappling with the possibility of a post-American period in the region.

Though Eisenhower and his advisers couldn’t have known it at the time, their swift, successful operation would prove the exception rather than the rule. “Subsequent American combat missions in the Middle East would not be so lucky or so cost-free,” Bruce Riedel, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, has written. “The wars in Iraq have now seemingly become endless.”

In the years following the campaign in Lebanon, Iran underwent an Islamic revolution, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and violent Sunni Islamist movements rose up—all seismic developments that encouraged the United States to double down on its investments in the Middle East. By the ’80s, Washington had created a combatant command for the greater region and unveiled the Carter doctrine to defend Persian Gulf partners. The U.S. came to view Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq as its top threat after the Soviet Union collapsed, and George H. W. Bush’s carefully calibrated multinational military operations to reverse Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait arguably represented the height of U.S. military competence in the Middle East.

In the space of a decade and two Bush presidencies, however, the United States veered into a major debacle in Iraq. James Jeffrey, now Trump’s special representative for Syria, noted in a 2016 study that after the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush decided not to manage the challenges to U.S. interests in the region, as his predecessors had done for the past three decades, but to try to eliminate those challenges altogether. Through its post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, the Bush administration attempted not only to root out hostile regimes but also to fundamentally remake the region in a manner consistent with U.S. interests and values.

Bush, of course, failed in spectacular fashion to achieve that transformation. Barack Obama, who ran for president in part to remedy those failures, mostly maintained America’s security architecture in the region and sought (largely unsuccessfully) to overhaul America’s role in the Middle East without resorting to military force. Trump, by contrast, has been willing to use limited military force, but has also demonstrated little interest in effecting any change in the region beyond retiring the United States as a security guarantor. Ultimately, he wants out.

And even if Trump doesn’t get his way entirely, he will undoubtedly seize on additional opportunities to reduce the American military presence in the Middle East, as fed-up Americans and progressive presidential candidates push in the same direction. When Eisenhower elected to open that “Pandora’s Box” back in 1958, his justification was that it would be “disastrous” if “we don’t.” Perhaps nothing signals the coming post-American era in the Middle East more than the fact that so many U.S. leaders these days fear the disastrous consequences of leaving the box open.

Be seeing you

Suez Crisis | Middle East [1956] | Britannica.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cancel Culture Attacks on ‘White Privilege’ Will Trigger Tragedy Down the Road — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2020

According to the new woke math currently being taught in the Seattle public school system, “Western” mathematics is being foisted upon unsuspecting students as “the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence” in some diabolical plan to “disenfranchise people and communities of color.”

That’s because White folks tend to use dog ownership as a means to achieve “reinforced boundaries” and thus their “White privileges” in their otherwise diverse neighborhoods.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/31/cancel-culture-attacks-on-white-privilege-will-trigger-tragedy-down-the-road/

Robert Bridge

Being born White these days comes with a lot of excess baggage. Instead of each human being coming into existence with a clean slate, so to speak, a Caucasian newborn (who exactly qualifies as ‘White’ is another question) is brought into the world carrying the stain of its ancestors’ transgressions, of which, we are constantly reminded, are infinite and unforgivable.

Yes, European settlers to America were, for example, responsible for killing off a large number of the Native Indian population, as well as participating in the African slave trade. And who could forget the regrettable legacy of colonialism? At this point, I will resist the temptation to construct a scorecard based on the historical crimes of other races, many of whom were guilty of the very same crimes now being attributed to the White people.

This sudden desire among the Liberal Inquisition to settle past historical scores with the White man, who ironically has become his own burden, is already revealing itself in radical new ways. Students at prestigious Yale University, for example, will no longer be able to attend an introductory course to Western Art History due to “student uneasiness over an idealized Western “canon” — a product of an overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male cadre of artists,” reported the school’s newspaper.

Perhaps the only thing surprising about Yale’s announcement is that it came so late in the day. After all, the field of mathematics, which one would think is adequately insulated from identity politics, has been accused of being built on a purely racist foundation.

According to the new woke math currently being taught in the Seattle public school system, “Western” mathematics is being foisted upon unsuspecting students as “the only legitimate expression of mathematical identity and intelligence” in some diabolical plan to “disenfranchise people and communities of color.”

Perhaps the best evidence that there is a concerted effort to cancel the White race from recognition for their achievements can be witnessed by a simple search on Google. Type in ‘White inventors’ and fasten your seat belt. While there is no doubt that minorities have contributed many inventions over the course of the centuries, the Google results make it look like the tinkering White man, where he appears at all, is still struggling to invent the wheel. If the world’s biggest search engine were relying solely on algorithms to provide its ‘answers’ (as opposed to the deliberate meddling of a human hand) then it seems utterly impossible that renowned ‘Caucasian’ inventors, like the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Tim Berners-Lee and Isaac Newton, to name a few, do not feature anywhere near the top of Google search results. This was a deliberate move by the Silicon Valley giant to deny White inventors their rightful place in the historical record.

Commercial break! Watch Gillette’s stomach-churning virtue-signaling video devoted to not removing whiskers from your face but the question of ‘toxic masculinity. Ask yourself what race is portrayed as the guiltiest of displaying undesirable behavior (making advances on females, for example) in society.

Equally shocking was the news that Goldman Sachs, of all companies, was jumping on the virtue signaling bandwagon in an apparent effort to put White executives in their rightful place, which increasingly is not at the top. Indeed, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has a plan to save corporate America from all-male, all-white corporate boards: The investment bank will decline to take a company public unless it has at least one woman or non-white member on board.

The CBS article where this story appeared attempted to justify the move by citing a study that argues more diverse firms make “better investment decisions and scale back on aggressive risk-taking.” Well, if that were true, then Goldman Sachs would be better off asserting its commitment to the ‘free market’ as opposed to the lunatic social justice fringe. The reason is at the core of capitalist theory: those firms that fail to diversify (if it is indeed the best business model) will ultimately falter due to the market’s law of natural selection. Instead, David Solomon would rather align himself with cultural ‘progressives’ by forcefully removing White executives, many of whom are in their positions due to hard work and merit. On top of that, there is the question regarding the very constitutionality of such efforts at ‘affirmative action’ to correct perceived wrongs in the workplace.

Curb your racism, avoid yoga and dog ownership

Now, if all that were not enough, flickering in the background of these stories are vile racist ideas that would never be attributed to other peoples without massive fallout. For example, did you happen to know that White people participating in the seemingly benign discipline of yoga, an increasingly popular group activity for relieving stress and staying fit, are in reality supporting the vile white supremacist belief system?

Shreena Gandhi, a religious studies professor at Michigan State, and Lillie Wolff, a self-described “anti-racist white Jewish organizer, facilitator, and healer,” co-authored an article entitled, ‘Yoga and the Roots of Cultural Appropriation.’ In it, the very imaginative authors argue that the “modern-day trend of cultural appropriation of yoga is a continuation of white supremacy and colonialism, maintaining the pattern of white people consuming the stuff of culture that is convenient and portable…”

The madness does not stop there. Not by a long shot.

Now if, by chance, you happen to be White, as well as a yoga enthusiast AND dog owner, you may as well just surrender to your darkest demons and sign up now for the Ku Klux Klan. I am only half joking. See, because in the minds of the social justice thought police, White people who walk their dogs around the neighborhood – pooper scooper in hand – may also signify a not so harmless breed of human. That’s because White folks tend to use dog ownership as a means to achieve “reinforced boundaries” and thus their “White privileges” in their otherwise diverse neighborhoods.

“White residents of multicultural areas tend to overlook inequality in their neighborhoods,” writes Sarah Mayorga-Gallo, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston, who went on to identify the surprising “vehicle of racial segregation,” which just happens to be White man’s best friend, the dog.

The academic relayed the heart-wrenching story of Jerry, a black homeowner in his sixties, who chanced upon a neighborhood bakery in the town of Creekridge Park, North Carolina. He stopped to chat with some dog-owning customers, who were white, in the outdoor seating area, but the staff asked him to leave – a scenario that is played over thousands of times every day at any restaurant that has an outdoor seating area.

As Mayorga-Gallo explains it: “Jerry is a black disabled veteran who was wearing his old army uniform that day. He figures they thought he was begging for money.”

Without providing more information on Jerry of the tattered Army uniform, like, for example, if he was in fact a panhandler, Mayorga-Gallo arrives at the White-trashing conclusion she was certainly looking for: “The dogs didn’t create the interracial boundaries at the bakery, which caters to a primarily white, middle-class clientele. In fact, the dogs presented an avenue to connect black and white neighbors. But they gave bakery staff a reason to intervene, to maintain interracial boundaries.” Now had Mayorga-Gallo taken the time to conduct her own experiment, like how a restaurant staff would react to a White beggar attempting to talk to a group of paying Black customers, I think she may have been surprised at the results. Instead, we must settle for the ‘White dog owners contribute to racial segregation’ verdict.

For some readers, all of this may sound a bit trifling, insignificant and even humorous. That would be a mistake. This steady flow of articles, which attempt to portray White Americans as closet racists, could – at the very least – instill some level of hate aimed at the White population. In fact, that already seems to be happening. Meanwhile, by constantly eliminating the achievements of Whites, based on whatever explanation, or even removing them in the name of ‘diversity,’ this could also result in some sort of unintended backlash.

These non-stop efforts to characterize the U.S. White majority with racism and supremacism do not stand up to scrutiny. After all, the country fought a civil war that was at least partially aimed at ending the slave trade. Later, the country passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which opened the floodgates to people of non-European descent. While there is still room for improvement, the race situation is nowhere near the crisis levels that the media regularly ascribes to it.

All things considered, it seems to be a recipe for disaster for the media to continually – in the tormented spirit of ‘social justice’ – to attribute racist tendencies to White Americans across the board. That is not only incredibly wrong, it is dangerous. It will end in disaster.

 

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

offended

Citizen: “What are you protesting against” Johnny: “What have you got?” The Wild One

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cancel Culture Attacks on ‘White Privilege’ Will Trigger Tragedy Down the Road — Strategic Culture

Doug Casey on What the International Ruling Class Have Planned for You

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2020

Davos people see the common man as the real problem.

And leading the charge is Davos attendee Greta Thunberg. She’s emblematic of how thoroughly degraded this has become. Greta is a manufactured celebrity. She came out of nowhere last year; massive but completely undeserved media attention made her into one of the planet’s most famous people. It’s not just laughable, but amazing, that a high school sophomore—with no knowledge or experience—has become a world opinion leader.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-what-the-international-ruling-class-have-planned-for-you/

by Doug Casey

International Man: No matter the problem, the prescription of the Davos crowd is always more welfare, more warfare, more money printing, more taxes, and of course, more centralization of power into global institutions.

What’s your take?

Doug Casey: The people who attend Davos are all welfare statists. They’re not necessarily socialists, insofar as they don’t want to see government nationalize industries. Most understand how totally dysfunctional that is and that they don’t really benefit from it. Strict socialism, defined as State ownership of the means of production, is off the table. They prefer economic fascism, where a powerful State can funnel wealth to the corporations the elite own or control. They’re happy to throw some table scraps to the unwashed masses, of course. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is the best way to do that.

Again, they’re not socialists. They’re welfare statists. Completely opportunistic and absolutely unprincipled. Despicable people, actually. Few are entrepreneurial, independent thinkers or free-market oriented. Those types would be disruptive at Davos, and if they’re ever invited, it would be only once.

Other than celebrities, court intellectuals, and publicity-oriented multibillionaires, the attendees are almost all bureaucrats and politicians who thrive on stolen money. But it’s no longer easily visible briefcases full of cash. That’s quaint in today’s world. They steal indirectly, by making sure they benefit from state regulations, state favors, and the inflation of the currency.

Bribes are in the form of tax-deducible donations to charitable foundations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). That’s not only much safer, but the money is vastly bigger, and the way it’s rigged adds to their prestige. Both making and taking a bribe disguises the miscreants as philanthropists and do-gooders when they use an NGO as a funnel.

But getting back to their economic views, they’re all for “quantitative easing.” Printing money—MMT—directly benefits the stock market. It raises corporate earnings, and much of the newly created cash directly boosts the prices of shares. It’s really sweet, if you’re an insider.

International Man: At this year’s event, climate change appears to be a big focus.

What are your thoughts on this?

Doug Casey: These fools love to talk about global warming, which they attribute to carbon dioxide. Their jets and limos are a small price to pay for the invaluable moral hectoring they give to the billions of hoi polloi.

Davos people see the common man as the real problem. And perversely, the common man believes what he’s told in the media—namely, that he is the problem. Pseudo science has become a new religion. It’s become a moral crusade against carbon, the one element that’s basic to all life; it’s now more hated than uranium, plutonium, or gold. Carbon is being pursued by a lynch mob of angry chimpanzees.

And leading the charge is Davos attendee Greta Thunberg. She’s emblematic of how thoroughly degraded this has become. Greta is a manufactured celebrity. She came out of nowhere last year; massive but completely undeserved media attention made her into one of the planet’s most famous people. It’s not just laughable, but amazing, that a high school sophomore—with no knowledge or experience—has become a world opinion leader. You may have heard her famous deranged rant, but just in case, here it is.

She has absolutely nothing going for her but things like anger, resentment, hatred, and fanaticism. No matter. The Masters of the Universe sit there as she scolds them for their evil in destroying the world and ruining her youth.

The silly little bitch is a frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic and suffers from several really severe psychological aberrations. She is to the world what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is to the United States. She will undoubtedly go into some multi-billion dollar NGO, where she can do a maximum of damage.

People value urgency, sincerity, and passion. Like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Castro, and the like, she’s got plenty. And nobody dares say a word about it, because she’s been granted the moral high ground. This augurs very poorly for the future.

Probably the only intelligent words spoken at Davos this year came from Donald Trump, of all people, when he decried “prophets of doom,” referring to the global warming crowd.

Climate change has been around for about four billion years. And the biggest driver of it, by far, is the sun. Not carbon dioxide, a trace gas. There’s 20 times more argon, in the atmosphere. Without the sun, earth would be a ball frozen at about two degrees above absolute zero. Not counting the effects of cosmic rays, the planet’s changes in orbit and tilt, the solar system’s rotation around the galaxy, and a score of other critical factors. But these people don’t talk about that, because those things are totally and obviously beyond our control. Best to stick with carbon, which is proving helpful in controlling the masses.

International Man: Given the disastrous policies the Davos crowd has in the pipeline, what should the average person do?

Doug Casey: Treat these people with the respect they deserve—which is to say, treat them like drunks discussing the weather at a cocktail party. Davos is just a social gathering for people who have a busybody streak. It would be completely unimportant except for the fact the media says it’s important.

The only thing that surprises me about Davos is that the hustler who runs it hasn’t yet invited the Kardashians.

Editor’s Note: There’s no question the elite are eager to promote policies like negative interest rates, the abolition of cash, and mass migration. These trends are in motion, and are accelerating at a rapid rate.

It’s all shaping up to be a world-class disaster…

Be seeing you

Greta Thunberg Scolds Davos: Climate Demands 'Completely ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

The 2020 Coronavirus Scare: Better Than Any Horror Movie – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2020

If you are still concerned, the red wine molecule resveratrol, garlic, vitamin D, vitamin C, and supplemental zinc are safe, scientifically-backed remedies at hand.

Lyme disease, Ebola, Coronavirus. Isn’t it an odd coincidence that these outbreaks all happened near government run biological (warfare?) research labs?

Don’t worry. The government is here to help. Like all government instigated crisis, we will never know the truth.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/bill-sardi/the-2020-coronavirus-scare-better-than-any-horror-movie/

By

The emails pour in………. in one way or another the emailers words ask: “are we all going to die of coronavirus infection?” “What do we do?” I can feel the panic and terror in the emails I am receiving.

This time, the viral epidemic is better than any horror movie. One wonders if there will be a hidden parasite in the upcoming coronavirus vaccine that penetrates the blood/brain barrier and zombifies humans – mind control via vaccination. This actually happens in nature among wasps, worms, dogs, and even humans (archived in Matt Simon’s book PLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD). It’s a modern re-run of the “everybody had better drink their Kool-Aid” event that killed 900 members of a cult in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978, X a billion. I’d invest in the casket business now before others think about it. We’d all literally be dying for a cure.

Well, there is no vaccine, which is the real reason for this contrived pandemic, brought to you by the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control, and a committee that planned the whole event in order to gain public funding for a vaccine and to prime the global masses with fear for the first attempt of a worldwide vaccination campaign. Keep the multitudes on edge. Get them clamoring for a cure. Provoke panic. The World Bank is providing funds to financially weather this planned pandemic. A major airline has already cancelled flights to China for a month. Anticipate mandated vaccination in order to fly internationally once a vaccine is approved and available. Maybe vaccination records will become part of a passport.

The urgency: “….We now interrupt this broadcast for an announcement by the World Health Organization declaring this coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency.” Drug makers are said to be “racing against time” to introduce a vaccine.

On cue, the news media hypes a winter viral infection that is less lethal than the 2003-2004 SARS coronavirus outbreak that emerged from Guangdong province in November, 2002 that infected ~8000 and led to ~800 deaths in 29 countries.

China reports 9,692 cases and 213 deaths (2.2% death rate) associated with this virus as of Jan. 30. The SARS (severe acute respiratory distress syndrome) coronavirus epidemic of 2003-2004 was reported to have infected 8360 with 764 deaths (9.1% death rate). That is 4-times less risk for death, so what is all this panic about? The fearmongering is rampant. Public health officials say “better safe than sorry.”

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association says a novel coronavirus was isolated on January 7, 2020 and states it has spread to numerous countries (but only via airline travel and not person-to-person (except for one lone case as of Jan. 30).

A published timeline shows the first case as reported on Dec. 31, with the epicenter confirmed in Wuhan, China, a day later (Jan. 1), but the World Health Organization had issued travel restrictions days before the mutated virus was isolated and confirmed.

The hasty travel warnings, quarantines, halting airline flights, faked photos of dead bodies lying on the streets of Wuhan, China; people falling over dead in the streets of China; temperature checks of airline travelers arriving from China; and censorship of proven home remedies on social media like oil of oregano and garlic (this health writer calls it the “let them die until we have a vaccine” syndrome.

Philanthropist and SuperVaxMan Bill Gates is reported to have predicted a corona-like outbreak in a 2019 Netflix documentary about the next pandemic, right down to where it would begin — a Chinese market. So, this epidemic is right on schedule by the global elites. I want to see Mr. Gates get all twelve vaccinations recommended for adults on TV all at one time. Remember, “You’re never too old to get vaccinated.”

As if by coincidence, on January 30 a major drugmaker announces it is introducing the first 2-hour commercial test for Wuhan coronavirus. The Bloomberg News announcement says the drug company’s “emergency response team of molecular diagnosticians sprang into action a few weeks ago when word of the Wuhan virus spread.” Anticipate emergency approval from the FDA for this test any day now.

One online ANON (anonymous) oracle condemns home remedies and urges humanity to obtain accurate information “for the sake of the world.”

A political website states: “Coronaviruses are very unstable, frequently mutate.” Yes, and that is why potentially mortal flu viruses and the coronavirus epidemics peter out fast, morphing into a less virulent strain mid-epidemic.

But in the back of the public’s mind is the question: “But what if?”

There won’t ever be enough vaccines. The masses would be forced to rely on home remedies.

If you are still concerned, the red wine molecule resveratrol, garlic, vitamin D, vitamin C, and supplemental zinc are safe, scientifically-backed remedies at hand.

Be seeing you

Ronald Reagan Archives - Common Sense Evaluation

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Grand Theft Property – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2020

As they ask in my native New York City, “Is it good for the Jews?”, the answer is a resounding no!  The Trump-Bibi theft of ancestral Arab lands condemns Arabs and Jews to another five decades of violence and hatred.  The Promised Land was not supposed to be like this.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/eric-margolis/grand-theft-property/

By

Special for LewRockwell.com

In 1916, as World War I raged on, a British diplomat, Mark Sykes, met with his French counterpart from the Quai d’Orsay, Monsieur Picot, and signed an agreement to partition the Ottoman Empire once victory was achieved.

The heart of the Mideast – Palestine, Syria and Iraq – was divided between Britain and France.  Italy and Russia were offered other Ottoman lands: southern Turkey was promised to Italy and Constantinople to Russia.  All this was top secret but was later revealed by the Bolsheviks after their 1917 revolution.

We have not seen such an example of breathtaking cynicism and perfidy until this week when President Donald Trump unveiled his so-called ‘Deal of the Century’ as his final solution to the fate of the long-suffering Palestinians.

Standing next to Trump was Israel’s beaming Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who just got more land than his far-right, expansionist coalition had even dreamed of.  It was not a coincidence that Trump had recently been accused of high crimes by the US House, while his buddy ‘Bibi’ had just been indicted for low crimes by Israel’s attorney general.

However, the real godfather in this historic theft was sitting almost unnoticed by media next to the presidential podium, looking very much the proverbial cat that swallowed the canary.  Billionaire gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife beamed as their ‘boys’, Trump and Bibi, proclaimed their newly configured Mideast.

Close by was Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a friend of the Netanyahu clan.  Kushner’s father, Charles, served 14 months in federal prison for illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering.  Such is the milieu from which real estate developer Trump emerged.

Under Trump’s ‘deal,’ Israel is to formally annex about 30% of the West Bank, the Arab area it conquered in the 1967 war.  This will include all Jerusalem and an archipelago of Jewish settlements on the West Bank that were implanted to thwart any possible creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Israel will control all borders of the resulting Palestinian entity, a patchwork of feeble, isolated South-African apartheid Bantustans with no airports, no control over its airspace or maritime borders – and no interest in its increasingly important offshore energy resources.  Israel gets most of the West Bank’s useful farmland and water resources.  Palestinians are left with scrub, sand and some goats.

Palestinian’s claim of a right of return for their 5 million refugees scattered around Israel’s borders will be forever rejected.  Israel’s right wing says there is no room for any Palestinians, though room was found in previous years for one million Russians, Jews and non-Jews.  More are hoped for if Vladimir Putin gives the green light.  All attempts by Palestine to seek remedies from the International Court of Justice will be quashed.

The rich oil Arabs of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia will be asked to buy off Palestinian refugees.  They have stabbed the Palestinians in the back.  Deeply fearful of Iran, these kleptomaniac Arab monarchies have thrown themselves at Trump’s feet and are kowtowing to Israel’s far right.  Israel has achieved a brilliant victory by enlisting the oil Arabs on its side and presiding over the deep split in Palestinian ranks between the PLO and Hamas.

The Greater Israel crowd in the US has almost total control of America’s Senate.  This is mainly thanks to Adelson’s donations of over $100 million to the Republicans and relentless support from pro-Israel media like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, NBC and Hollywood.

Add to this the unquestioning support of 80% of Evangelicals who make up a quarter of Republican voters.  This cult believes that Christ will return once modern Israel attains its Biblical borders, and then Earth can be destroyed by fire and brimstone.  Israel has cleverly exploited these credulous rustics who form Trump’s key electoral base.  Trump is increasingly being compared to the Bible’s King David of Israel.  That’s a long way from Queens, New York.

As they ask in my native New York City, “Is it good for the Jews?”, the answer is a resounding no!  The Trump-Bibi theft of ancestral Arab lands condemns Arabs and Jews to another five decades of violence and hatred.  The Promised Land was not supposed to be like this.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Elizabeth Warren Says Transgender Child Must Approve Education Secretary

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

“The first, it has to be someone who has taught in a public school.”

she would have that trans child interview the nominee for education secretary and look for the child’s approval:

Warren has been reaching out to LGBT voters by condemning Christian schools that hold and teach a biblical worldview of human sexuality and marriage.

Anti-Christian, anti-private education…two things that must be eliminated to insure control over the individual is established.

A child, no matter their inclinations, is likely better able to judge an education secretary than Warren.

Progressives like Warren are Franz Kafka’s Willem and Franz come to life.

A smart child would eliminate the ED. We managed fairly well until 1979 without it. Few would say we have improved since. Student competence comparisons with other countries, Asian in particular, don’t sing any praises.

Look here for the ED organization chart. A typical, expensive government cluster…

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/30/elizabeth-warren-says-transgender-child-must-approve-education-secretary/

by Dr. Susan Berry

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren told attendees at a town hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Sunday that, if she is elected president, her education secretary will have to be approved by a transgender child.

When a supporter told Warren public schools need to teach more about LGBTQ history and sex education, the Massachusetts senator replied her education secretary would have to be interviewed by a transgender child.

“I have two qualifications that I have talked about over and over for my secretary of education,” Warren said. “The first, it has to be someone who has taught in a public school.”

Then, Warren said that since the question “came from a young trans person who asked about a welcoming community,” she would have that trans child interview the nominee for education secretary and look for the child’s approval:

I said it starts with the Secretary of Education who has a lot to do with where we spend our money, with what gets advanced in our public schools, with what the standards are. And I said I’m gonna have a Secretary of Education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf and only if this person believes that our secretary or secretary of education nominee is – is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone, will that person actually be advanced to be Secretary of Education.

Warren has been reaching out to LGBT voters by condemning Christian schools that hold and teach a biblical worldview of human sexuality and marriage.

As Breitbart News also reported in January, if elected, Warren has also vowed to fill at least half of her Cabinet with women and “non-binary” individuals – or those who claim they are neither male nor female.

However, as Gallup has observed, only 4.5 percent of U.S. adults identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) in 2017.

From the beginning of the Trump administration, Democrats have continually criticized current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for not having worked as a regular public school teacher. Most Democrat 2020 candidates have represented the views of the teachers’ unions whose leadership has condemned the administration’s support for school choice, viewing it as a threat to public schools.

Be seeing you

Education for All: Defending Public Education

The Education Department will do our thinking for US

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Trump’s “win-win” plan hands everything to Israel | The Electronic Intifada

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

Palestinians don’t go entirely empty-handed. Their overlords have granted them “statehood.” Over more than twice as much land as they currently control.

That at least is the breathless reporting that infected initial
reports on the plan’s announcement, though no one stopped to ask the
obvious: two times nothing is?

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/omar-karmi/trumps-win-win-plan-hands-everything-israel

After much anticipation and with great ceremony, on Tuesday US President Donald Trump presented his plan for Middle East peace.

It’s “a great plan,” Trump had already said a few days ago, though he may just have been humoring his son-in-law Jared Kushner, its chief architect.

On Tuesday, he called the plan “win-win,” though to whom the second win goes is hard to say.

The first is undoubtedly Israel’s, of whom the only thing that is being asked is a four-year settlement freeze while Palestinian statehood is negotiated.

Outside this exhausting demand to do less, Israel gets: all (or near enough) its settlements, all of Jerusalem, control over borders, uncontested military control over the whole area of historic Palestine, some one-third of the West Bank and the removal of any possibility that Palestinians who were expelled in 1948 could ever claim a right of return or even compensation for the lands and homes and years that were stolen from them.

It is little wonder that a beaming Benjamin Netanyahu, the incumbent Israeli prime minister who stood next to Trump as he presented the plan, looked more smug than ever.

“For too long,” Netanyahu said in his remarks after Trump had delivered (boy, did he deliver), “the very heart of the land of Israel, where our patriarchs prayed, our prophets preached and our kings ruled has been outrageously branded as illegally occupied territory. Well today, Mr. President, you are puncturing this big lie.”

Indeed. No one could sum up better than Netanyahu how much is wrong with the plan. It has precisely nothing to do with the Palestinians, who have been reduced to the kind of bit players their status – in the eyes of those who came up with and support this plan – as second-class people restricts them to.

The other “win”

Palestinians don’t go entirely empty-handed. Their overlords have granted them “statehood.” Over more than twice as much land as they currently control.

That at least is the breathless reporting that infected initial reports on the plan’s announcement, though no one stopped to ask the obvious: two times nothing is?

According to the plan, the issue of territory was worked out “in the spirit of UN [Security Council Resolution] 242.” But that would suggest some kind of adherence to 1967 boundaries. Judging by the “conceptual maps” of the plan’s appendix, it is hard to see that the 1967 boundaries were even considered.

Indeed, the priority, as the plan makes clear, is Israel’s security. Hence Palestinians get no control over borders in and out of the West Bank…

Much of the presentation of the plan sounded like a threat against Palestinians.

Thus, the “difficulty” in creating a contiguous Palestinian state, given the spread of settlements, was used by an administration official as the reason for Palestinians to accept it.

“… [I]f we don’t do this freeze now I think that their chance to ever have a state basically goes away.”

What this official doesn’t seem to have stopped to consider is this: So what?

So what if that chance goes away. Israel still has to live with six million Palestinians.

Here is the eye-opening fact that eludes those who seem to think that power is all that matters: This is all over only when Palestinians say it is. Not a minute before.

Be seeing you

gaza

Middle East foreign policy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The United States: a Record-Holder in Political Assassinations — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which updated those of Ford and Carter, stipulated: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Executive Order 12333 was weakened by follow-on orders signed by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The relaxed presidential orders permitted the assassination of specially designated terrorist leaders.

The US has been in the assassination biz big time since the CIA was created. We aren’t the only ones.

…and look at all the progress we have made.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/22/the-united-states-a-record-holder-in-political-assassinations/

Wayne Madsen

The crowing by Donald Trump that he “terminated” the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Major General Qaseem Soleimani, simply because Trump believed, mobster-style, that he had it coming, should remind the world that the United States government stands as the world’s record-holder in either directly carrying out or coordinating with other parties the assassination of political leaders, American and foreign.

In most cases in the past, assassinations ordered by the U.S. intelligence infrastructure had the veneer of “plausible deniability.” Even with the release of millions of formerly classified intelligence documents, the Central Intelligence Agency continues to manage to hide behind the plausible deniability façade. The recent order by Trump for the U.S. military to assassinate Soleimani was not only made public, but it also involved a major international assassination program that also successfully targeted Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the closest thing Iraq has to a National Guard. Al-Muhandis and Soleimani were traveling in the same motorcade at Baghdad International Airport when their vehicles were struck by a drone-launched missile. In another attempted assassination by missile, the chief treasurer for the Quds Force, General Abdul Reza Shahlai, escaped being targeted by a U.S. missile aimed at what believed to have been his location in Yemen.

Trump’s assassination program was eerily similar to a plan the CIA developed in 2001 as a result of strong pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney. Although Cheney’s CIA operation supposedly targeted Al Qaeda leaders for assassination, it came dangerously close to violating a series of presidential orders from Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan prohibiting the targeting of foreign government officials for assassination. Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which updated those of Ford and Carter, stipulated: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Executive Order 12333 was weakened by follow-on orders signed by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The relaxed presidential orders permitted the assassination of specially designated terrorist leaders.

In June 2009, CIA director Leon Panetta canceled the assassination program because of its potential illegality and the fact that Cheney had hidden its existence from congressional overseers. The Cheney program had relied on armed drones to carry out assassinations of presumed terrorist leaders. With the Trump-ordered assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, both of whom cooperated with U.S. and other forces in the battles against the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria, the old Cheney program appears to have been reinstated.

There is a big difference between assassinating Al Qaeda and Islamic State leaders and the commanders of government military forces of United Nations member states like Iran and Iraq.

President Ford enacted the first presidential order against foreign assassinations in 1976 after the CIA’s involvement in the assassinations of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, Dominican Republic President Rafael Trujillo, Chilean President Salvador Allende, and other foreign officials became public. Exposed as a result of Senate, House of Representatives, and Rockefeller Commission investigations were repeated attempts by the CIA to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) conducted studies and hearings on the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968. The HCSA, which did not receive full cooperation from the U.S. intelligence and federal law enforcement communities, concluded Kennedy and King were likely assassinated as the result of conspiracies. The HCSA, against mountains of evidence to the contrary, also concluded that no agency of the U.S. government was involved in either of the two assassinations. The HCSA did not examine evidence of wider conspiracies involving the U.S. government in the June 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the 1970 airplane crash that killed United Auto Workers union president Walter Reuther, or the 1972 attempted assassination of Alabama Governor and presidential candidate George Wallace.

After the HCSA completed its inquiry, there would be future questions over the use of U.S. intelligence assets to carry out domestic political assassinations, including the 1980 assassination of famed musician John Lennon and the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981. Both, as well as that of Senator Robert Kennedy, bore the signature of the use of pre-programmed assassins, which was a central feature of a mind-control operation the CIA codenamed MK-ULTRA.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has indicated that the Trump administration has not only restored the Cheney policy of targeted assassinations but reserves the right to carry out assassinations of other “challengers” to U.S. interests. In a speech at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, which was titled “The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example,” Pompeo stressed that additional leaders of Iran, presumably including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as leaders of Russia and China, could be targeted for assassination as part of America’s “bigger strategy.” Pompeo stressed that the new U.S. deterrence through assassination policy “isn’t confined to Iran.” In addition to Iran, Russia, and China, Pompeo indicated that political and religious leaders in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere were subject to U.S. assassination. That has been taken by many in the Middle East to include the leadership of Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Pompeo indicated that prior to assassination, targets will be treated to pre-assassination measures, including freezes on their foreign bank accounts and other financial assets. Those officials currently in the pre-assassination phase of being sanctioned include Ali Shamkhani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council; Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, the Deputy Chief of Staff of Iranian armed forces; and Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of the Basij militia of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Lebanese officials in the pre-assassination category include Amin Sherri and Muhammad Hasan Ra’d, both Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Parliament, and Wafiq Safa, a Hezbollah liaison officer to the Lebanese security forces.

All Pompeo has managed to accomplish is that any future suspicious deaths or assassinations of any world leader or policy maker will be seen as having possible American fingerprints, and justifiably so. Pompeo’s speech has refocused attention on the October 2, 2018 assassination by Saudi intelligence agents of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate-General in Istanbul. That assassination appears to have been known in advance to Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who maintains a close personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the main architect of Khashoggi’s murder.

Pompeo insists that the new U.S. policy is to deter foreign threats to the United States. Skeptics of the policy believe that it is not U.S. national security that Pompeo is interested in protecting, but Donald Trump’s personal welfare. The suspicious death in a New York federal detention center of one-time Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested in July 2019 and charged with international underage female sex trafficking, have many in the United States and abroad concerned that Pompeo, and Attorney General William Barr are running some sort of “Murder, Incorporated” to silence those who pose a threat to Trump and his vested interests. An Epstein trial could have revealed information about the nature of his relationship with Trump that would have posed a direct threat to the Trump presidency.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

bubba

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Obama’s Mid-East Policy Led to Nazi Rebirth in Today’s Germany — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

Europe (and especially Germany) has been compassionate toward the refugees, and are now experiencing the political blowback, at home, from their admission of refugees from America’s foreign policy

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/30/how-obama-mid-east-policy-led-nazi-rebirth-germany/

 Eric Zuesse

On January 12th, Deutsche Welle (Germany’s public broadcaster like BBC, PBS, NPR, and RT) headlined “Mayor’s resignation highlights threat to German leaders: Arnd Focke, the Social Democratic mayor of a town in Lower Saxony, was regularly threatened by nationalists. Now he has resigned. Regional officials have repeatedly faced threats across Germany.” He quit for his safety, because carrying out Germany’s compassionate policies toward the flood of mainly Middle-Eastern refugees has produced a backlash that is becoming increasingly organized and dangerous to Germany’s democracy.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies in support of overthrowing secular governments (such as in Libya and Syria) in the Middle East, and his attempts to install there new governments — which were planned to be allied with the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia — caused the exodus, from those secularly-headed U.S.-attacked Middle-Eastern countries, of millions, some of whom live now in Germany and are not accepted there, for many of reasons, some valid and some invalid. The resulting influx of millions of culturally markedly different people has given rise to a rebirth of Germany’s Nazi movement.

Whereas Obama’s U.S., and especially now Trump’s U.S., has refused entry of refugees from these countries that America (by means of its tens of thousands of jihadist proxy-forces from around the world) invaded, Europe (and especially Germany) has been compassionate toward the refugees, and are now experiencing the political blowback, at home, from their admission of refugees from America’s foreign policy — a policy favoring dictatorial fundamentalist-Sunni Arab regimes, to overthrow secular governments in the Middle East.

How and why did this happen?

Muammar Gaddafi was a socialist who believed in spreading to the masses (instead of to foreign investors) the wealth from the nation’s oil and who consequently was rejected by the U.S.-and-allied aristocracies who control the private oil companies. Gaddafi was demonized by their governments and their media. After extensive planning by the CIA and associated coup-organizations, he was finally overthrown in an “Arab Spring” in 2011 and replaced by what they expected to be a re-privatization of Libya’s oil. Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed, “We came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, hah!” Europe gets the refugees.

Bashar al-Assad was similar, in those basics. During 2012, Obama was well-warned by U.S. intelligence — and even by the anti-Assad ‘rebels’ themselves — that if he tried to overthrow Assad, then the U.S. would need to be using proxy-fighters to do it, jihadists, under the direction of Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch al-Nusra, and he chose that option and left to the Saud family to choose whom to rule Syria in the aftermath. Consequently, the Saud family selected the individuals who were to ‘represent the rebels’ at the UN-sponsored ’peace’-talks to end the Syrian ‘civil’ war. It was all a set-up deal, by Obama and his foreign allies. Even the pro-Obama New York Times reported on 27 April 2013 that “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” But still Obama insisted that “Assad must go.” (Though that was a common headline on news-reports about Obama’s position, he was too slick ever to utter that phrase: in his rhetoric he was the exact opposite of his successor, who continued Obama’s Syria-policy.) Conquering Syria for the Sauds to control was the aim. Europe has received the refugees from that U.S. decision, not only from the other ones, on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. By Europe’s siding with the United States, it has opted to side with the Sauds, and with jihadists, and, now, also with Nazis, and other racist-fascists.

Now that Trump has gone so far as to terminate Obama’s only good foreign-policy action, the JCPOA or Iran nuclear agreement, and to opt for war against Iran, the dangers to democracy in Europe could escalate even farther. But for some people, the rebirth of Nazism in Germany might be enough of a reason for Europe to reverse its foreign policies in fundamental ways.

 

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »