Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘human rights’

Keep Those Federal Troops out of American Cities | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on August 1, 2020

As a legal matter, of course, I have no doubt that federal judges and supporters of federal meddling could find a way to slice and dice the Constitution so as to make it say whatever they want. As a moral and historical question, however, it is clear that sending in federal troops without an invitation from local leaders is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and is contrary to the Tenth Amendment.

It’s a safe bet that the authors of the Declaration of Independence would say that a scuffle in Denver clearly lies within the authority of the government in Colorado.

Ryan McMaken

The violence and the utter disregard for basic human rights displayed by the Left in recent years—combined with its support for war crimes when a Democrat is president—have made me inclined to play nice with conservatives these days. At least conservatives aren’t planning to torch my neighborhood any time soon, and at the moment they’re no worse than the Left on foreign policy.

On the other hand, sometimes even the relatively less bad guys (for now) come to some very dangerous conclusions.

[RELATED: About Those Spooky Federal Cops in Portland” by Jeff Deist]

Specifically, some authors at conservative publications are now demanding that the president send in federal agents and troops to make arrests and intervene in local law enforcement to pacify rioters in Portland and other American cities. These pundits are claiming that since local officials allegedly aren’t responding with sufficient alacrity to rioters, it’s time to send in federal troops.

It is questionable that the president has the legal authority to do this. But even if he does have this power—legally speaking—basic commonsense principles of subsidiarity and decentralization inveigh against federal intervention. In other words, a basic respect for the principles behind the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence ought to cause one to reject the notion that it’s a good idea to send in federal troops to “solve” the crime problems experienced in American cities.

Here’s one example: in an article titled “It’s Time to Crush the New Rebellion against Constitution” at Real Clear Politics, author Frank Miele claims “the president is designated as the commander in chief” and therefore “shall be expected to act during a crisis of ‘rebellion or invasion’ to restore public safety.”

Miele addresses two legal questions. The first is whether or not federal troops or agents can act independently when protecting federal property—such as a federal courthouse. The second question is whether or not federal troops can intervene even when no federal property is under threat.

Arguably, in the former case federal agents would be well within their prerogatives to protect federal property as a security guard might do. This, however, does not necessarily empower them to make arrests or assault citizens outside the federal property itself, on the streets of a city well outside the federal compound. The so-called constitutional sheriffs movement—which the Left hates—has it right on this. Local law enforcement ought to be the final authority when it comes to making arrests.

Clearly, however, Miele will not brook such limitations, and he supports the idea that federal troops can intervene “where no federal property is involved.”

And what are the limitations on this federal power? Basically, there are none, in Miele’s view. So long as we define our adversaries as people fomenting a “rebellion” nothing is off the table. Not surprisingly, Miele strikes a worshipful pose toward Abraham Lincoln’s scorched-earth campaign against the Southern states of the US in the 1860s. Those people were “rebels,” you see, so the president was right to “tak[e] bold action” even if it meant “skirting the Constitution.” Because “there was never any doubt where [Lincoln’s] allegiance lay,” it was perfectly fine when he abolished the basic legal rights of Americans, such as the right of habeas corpus.

The use of the word “rebellion” is central to understanding the profederal position here. Authors like Miele (and Andrew McCarthy at National Review) have routinely used words like “insurrection” or “rebellion” in order to support their claim the current unrest requires a Lincoln-like response, including a Lincolnesque abolition of half the Bill of Rights.

The Moral Case for Local Control, Made by American Revolutionaries

As a legal matter, of course, I have no doubt that federal judges and supporters of federal meddling could find a way to slice and dice the Constitution so as to make it say whatever they want. As a moral and historical question, however, it is clear that sending in federal troops without an invitation from local leaders is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and is contrary to the Tenth Amendment.

As I explained here, the Declaration lists that the misuse of the executive’s (i.e., the king’s) troops was a reason for the American rebellion of 1776. These troops must receive the permission of local lawmakers:

The American revolutionaries and those who ratified the US constitution…thought they were creating a political system in which the bulk of land-based military power would rest in the hands of the state governments. Standing armies were to be strenuously opposed, and the Declaration of Independence specifically condemned the king’s use of military deployments to enforce English law in the colonies and “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” These principles go back at least as far as the English Civil War (1642–51), when opposition to standing armies became widespread.

Thus, any attempt to send in British troops without the approval of the colonial legislatures was an abuse. This same principle was later applied to the state legislatures in relation to federal power.

Sending in federal troops to override local officials is in direct opposition to the moral underpinnings of the American Revolution. But this doesn’t stop Miele, who then insists that Article IV of the Constitution authorizes federal invasions because the text says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” According to Miele, the “republican form of government” here “means government of the people, by the people and for the people—not the mob.”

This definition of a republic is something Miele apparently just made up. This is hardly a standard definition of “republic,” especially in the eighteenth century—the context most relevant for our purposes here. In those days, “republic” mostly meant “not a monarchy” and something like a decentralized state ruled by a commercial elite.

The idea that the president can send in troops anywhere whenever we decide that a local government is not guaranteeing a “republic”—based on whatever idiosyncratic definition of “republic” we might choose—is dangerous indeed.

In another example, we find authors “Because state and local Democrat officials refuse to restore order, the federal government must….Enough is enough. Those responsible for this new wave of insurrection must face the full force of federal law. ”

Note the language about “insurrection”—as if a minuscule clash between some left-wing and right-wing demonstrators in Denver—an example the authors use to justify their position—requires a federal invasion.

Presumably governments are expected to intervene to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

But which government shall do that? It’s a safe bet that the authors of the Declaration of Independence would say that a scuffle in Denver clearly lies within the authority of the government in Colorado. After all, the American patriots fought a war—and many died in it—to ensure local control outside the hands of a powerful executive in command of a standing army thousands of miles away.

It is indeed true that the rights of those who wished to see Malkin speak were violated. But here’s the thing: the rights of Americans are violated every single day in every city of America. Murders, rapes, thefts, and even gang warfare are not unheard of across this nation, year in and year out. Moreover, the data is clear that police agencies are really quite bad at bringing these criminals to justice.

So, should we call in the feds to solve these problems? There were more than fifty homicides just in the city of Denver last year. There were many more assaults and attempted murders. Doesn’t this level of bloodshed constitute a sort of “insurrection” against the decent people of the city? Certainly if we’re going to be free and loose with terms like these, as is now apparently the MO of advocates for federal intervention, our conclusion could easily be yes. We might conclude the local police are unwilling to do what it takes to “establish order” and do something about these terrorists and thugs. Will sending in the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security solve this problem?

Fortunately, cooler heads have somehow prevailed, and “sending in the feds” is not a run-of-the-mill policy option. This makes even more sense when we remember that there is zero reason to assume federal cops are better at bringing peace to a city than the state or local officials. These feds are the same people and organizations that have been running a failed and disastrous war on drugs for decades. These are the people who daily spy on law-abiding Americans, in blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. These are the people who were blindsided by 9/11 in spite of decades of receiving fat paychecks to “keep us safe.” These are the people (i.e., especially the FBI) who have conspired against Americans in order to unseat a democratically elected president.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard and the myth prevails on both the left and the right that if we’re not getting the result we want from politicians, then the answer lies in calling in other politicians from somewhere else to “solve” the problem. But just as it would be contrary to basic notions of self-government and self-determination to call in the UN or the Chinese government to “protect rights” in the United States, the same is true of calling in federal bureaucrats to “fix” the shortcomings and incompetence of state and local bureaucrats. The American revolutionaries created a decentralized, locally controlled polity for a reason. Abolishing federalism to achieve short-term political ends is a reckless way to go.


Be seeing you


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

Politicians Have Destroyed Markets and Ignored Human Rights with Alarming Enthusiasm | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 6, 2020

This raises a question: Why the enormous and extreme reactions to the virus from Western politicians, bringing the entire economy to its knees and severely curtailing the fundamental individual freedoms of millions of citizens? Of course, there is the usual incompetence and herd behavior in the political leadership of many countries to be reckoned with. But other reasons exist for this disastrous and irresponsible behavior. Here are some.

But the strongest pressure on governments probably comes from the media, in particular in the current times of pervasive internet and social media. Politicians are now constantly scrutinized and held responsible in a way that just a generation ago they were not.

An economic cataclysm has been unleashed upon the world by Western politicians and bureaucrats. Unbelievably, economic activity in the West has slowed to a creep, as entire populations have been confined to their homes for weeks, if not months. As a result, millions have had their lives turned upside down. Most entrepreneurs and self-employed persons have had their livelihoods jeopardized.

The EU economy may shrink by 5 percent according to the European Central Bank (ECB), and similar figures have been forecast for the US. The economic devastation wrecked upon Western economies by governments will have consequences for many years to come. It will inevitably lower European and US citizens’ quality of life for a long time, impacting their health as well.

It is important to understand that this disaster is not the result of the coronavirus pandemic, which is a public health problem, but of overzealous government officials reacting to the pandemic. A growing number of researchers and health professionals are suggesting that the total number of cases is far higher than previously thought, which means that COVID-19 is far less deadly than the media and government advisors insist. If correct, these revised death rates put COVID-19 in many places at a case fatality rate similar to that of the flu, which kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year globally, without provoking any notably large political reaction.

This raises a question: Why the enormous and extreme reactions to the virus from Western politicians, bringing the entire economy to its knees and severely curtailing the fundamental individual freedoms of millions of citizens? Of course, there is the usual incompetence and herd behavior in the political leadership of many countries to be reckoned with. But other reasons exist for this disastrous and irresponsible behavior. Here are some.

First, politicians have generally little understanding of how markets work. Steeped in administrative and policy thinking, most politicians have never worked in the private sector or studied market economics. They neither understand nor appreciate the complexity of markets which make our high standard of living possible. This complexity includes an unfathomable number of daily exchanges, myriad commercial relations, and never-ending adaptation to surrounding conditions. The logic of politics, however, dictates that politicians cannot be seen as “doing nothing,” so they seek always intervention in markets. This is not new; it has always been a typical trait of politicians and bureaucrats. The political reactions to the coronavirus pandemic have just dramatically confirmed this truth yet again.

Secondly, politicians naturally make political calculations. Having reelection constantly in mind, they do not want to be held responsible for anything that goes wrong. In a crisis, they always prefer to act than not to act—all else being equal, to show that they tried something. At least then—in their minds—they cannot be accused of idleness, negligence, shortsightedness, or callousness. However deleterious their actions, politicians generally are not held accountable and can present themselves as heroically standing firm in dangerous times, acting forcefully and with determination. President Roosevelt’s harmful economic policies during the Great Depression and World War II are an example of this.

Thirdly, politicians sometimes rely too much on scientists, who generally have no training in social matters at all. Even more so than politicians, scientists often have great difficulty in grasping the concept of the spontaneous order of the market, not surprising given that they are followers of the rigorous scientific process. Albert Einstein’s frankly embarrassing economic proposals are a famous example. Whereas the politician is at least fully aware of the subtle gray shades in policymaking and the fine balancing act of satisfying various stakeholders, the scientist generally means well but sees the world in black and white.

Thus, if a scientist is asked how to stop the spread of a pandemic, he or she would probably answer that the best and most efficient way is to order the strict confinement of the entire population to their homes for weeks. This is what the France’s influential “Conseil Scientifique” has recommended, and it may well be true from a purely scientific point of view (although that is open to debate now). The problem arises when politicians enthusiastically follow such opinions without considering them in the light of their political and economic consequences. The first two reasons mentioned above may explain why politicians tend to place excessive trust in scientists: politicians are not familiar enough with market economics to fully grasp the consequences of acting on purely scientific advice, and it may be in their interest to act on such advice, since to do something—anything—is key.

A fourth reason why politicians have acted so recklessly to counter the spread of COVID-19 is certainly the political pressure that they are under. In times of (perceived) crisis, they are looked up to for guidance, if not for orders to follow, by an unwitting and politically uneducated electorate. But the pressure comes not only from the people, which perhaps is normal in a democracy, but also from foreign politicians. No leader wants to be outdone by his foreign colleagues and be left with the weakest plan to address the crisis. In this case, the UK‘s Boris Johnson reversed his policies, and Sweden‘s Stefan Löfvén has been slowly bowing to precisely this external pressure to act.

But the strongest pressure on governments probably comes from the media, in particular in the current times of pervasive internet and social media. Politicians are now constantly scrutinized and held responsible in a way that just a generation ago they were not. Further, mass media is prone to dramatize and exaggerate events, as this makes for better ratings, but also because journalists are not virologists. Mainstream media often tends to misinterpret and simplify the facts, inadvertently or not. An example of this is the mortality rate of COVID-19, which is constantly reported to be much higher than it is, because only declared cases are used (case fatality rate (CFR)). More generally, the prevailing attitude from the media is that everything must be done to save a small minority of the entire population today, even if that comes at the price of future economic pain for tens of millions of people. This is the classic socialist and interventionist dilemma: Where does it stop? In a world of scarce resources, how much taxpayer money should the state spend to save one life?

Finally, it is necessary to entertain a darker and more cynical explanation for the political reaction to the pandemic: power in a time of crisis. The state never misses a chance to increase its power. Crises are considered great political opportunities, and have thus been used countless times in history by rulers. This was the case during and after World War I and World War II, as well as after 9/11, with the passage in Congress of the PATRIOT Act (Providing Appropriate Tools to Restrict, Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act). But this is also true of smaller crises, such as the current panic. The economic stimulus packages that are now being proposed will again benefit corporatist bankers, as happened during the financial crisis. This is why the big banks have been the first to call for and cheer more “economic stimulus.” They stand to immediately benefit from such “government aid.”

That most Western governments have now decided to emulate the Chinese dictatorship in imposing a severe lockdown of society should be a wake-up call for those innocent souls who still think, even after the show trial of Julian Assange, that the West still protects individual freedom. A dangerous and frightening political evolution is on the way in an already fragile political and economic system. The political consequences of the generalized confinement of millions of people in Europe will be of long-lasting consequence to the balance of power between state and society. Though the Western “liberal democratic” order was never really one except in name, it is clear that a decisive step has now been taken away from it.

This politically triggered economic crisis could then also lead, hopefully, to a clearer understanding among the population that constitutional changes are due in many countries, in order to limit the powers of executive branches everywhere. Let us hope that this will be the lesson learned by the millions confined to their homes by the arbitrary will of the state.


Be seeing you


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

The Saudi-Canada Clash: A Values War – Aussie Nationalist Blog

Posted by M. C. on November 24, 2019

By Patrick J. Buchanan, August 10, 2018:

Is it any of Canada’s business whether Saudi women have the right to drive?

Well, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland just made it her business.

Repeatedly denouncing Riyadh’s arrest of women’s rights advocate Samar Badawi, Freeland has driven the two countries close to a break in diplomatic relations.

“Reprehensible” said Riyadh of Freeland’s tweeted attack. Canada is “engaged in blatant interference in the Kingdom’s domestic affairs.”

The Saudis responded by expelling Canada’s ambassador and ordering 15,000 Saudi students to end their studies in Canada and barred imports of Canadian wheat. A $15 billion contract to provide armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia may be in jeopardy.

Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been backsliding on his promises to modernize the kingdom, appears to have had enough of Western lectures on democratic values and morality.

A week after Pope Francis denounced the death penalty as always “impermissible,” Riyadh went ahead and crucified a convicted murderer in Mecca. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality can get you a death sentence.

Neither President Donald Trump nor the State Department has taken sides, but The Washington Post has weighed in with an editorial: “Human Rights Are Everyone’s Business.”

“What Ms. Freeland and Canada correctly understand is that human rights … are universal values, not the property of kings and dictators to arbitrarily grant and remove on a whim. Saudi Arabia’s long-standing practice of denying basic rights to citizens, especially women — and its particularly cruel treatment of some dissidents — such as the public lashes meted out to (Ms. Badawi’s brother) — are matters of legitimate concern to all democracies and free societies.

“It is the traditional role of the United States to defend universal values everywhere they are trampled upon and to show bullying autocrats they cannot get away with hiding their dirty work behind closed doors.”

The Post called on the foreign ministers of all Group of Seven nations to retweet Freeland’s post saying, “Basic rights are everybody’s business.”

But these sweeping assertions raise not a few questions.

Who determines what are “basic rights” or “universal values”?

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy that has never permitted women to drive and has always whipped criminals and had a death penalty.

When did these practices first begin to contradict “universal values”?

When did it become America’s “traditional role” to defend women’s right to drive automobiles in every country, when women had no right to vote in America until after World War I?

In the America of the 1950s, homosexuality and abortion were regarded as shameful offenses and serious crimes. Now abortion and homosexuality have been declared constitutional rights.

Are they basic human rights? To whom? Do 55 million abortions in the U.S. in 45 years not raise an issue of human rights?

Has it become the moral duty of the U.S. government to champion abortion and LGBT rights worldwide, when a goodly slice of America still regards them as marks of national decadence and decline?

And if the Saudis are reactionaries whom we should join Canada in condemning, why are we dreaming up an “Arab NATO” in which Saudi Arabia would be a treaty ally alongside whom we would fight Iran?

Iran, at least, holds quadrennial elections, and Iranian women seem less restricted and anti-regime demonstrations more tolerated than they are in Saudi Arabia.

Consider our own history.

From 1865 to 1965, segregation was the law in the American South. Did those denials of civil and political rights justify foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the United States?

How would President Eisenhower, who used troops to integrate Little Rock High, have responded to the British and French demanding that America end segregation now?

In a newly de-Christianized America, all religions are to be treated equally and none may be taught in any public school.

In nearly 50 nations, however, Muslims are the majority, and they believe there is but one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet, and all other religions are false. Do Muslims have no right to insist upon the primacy of their faith in the nations they rule?

Is Western interference with this claim not a formula for endless conflict?

In America, free speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed. And these First Amendment rights protect libel, slander, filthy language, blasphemy, pornography, flag burning and published attacks on religious beliefs, our country itself, and the government of the United States.

If other nations reject such freedoms as suicidal stupidity, do we have some obligation to intervene in their internal affairs to promote them?

Recently, The Independent reported:

“Since last year, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region in northwest China have been unjustly arrested and imprisoned in what the Chinese government calls ‘political re-education camps.’ Thousands have disappeared. There are credible reports of torture and death among the prisoners. … The international community has largely reacted with silence.”

Anyone up for sanctioning Xi Jinping’s China?

Or do Uighurs’ rights rank below those of Saudi feminists?


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

Arms Dealers and Lobbyists Get Rich as Yemen Burns | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on June 26, 2019

You have to break some eggs to make a war.

By Barbara Boland

Chronic human rights violator Saudi Arabia is using American-made weapons against civilians in the fifth-poorest nation in the world, Yemen. And make no mistake: U.S. defense contractors and their lobbyists and supporters in government are getting rich in the process.

“Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it,” John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International, said to CNBC in February. But his statement vastly understates the role that defense contractors and lobbyists play in Washington’s halls of power, where their influence on policy directly impacts their bottom lines.

Since 2015, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have waged war against Yemen, killing and injuring thousands of Yemeni civilians. An estimated 90,000 people have been killed, according to one international tracker. By December 2017, the number of cholera cases in Yemen had surged past one million, the largest such outbreak in modern history. An estimated 113,000 children have died since April 2018 from war-related starvation and disease. The United Nations calls the situation in Yemen the largest humanitarian crisis on earth, as over 14 million face starvation.

The majority of the 6,872 Yemeni civilians killed and 10,768 wounded have been victims of Saudi-led coalition airstrikes, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Nearly 90 coalition airstrikes have hit homes, schools, markets, hospitals, and mosques since 2015, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2018, the coalition bombed a wedding, killing 22 people, including eight children. Another strike hit a bus, killing at least 26 children.

American-origin munitions produced by companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon were identified at the site of over two dozen attacks throughout Yemen. Indeed, the United States is the single largest arms supplier to the Middle East and has been for decades, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

From 2014 to 2018, the United States supplied 68 percent of Saudi Arabia’s arms imports, 64 percent of the UAE’s imports, and 65 percent of Qatar’s imports. Some of this weaponry was subsequently stolen or sold to al-Qaeda linked groups in the Arabian Peninsula, where they could be used against the U.S. military, according to reports.

The Saudi use of U.S.-made jets, bombs, and missiles against Yemeni civilian centers constitutes a war crime. It was an American laser-guided MK-82 bomb that killed the children on the bus; Raytheon’s technology killed the 22 people attending the wedding in 2018 as well as a family traveling in their car; and another American-made MK-82 bomb ended the lives of at least 80 men, women, and children in a Yemeni marketplace in March 2016.

Yet American defense contractors continue to spend millions of dollars to lobby Washington to maintain the flow of arms to these countries…

Be seeing you

Sean Spicer Was the Easter Bunny for Bush’s White House ...




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

Exposing Israeli interference in the US | The Electronic Intifada

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2019

In the context of the mosque massacres by a white supremacist in Christchurch, New Zealand, earlier this month, and concern about growing anti-Semitism, I also talked about how Israel is a force today promoting and inspiring Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, white supremacy and extremism that is destabilizing the world.


After more than two years of media hype and hyperventilation, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has finally concluded that there was no collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia to subvert the 2016 US election.

There is however plenty of evidence of foreign interference and collusion in US politics, except it is being ignored by establishment media and politicians because the state doing it is not Russia, but Israel.

Last Friday, I spoke in Washington at the Israel Lobby and American Policy Conference 2019 about Al Jazeera’s undercover documentary into the activities of the Israel lobby in the United States.

The film was made during 2016 and completed in 2017, but then it was suppressed after Qatar, Al Jazeera’s sponsor, came under intense pressure from that same lobby.

However this effort at censorship failed: The Electronic Intifada was the first to publish details of the film in March last year.

In August, we were the first to publish video excerpts, and finally in November we published all four episodes of the film online for anyone to watch.

I began my talk – which like the rest of the conference was carried live nationally on C-SPAN – by asking the audience in the room of more than 300 how many had watched the Al Jazeera film in whole or in part. I estimated that about a quarter put up their hands.

That’s a great start, but it shows that many more people still need to see this bombshell documentary exposing the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy on, smear and intimidate US citizens who support Palestinian human rights, especially BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement…

Be seeing you



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

Mohammed bin Salman: Too Big to Fail – LobeLog

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2018

They know that the United States has never put its relationship with Saudi Arabia on the line over any human rights issue or over the fate of any individual. Some economic or strategic goal always overrides human rights considerations.

A month after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, an international consensus is emerging about how to respond: deplore the crime, demand justice, but don’t cut ties with the kingdom. In particular, don’t cut off Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man widely believed to have ordered the killing of the dissident journalist.

The ambitious, impetuous crown prince, known as MbS, is probably damaged goods as a person. He’s unlikely to receive another lavish welcome in Silicon Valley any time soon. But he has become the diplomatic equivalent of some big banks: too big to fail.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has suspended weapons sales to await the outcome of Saudi Arabia’s investigation of the murder. That sounds like strong action, but it’s a whitewash. The chances that the investigation will conclude that MbS was responsible for Khashoggi’s death are close to zero,… Read the rest of this entry »

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

How the administration of the UNO is organising the war, by Thierry Meyssan

Posted by M. C. on September 9, 2018

This is why we make a distinction between the police and the army. The police protects individual rights, while the army protects collective rights. The police must respect « human rights », while the army can ignore them. It seems that our contemporaries, imprisoned by their comforts, have lost the sense of these elementary distinctions.

by Thierry Meyssan

In October 2017, the UN under-secretary for Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, secretly drew up a list of instructions for all UN agencies about the attitude they should adopt concerning the conflict in Syria.

None of the member-States of the Organisation, not even the members of the Security Council, were informed of the existence of these instructions. At least, not until the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, revealed them on 20 August last [1].

We have just acquired a copy of the list [2].

This document betrays the United Nations Charter [3] by inverting its priorities. While the UN’s main objective is to « maintain peace and international security », Feltman’s instructions place the « respect for human rights » above this goal. In this way, those rights become an instrument which work against peace… Read the rest of this entry »

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

Foreign Country Interferes in US Politics – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 27, 2017

Those congressional actions instead illustrated the power of the pro-Israel Lobby, a highly organized and well-funded coalition that works to give Israeli leaders freedom to operate with unquestioned U.S. diplomatic, economic and military support. Its influence helps account for the quarter trillion dollars in aid (adjusted for inflation) that the United States has given Israel since 1948. Read the rest of this entry »

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