Since 2016, the mainstream media has made a vocation out of denigrating Donald Trump to the extent that their prejudice has become paranoid. In that context, The Witness editorial of January 6 really outdoes itself in virulence – and without a shred of justification.
Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz has dismissed the furore over Trump’s phone call to Raffensberger as “no crime there. Period.” Having perused the 50-page transcript he noted that Trump asked for the votes of people who voted for him to be found. He did not ask for votes to be created.
Your clichéd references to Trump “abusing his position,” “malfeasance” and “grim chapter of US history” have zero credibility because they are completely at odds with the facts. Trump carried out all the promises he made in his 2016 election campaign, an achievement of which no other president can boast. Above all, Trump put America first, unlike his predecessors, particularly Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Domestically he reversed the socialist economic policies of Obama which hobbled commerce, took 8 million people off food stamps, reduced unemployment to its lowest point since 1970, brought jobs back to America from Mexico and China, re-negotiated trade deals that favoured America and spurred economic growth to levels last seen thirty years ago. He rebuilt the military which Obama had neglected and stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants to the US by building a security wall.
Morally he endorsed pro-life and was proactive in emphasising the importance of Almighty God in America’s existence. He upheld American history and heritage while his opponents were complicit in tearing down statues, renaming places and denouncing America’s past. Trump defended law and order while his opponents defunded the police and tolerated vandalism and anarchy in Portland and Minneapolis.
He reversed the treasonous Obama/Kerry nuclear deal with Iran, met directly with the North Korean dictator which none of the three previous presidents managed, compelled NATO members to pay for the protection the US gives them, recognised the threat of communism posed by China in influencing US institutions and stealing intellectual property. He saw to it that America did not get involved in foreign wars which none of his predecessors managed to achieve. He initiated a Middle East peace deal between the UAE and Israel that is unprecedented in its skilful marginalising of the Palestinian terrorist component.
If The Witness, like the rest of the mainstream media pack had not been covering up the extent to which the November 3 election was subjected to fraud, details such as the following would be widespread knowledge:
In Pennsylvania, after Republican observers were sent home, 580,000 votes were counted, 99,4% for Biden. In Nevada 60,000 out- of -state people voted. A truck driver delivered 270,000 out-of-state votes to Pennsylvania from New York on November 4.
More than 50 lawsuits have been registered along with thousands of affidavits alleging voting irregularities. These include multiple counting of ballots cast by illegal voters or out –of- state voters; large scale manufacturing of fake ballots, ballots cast by dead voters, ballots accepted without voter ID, mailed-in ballots separated from their envelopes that could not matched to a signature.
According to Russel Ramsland of Allied Security Operations Group the Dominion voting system intentionally generates a high number of ballot errors – 68%, he observed – which then enter a process of adjudication. But that process has no oversight, no transparency and no audit trail. He advised against certifying votes that were processed by Dominion voting machines.
On December 18, John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence stated that China, Iran and Russia were substantially involved in the November election.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg provided $400 million to the Democratic Party to be used in marginal Democrat districts. In so doing he violated the Help America Vote Act which requires federally approved resources to be equally available to all voters.
Having failed to remove Trump via the Mueller Report and the impeachment exercise, Deep State and the elite sought to deny him re-election by electoral fraud in seven key states. The 2020 Presidential election was stolen by the globalists and their allies. That is an incontrovertible fact. Trump gained 75 million votes, twelve million more than in 2016.
The Witness can rant all it likes but if it has a democratic fibre in itself, it should at least acknowledge that a significant number of people have a different view of Trump than the one paraded by the mainstream media pack – and in spite of the mainstream media pack.
So, barring divine intervention, Joe Biden will become the 46th president. But he is the Manchurian candidate – a person used as a puppet by an enemy power, namely, China. It will be interesting to see how his fecklessness is treated in future Witness editorials.
In conclusion, I have no illusions that none of the above will ever see itself in print because, as American revolutionary Tom Paine once said: To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America’s wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”
A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.
The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.
“HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all,” a HUD spokeswoman said. “The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds.”
It’s a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration “shouldn’t be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble.”
“American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government,” said Gosar, who is leading an effort in the House to block the regulations.
Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, are praising the plan, arguing that it is needed to break through decades-old barriers that keep poor and minority families trapped in hardscrabble neighborhoods.
“We have a history of putting affordable housing in poor communities,” said Debby Goldberg, vice president at the National Fair Housing Alliance.
HUD says it is obligated to take the action under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited direct and intentional housing discrimination, such as a real estate agent not showing a home in a wealthy neighborhood to a black family or a bank not providing a loan based on someone’s race.
The agency is also looking to root out more subtle forms of discrimination that take shape in local government policies that unintentionally harm minority communities, known as “disparate impact.”
“This rule is not about forcing anyone to live anywhere they don’t want to,” said Margery Turner, senior vice president at the left-leaning Urban Institute. “It’s really about addressing long-standing practices that prevent people from living where they want to.”
“In our country, decades of public policies and institutional practices have built deeply segregated and unequal neighborhoods,” Turner said.
Children growing up in poor communities have less of a chance of succeeding in life, because they face greater exposure to violence and crime, and less access to quality education and health facilities, Turner suggested.
“Segregation is clearly a problem that is blocking upward mobility for children growing up today,” she said.
To qualify for certain funds under the regulations, cities would be required to examine patterns of segregation in neighborhoods and develop plans to address it. Those that don’t could see the funds they use to improve blighted neighborhoods disappear, critics of the rule say.
The regulations would apply to roughly 1,250 local governments.
Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the Obama administration “too race conscious.”
“It’s a sign that this administration seems to take race into account on everything,” Spakovsky said.
Republicans are trying to block the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. Before passing HUD’s funding bill this week, the GOP-led House approved Gosar’s amendment prohibiting the agency from following through with the rule.
Though segregationist policies were outlawed long ago, civil rights advocates say housing discrimination persists.
HUD is looking to break down many barriers, but Gosar suggested the regulation would have negative repercussions.
“Instead of living with neighbors you like and choose, this breaks up the core fabric of how we start to look at communities,” Gosar said. “That just brings unease to everyone in that area.”
“People have to feel comfortable where they live,” he added. “If I don’t feel comfortable in my own backyard, where do I feel comfortable?”
Critics of the rule say it would allow HUD to assert authority over local zoning laws. The agency could dictate what types of homes are built where and who can live in those homes, said Gosar, who believes local communities should make those decisions for themselves rather than relying on the federal government.
If enacted, the rule could depress property values as cheaper homes crop up in wealthy neighborhoods and raise taxes, Gosar warned.
It could also tilt the balance of political power as more minorities are funneled into Republican-leaning neighborhoods, he suggested.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on housing discrimination in a related case in the coming weeks. At issue is whether government policies that unintentionally create a disparate impact for minority communities violate federal laws against segregation.
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is facing accusations that it makes low-income housing funds more readily available in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. This promotes segregation, critics argue, by encouraging minorities to continue living in poor communities where government assistance is available.
Court observers say the case could have a profound impact on HUD’s rule. – thehill.com
I was nine years old and knew nothing about boxing, but my eye was caught by a newspaper picture of the victorious Patterson standing over Johansson, out cold on the canvas.
I read the article and asked my father if this meant no one on earth could beat Patterson. He said that was right; Patterson was the best boxer in the world.
I remember thinking to myself that this just wasn`t right. Surely, there must be one of our guys—a white guy—who could beat him. Floyd Patterson was an American like me, while Ingemar Johansson was a foreigner, a Swede, but I still wanted the white man to win.
Buy this book now for R200 or €15, world-wide delivery
Readers will no doubt dismiss thoughts of a nine-year-old child as “racism”—as prejudice I learned from my surroundings—but they should not be so hasty. My parents were missionaries, and I was born and reared in Japan. At age nine I had no experience of black people. My parents had always said that all races were equal and that all people were children of God.
I also had no special objection to Patterson because he was black. I think I would have been just as perplexed if Johansson had been knocked out by an Arab or a Chinese.
As I grew up I adopted my parents` liberal views of race, and forgot all about Patterson and Johansson. In fact, as a young liberal I would have been ashamed to recall that I had rooted for the white man rather than the American. It was only when I was in my 40s and began to question conventional assumptions about race that I even remembered what I had thought about that 1961 title fight.
As we will see in Chapter 4, children of all races have untutored racial preferences that may be part of their nature. It serves little purpose to call these preferences “racism”, as if they were a moral failing. They appear to be an expression of natural racial identity, which arises far earlier than most people realize and can persist despite efforts to suppress it. Clever experiments in adults show that they retain these preferences, even when they are convinced they do not. Racial identity can be condemned, fought, ignored, or cultivated, but it is unrealistic for a society to pretend it does not exist.
The American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was based on the assumption that consciousness of race is a prejudice that is learned from a prejudiced society. The movement`s goal was to eliminate racial prejudice and even consciousness of race, and build a society in which race would not matter.
That effort failed; generation after generation race continues to matter.
And yet, official American assumptions about race—that it is a trivial distinction it is our destiny to transcend—have not changed. The result is a stubborn gap between what Americans say and claim to think about race, and how they act. This stark contrast is described in the first chapter of this book.
Though they seldom talk about it, at some level most Americans know how little their behavior resembles what are supposed to be their ideals. The result is frustration, confusion, and not a little hypocrisy. I believe decades of frustration were behind the wishful thinking that surrounded the election of the first black American president in 2008.
Shortly before Barack Obama took office, I was invited to join a radio debate on the significance of the election. The other guest, a professor at Yale, used language that was then nearly universal. He called the election “transformational”, saying it would dramatically change the lives of both blacks and whites.
I said it was a mistake to expect “transformation”, or perhaps even much change at all. I asked whether the fact that we had a black president would reduce rates of black crime, illegitimacy, and school failure, and whether whites would now welcome black and Hispanic neighbors.
I noted that in 1990, Virginia—the heart of the old Confederacy—elected a black man, Douglas Wilder, as governor, and that his election was greeted with similarly extravagant expectations. At the end of four years, the circumstances of blacks and the state of race relations were unchanged.
The host of the program so resented my suggestion that “transformation” should be expected to show concrete results that he accused me of trying to deceive his listeners. Clearly, he had been swept up in the heady excitement of the moment, an excitement caught by Paul Krugman, who wrote in the New York Times that if Mr. Obama`s election “didn`t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there`s something wrong with you”. [ The Obama Agenda, New York Times, November 7, 2008.]
Why would an election cause a radio host to take offense at the idea that “transformation” should bring measurable gains? Why would it bring a Nobel laureate in economics to tears?
It is because so many people saw the election as expiation for America`s sins and the final achievement of the goals of the civil rights movement. The election of a black president meant victory had finally come.
There had already been a half century of effort. School integration, civil rights laws, affirmative action, the Great Society, Black History Month, the King holiday, black appointments to cabinet and Supreme Court—all reflected a deep desire to do away with distinctions of race. Every institution and authority figure in the country condemns racism and urges that it be fought on all fronts. The United States has poured more moral energy into improving race relations than into anything else in its history.
And yet, in November 2008, race was still the American dilemma. The fact that it was still a dilemma despite so much effort fostered something like a yearning for miracles. That yearning gained force with every step Mr. Obama took towards the White House and reached a climax at his inauguration.
Two years later, there is so little euphoria left that it is difficult for most Americans to remember how giddy with hope they were on January 20, 2009 when Mr. Obama took the oath of office. The CNN news channel hinted at miracles when it offered viewers an inaugural T-shirt that read, “Obama raises hand, lifts a nation“. Actress Susan Sarandon was hoping for miracles when she said of the new president, “He is a community organizer like Jesus was. And now, we`re a community and he can organize us”.
Indeed, the whole world was hoping for miracles. The London Times headlined its inauguration story The New World. England`s Sun newspaper titled its story One Giant Leap for Mankind.
There was such a frenzy over the new president that former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers was no doubt right to call him “the most famous living person in the history of the world”. Mr. Obama had been president for less than a month when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and had been president for only eight months when the Nobel Committee declared him the winner.
All this explains the hostility to my question about the tangible consequences for race relations of an Obama victory—whether there was going to be real change or just happy talk. People hoping for miracles do not want to be asked practical questions.
But there have been no miracles. The Gallup organization recorded a huge spike in optimism about American race relations at the time of the inauguration, but one year later it found that “optimism about race relations is now almost identical to where it was 46 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question”.
This book tries to explain why there have been no miracles. It does so by examining the enduring phenomenon of racial consciousness. For many Americans—probably most Americans—race remains an unspoken consideration in decisions about where to live, what schools to attend, what clubs to join, whom to marry, and what parts of town to avoid at night.
The closer we look at how Americans live, the more clearly we see how much race continues to matter. At the same time, the moral imperative of the civil rights movement—that race should mean nothing—remains so strong that many whites deny, even to themselves, that race plays any role in these decisions.
We insist that “diversity” is a great strength, but for most Americans this is mere lip service. They rarely seek diversity in their personal lives, living instead in homogeneous islands that look nothing like the racial and cultural mix this country has become. Anti-discrimination laws ensure integration at work, at school, and in public, but in private the races generally separate. A dinner party, poker game, wedding reception, church service, or backyard barbecue is rarely a multi-racial mosaic. When they are beyond the reach of the law, Americans revert to the patterns of segregation the law forbids.
Why is this? Chapters 2 and 3 of this book, together with the scientific findings reported in Chapter 4, should leave no doubt that diversity is not a source of strength but a source of conflict.
Americans therefore live a contradiction that makes it difficult to talk honestly about race. There is probably no other subject about which there is a greater divergence between what is said publicly and thought privately, or between official pronouncements and personal behavior.
At least that is true for whites. Chapters 5 and 6 explore the open rejection by Blacks and Hispanics of the civil-rights ideal of transcending race. For many minorities, race or ethnicity is central to their identity. The Congressional Black Caucus exists to shape legislation from a limited perspective: What`s in it for blacks? The Hispanic caucus has an equally narrow perspective.
Non-white racial/ethnic solidarity is an entrenched part of the political landscape, and the pressure tactics to which it gives rise have been very successful. As we will see in Chapter 7, Asians are now adopting the same tactics. Non-white leaders are so accustomed to promoting explicitly racial interests that they would be dumbfounded at the suggestion that they should broaden their horizons and work for all Americans. And yet that is the goal all Americans must have if the country is to “move beyond race”.
Chapter 8 describes the radical transformation of white racial attitudes that has occurred in the last half century. Up until the 1950s, most white Americans felt the same kind of racial identity that is common among non-whites. These sentiments have almost completely disappeared—certainly from public sight.
No politician would dare examine legislation by asking what was in it for whites. No city in America has a white firefighters` union or a white caucus on the city council. Across the political spectrum, Americans assert that any form of white racial consciousness or solidarity is despicable.
Whites, therefore, have tried to keep their end of the civil rights bargain. They have dismantled and condemned their own racial identity in the expectation that others will do the same.
Why, though, is it so hard to build a society in which race does not matter? To the extent that Americans even ask themselves this question, they would say that it is because Americans—whites, especially—have not tried hard enough. And yet, how much harder can a people try? Today, after 50 years of trying, most whites cannot muster much more than exhausted resignation in the face of reports on school resegregation and yawning gaps in test scores or poverty rates.
This book departs from convention in that it does not ask that we just keep trying harder. Instead, it suggests that we would do well to rethink our assumptions. If, generation after generation, Americans tend to segregate themselves, is it possible that the expectations for integration were not reasonable? If diversity is a source of tension, are there risks in basing policies on the assumption that it is a strength? If non-white groups continue to advance race-based interests, is it wise for whites to continue to act as if they have none?
The ideal of moving beyond race still appeals to the vast majority of whites. They dream of an America in which there is no such thing as racial conflict, in which all Americans work together for common goals. They love to quote Martin Luther King`s “I Have a Dream” speech about judging people by “the content of their character“.
And yet, two generations after that speech was delivered, how many blacks judge whites by the content of their character? And when whites take a wrong turn off the freeway, do they lock their car doors because they can read the character of the people on the sidewalk?
Perhaps it is time to question goals that run counter to near-universal behavior. There may be lessons for us in the failure of Soviet-style Communism. It is our era`s foremost example of a system that made mesmerizing promises of an earthly paradise but betrayed those promises. Millions of people were inspired by an ideology that would do away with capitalist exploitation. Marxists believed that the working class would seize the means of production, the state would wither away, selfishness would disappear, and man would live “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. In the name of this ideology millions gave their lives—and took the lives of millions of others.
But Communism failed. It failed for many reasons, not least because it was a misreading of human nature. Self-interest cannot be abolished. People do not work just as hard on collective farms as they do on their own land. The almost universal rejection of Communism today marks the acceptance of people as they are, not as Communism wished them to be.
Is it possible that our racial ideals assume that people should become something they cannot?
If most people prefer the company of people like themselves, what do we achieve by insisting that they deny that preference?
If diversity is a weakness rather than a strength, why work to increase diversity?
I believe that mistaken assumptions about race are leading us in dangerous directions. Merely to raise these questions, however, is to dissent from the deeply held convictions of many thoughtful Americans—and they are more than mere convictions. For many Americans, perhaps even most Americans, they are the foundations of morality; even to question the assumptions of the civil-rights vision is illegitimate.
Of course, we can never speak honestly about race if the majority brooks no dissent. There cannot be dialogue if doubters are thought to be not merely mistaken but immoral. In fact, it is a sign that the defenders of orthodoxy are unsure of their ground when they close their ears to disagreement. Real solutions to real problems require honest discussion, and honest discussion comes at a cost. As Thomas Paine said: “He who dares not offend cannot be honest”.
When it comes to race, few dare to offend. In February 2009, Mr. Obama`s black Attorney General, Eric Holder, caused a stir when he noted that workplaces are integrated but that in their private lives Americans live in “race-protected cocoons”, as if we were still living in “the country that existed almost 50 years ago“. He said Americans were “a nation of cowards” because they do not talk about race, and urged us to “be honest with each other”.[Obama`s attorney general claims US is `voluntarily segregated` , By Alex Spillius, Telegraph[UK], February 19, 2009 ]
But did Mr. Holder mean it? Is he willing to consider that, if in some important ways our country has not changed in 50 years, it may mean it was unrealistic to expect it to change?
Of course, it is likely that Mr. Holder just wanted whites to break out of their “race-protected cocoons”, embrace people of other races, and apologize for racism. And, as we will see in Chapter 8, whites are more than ready to apologize. When they speak as whites it is almost always to apologize. But apologies for slavery and Jim Crow—things for which no living white person is responsible—take neither bravery nor honesty.
Attorney General Holder was right to say Americans are cowards about race. But he was wrong about why. White Americans are cowards, but not because they are unwilling to admit guilt and atone for the past. They are cowards because they fear that any departure from carefully scripted opinions about race—to suggest, for example, that the very fact of multi-racialism gives rise to serious problems no matter what whites do—will be met with charges of “racism”.
And they are right. Charges of “racism” are not a form of debate; they are meant to silence debate. Accusations of racism are often transparent attempts to choke off honest discussion.
This book is an attempt to understand race relations as they are—not as we might wish them to be. We cannot understand the world we live in if we refuse to rethink assumptions that may be wrong. Nor can we make progress if we are knocked off course for fear that others may call us names.
Reexamining our assumptions about race could have far-reaching consequences, which are explored in the final chapter. Disturbing as such a reexamination may be, it will help us understand the choices our country faces today and the choices we made in the past. We can continue down a path that is likely to ensure tension and social dislocation—or we can reorient policies in more realistic directions.
This book is about racial identity, something most people who are not white take for granted. They come to it early, feel it strongly, and make no apologies for it.
Most American whites do not have a strong sense of racial identity. But they would do well to understand what race means for others.
They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group.
These questions—certainly the most controversial in this book—are taken up in the final chapter.
Buy this book now for R200 or €15, world-wide delivery
A few dead Americans is a small price to pay for the greater global good.
The tweets came fast and cynical: “That’s so science!” “I saw those white lab coats on the men behind [Obama], which pretty much convinced me.” “Another day, another POTUS presser on Ebola. If you missed it, here’s the summary: ‘White lab coats, science.’”
The Obama Ebola Doctrine (OED) was dictated during the second of two presidential addresses, this week, on Ebola. The message, delivered against a backdrop of demigods in freshly unpacked, white laboratory coats, was hardly subliminal. So serious was Obama, he even threw in references to a God not himself, something he rarely does.
The president used the word “troops” to describe the individuals stationed behind him. These public health workers were “serving” America (much like soldiers would). Theirs was a “sacrificial service” (much like that of saints). They were “citizens of the world, global citizens,” who were “leading globally” (as all you locals should strive to do).
Volunteering in Africa Obama has equated with American “patriotism.” Well, of course. If being “citizens of the world” is the in existential state-of-being – then patriotism must be redefined. No longer does it mean the love of one’s country and countrymen, but love of The World. Go to West Africa, and you are demonstrating “citizenship … and public service at its best.” In Africa, you will be serving America, “the country that we love.”
The medics who rush headlong into the Ebola maelstrom embody “American exceptionalism” (unlike all those Americans who run businesses they didn’t build).
To the extent America’s Ebola workers are motivated by “faith,” it is their “sense of faith and grace” Obama has commanded all Americans to emulate.
The president is now defining for his subjects the very meaning of worship.
Aversion to Ebola, Obama mocked as “hiding under the covers,” indirectly associating precautions with cowardice, even venality.
His Holiness “saluted” Dr. Craig Spencer for “his service” – Spencer is the saint in scrubs who lied to investigators about his whereabouts. He had been gallivanting around Manhattan when already symptomatic.
Is Nurse Kaci Hickox next to be canonized? Just back from treating Ebola-afflicted patients in Sierra Leone, Nurse Diesel – contempt dripping from every word disgorged – threatened: “If the restrictions placed on me by the state of Maine are not lifted by Thursday morning, I will go to court to fight for my freedom.” Paul Callan, a usually reserved, dignified, civil-rights attorney expressed his disgust: Hickox is “setting a bad example … for the rest of the public” in the event that “this thing gets out of hand,” and there’s a quarantine across the United States.
So listen up, petty, provincial Americans: These are your new deities. Worship the saints in “spacesuits”!
Ultimately, Americans are meant to forget that the duty of the U.S. government is to its people, first. Obama is obligated by the Constitution to protect the liberties of his constituents. Without life there is no liberty.
But not according to the Obama Ebola Doctrine, which is this:
The health of West Africa is the health of America.
Those serving as healers in Africa are serving as healers in America.
Africa’s medicine men are America’s medicine men.
Local yokels dare not “discourage” these new deities, “disincentivize” or inconvenience them. Rather, the “health-care workers” who are sacrificing for us must be lauded and “applauded,” and should certainly not be made to bear the brunt of our scientific ignorance.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, parroted the president: “By going over there, they are helping us to protect America.” Therefore, the lives of doctors fighting Ebola in West Africa must not be “disrupted” on return.
This means no quarantines, cretins.
There you have it. Funded by Americans, the role of the president of the U.S. is to engineer desirable political, social, medical and financial outcomes for the world.
What else does the OED imply?
Preparing Americans for the inevitable sacrifice for the greater global good is essential. As we move to eradicate Ebola “at the source,” we, concomitantly, must maintain the unfettered movement of people in and out of the U.S. Consequently, our prejudiced, unworldly citizens must be conditioned to accept “the few Ebola cases that we see here.”
A few dead Americans is a small price to pay for the greater global good.
The Bush Terrorism Doctrine was as follows: We’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.
The Obama Bioterrorism Doctrine runs parallel. BHO’s express objective is to convince Americans that if we fight Ebola in West Africa, it won’t threaten America: “If we [don’t] deal with this problem there, it will come here,” he asserted.
However, as revealed by State Department documentation marked “Sensitive But Unclassified, Predecisional,” the policy is as fluid as the “liquefying” internal organs of a hapless Ebola patient.
Prior to being petitioned by a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request and subsequently exposed by Fox News – the knaves at State were considering the “expeditious” “medevacing” of Ebola-infected non-citizens into the United States for treatment.
If Ebola doesn’t “come here” in a big way, Obama may just introduce it to you by hook or by crook.
The marketplace brings plenty; the state does the opposite. Yet not a day goes by when consumers, ignorant of the forces that feed, clothe, cure, employ, entertain them and innovate for them, don’t demand that those who’ve done nothing of the kind – the McCains, Obamas, Bushes, Clintons, Keith Alexanders, Lois Lerners, Eric Holders of the world – proceed with force against those who do nothing but.
Expect the anti-Wal-Mart jousting to begin, because Wal-Mart has done it again. To fill the need created by the Obamacare wrecking ball, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is venturing into the business of providing primary health care. For $40, the price of a copay (in an Obama-mandated, sub-par health-care plan), “you can walk into a Wal-Mart clinic and see a doctor.” It’s “just $4 for Wal-Mart U.S. employees and family members.”
Rejoice, Sandra Fluke! You can have a pregnancy test at Wal-Mart for … $3.
Via Market Watch:
On Friday, a Wal-Mart Care Clinic opened in Dalton, Ga., six months after Wal-Mart U.S., the retailer’s biggest unit, entered the business of providing primary health care. It now operates a dozen clinics in rural Texas, South Carolina and Georgia and has increased its target for openings this year to 17. … A typical retail clinic offers acute care only. But a Wal-Mart Care Clinic also treats chronic conditions such as diabetes. (Wal-Mart U.S. also leases space in its stores to 94 clinics owned by others that set their own pricing.) “It was very important to us that we establish a retail price in the health-care industry because price leadership matters to us,” said Jennifer LaPerre, a Wal-Mart U.S. senior director responsible for health and wellness, in an interview.
Hear, hear!
The argument against Wal-Mart presses its case with an impressive array of economic fallacies. Typically, the critic – an example is “The High Cost of Low Prices,” in The American Conservative – does nothing to trace the mysterious mechanism by which Wal-Mart is said to impoverish. By offering “the lowest possible prices all the time, not just during sales”? What precisely is the economic process that accounts for Wal-Mart’s ability to “expel jobs and technology from our own country”? Competition? Offering a product people choose to buy?
“Protecting the home market,” which is what The American Conservative’s writer advocates, is to the detriment of consumers. It forces them to subsidize less efficient local industries, making them the poorer for it. To keep inefficient industries in the lap of luxury, hundreds of others are doomed to shrink or go under.
The writer also froths at the mouth over “the teenage girl in Bangladesh … forced to sew pocket flaps onto 120 pairs of pants per hour for 13 cents per hour.” It sounds dreadful. However, the economic reality is this: Wal-Mart is either offering higher, the same or lower wages than the wages workers were earning before its arrival in Bangladesh. The company would find it hard to attract workers if it were paying less or the same as other companies. Ergo, Wal-Mart is a benefactor that pays the kind of wage unavailable prior to its arrival. More materially, if the entrepreneur were forced to pay workers in excess of their productivity, he would eventually have to disinvest. What will the Bangladeshi teenage girl do once Wal-Mart departs?
Even the Hollywood “Idiocracy” is hip to the spontaneously synchronized order that is the free market. Just for a change, the menstruation lobby is moaning about the movies and its members’ representation therein. By Variety Magazine’s telling, “[Female] characters are still significantly under-represented on the big screen. … The numbers for minority females are even lower. African-American female representation on screen [has] climbed to 14 percent, from 8 percent in 2011, but [is] down from 15 percent in 2012.”
The presence of minorities in movies often signals a two-hour long, oppressive racial lecture. Most movie-goers are no more inclined to turn to “12 Years A Slave” for fun, than they are to subject themselves to Oprah Winfrey and her M.O.P.E. (Most Oppressed Person Ever) “Butler.”
Anti-man moaning notwithstanding, the general public must be on to this, because it is quite clear that Hollywood is giving viewers what they want to see: men in lead roles. If film executives listened to the loathsome Lena Dunham, rather than to the demands of consumers – the industry would go under.
Alas, most liberals (and that includes “conservatives” aplenty) are foolish enough to lump business with government as an eternal source of disappointment to Americans. Noodles Ron Fournier of National Journal:
“Steadily, over the past four decades, the nation has lost faith in virtually every American institution: banks, schools, colleges, charities, unions, police departments, organized religion, big businesses, small businesses and, of course, politics and government.”
As I type, I consume a plate of seven different fruits topped with nuts. Many of the ingredients on my plate are organic. These used to be exorbitantly priced; out of reach. But as demand for organic produce has grown, production has increased and prices have dropped dramatically.
Each day I give thanks to the businessmen who, against all odds, bring such abundance to market and provide such plenty. There is nothing in my home that comes courtesy of the blessings of bureaucrats. I guarantee that it’s the same in your home.
If you, like Fournier, fail to distinguish the blessings of the private economy from the blight of government – you deserve none of the former and all of the latter.
The White House intended to remain silent about its plans for immigration. Revealing a scheme to open the floodgates of amnesty would be disastrous on the eve of the critical midterm elections. But this is the gang that can’t shoot straight.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Friday threw open the door to as many as 100,000 Haitians, who will now move into the United States without a visa.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, rightly and accurately denounced enabling Haitians awaiting a U.S. visa to enter the country and legally apply for work permits as “an irresponsible overreach of the executive branch’s authority.”
That was just the beginning. The immigration agency earlier this month had solicited a printer able to handle a “surge” of 9 million green cards “to support possible future immigration-reform initiative requirements.”
In an ordinary year, about 1 million green cards are issued, and over the life of this contract the company is expected to produce up to 34 million cards, a figure representing an increase of the population of the United States by 10 percent.
The cards do not come with automatic voter registration, but that’s obviously what the scheme portends. President Obama’s promised “executive actions” to bring about this enormous wave of amnesty constitute a transparent and cynical ploy to expand the Democratic voter base, creating a permanent majority.
Republicans running for the House and Senate should demand that Mr. Obama lay his green cards on the table now, before — and not after — the Nov. 4 elections. No other campaign issue carries as much of an impact on the future of the nation.
In economic terms, importing millions of unskilled workers creates competition for the diminishing number of available jobs. Combine a flooded job market with the Democratic proposals for a doubling of the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and millions more American citizens will be without a job.
Those who do have jobs will pay to provide federal freebies, from Obamaphones to Obamacare, to the formerly illegal aliens now with a green card.
As the recent influx of minor children over the southern border demonstrates, word of amnesty on the way travels fast. Handing green cards to those who cheated the system and entered the country illegally creates an incentive to millions more to follow in their path, collecting as many benefits as possible along the way.
It’s a disaster in the making — indeed already here — for public health and national security, straining the welfare state to its limit.
Most Americans want no part of this.
A Gallup survey finds that 74 percent of Americans want the level of immigration to stay where it is, or reduce it. Mr. Obama has no support for his amnesty scheme except from those who want to transform America into a nation that no one would recognize.
Voters can get to work on stopping the transformation on Nov. 4.
Obama’s new wars in Iraq and Syria are totally immoral as well as illegal under US and international law, RPI Chairman Ron Paul told RT’s Abby Martin in September. The idea that US force will solve the problem is also mistaken, he said. “US action will increase the violence,” rather than reduce it, he added.
In a lengthy interview, broadcast on RT’s popular “Breaking the Set” program, Dr. Paul wonders why the countries in the region, feeling the pressure from ISIS, do not get together to solve the problem.
Said Dr. Paul about US involvement in the fight:
Why should someone 6,000 miles away, that has been stirring this pot for so long, be the group that is going to bring everyone together and organize the fight?
The fearmongers who have terrified many Americans into supporting another war in the Middle East are “not concerned with the defense of America,” said Ron Paul. But the weapons manufacturers are making out very well, with the US bombing its own weapons that have fallen into the hands of ISIS. – Daniel McAdams
There was a great cry throughout the land. Non-stop propaganda from a monolithic media-military- congressional complex had convinced a petrified people of the need for a military offensive in Iraq and Syria, in pursuit of a pack of wild dogs: the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL). A plurality of Americans canvassed has indicated that it is in the United States’ interest to take military action against ISIS.
The people wailed and railed. The Leader, they complained, lacked a plan to combat this force, which, they had been told, posed a grave existential threat to them. The war network led in jingoism. What precisely did President Barack Obama say that had Chucky Krauthammer and the chicken hawks in the Fox News coop so exercised? He told reporters that he didn’t have a strategy yet for confronting ISIS “on a regional level.” Anchor Megyn Kelly—her show has degenerated into a rah-rah, flag-waving, hour-long session, bemoaning diminished US world hegemony—poured scorn on one wag’s non-combative suggestion: Let the Arab League deal with ISIS.
Throughout, ISIS’s neighbors, Israel included, didn’t seem particularly concerned about the barbarians at the gate. The promise of eternal American intervention had, likely, enabled inertia and apathy among regional players.
Despotism and populism finally coalesced. Driven by polls and craving plaudits from the pundits, the president cobbled together a strategy. Within hours, love was in the air again. Members of a lovelorn liberal media scurried about like teens on prom night. It had been a long time since they felt the same rush about Obama. In his televised address to the nation, the president committed to increasing the ongoing airstrikes in Iraq; said he would take the fight to ISIL in Syria, too. The hormonal monitors at CNN spiked with each paternal promise of protection. “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven,” roared Big Daddy.
Gullible Americans did not seem to compute that King Hussein’s commitment to take care of them was preposterous. Consider: “The FBI’s most recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism” did not even mention the threat of Islamist terror. Like his predecessor, this president and his malevolent minions consider the signal danger to the homeland (i.e. to their reign) to emanate from local yokels: “anti-government militia groups,” “white supremacy extremists,” “sovereign citizen nationalists,” and, naturally, “Puerto Rican nationalists.” And, while He has thrown a bone to the ISIS-obsessed boneheads at home, the homeland’s southern border remains, by His decree, open to all.
Easily the most ludicrous aspect of Dr. Feelgood’s “plan” is the promise of “military assistance to the Syrian opposition”: “I again call on Congress, again, to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.”
There is no telling the good Syrian opposition from the bad. If anything, there is a “growing preponderance of radical Islamists in the Syrian rebel force fighting Assad’s army,” seconds the outstanding intelligence provider DEBKAfile. Currently fighting ISIS is Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Syria’s embattled leader, whom Hussein, McCain and Clinton wanted to unseat.
The unseating of yet another extremely effective law-and-order leader, Saddam Hussein, is what unleashed ISIS. Despite what Delphic Oracle Dana Perino says in praise of her “prescient” boss’s “strategizing”; Bush 43 owns ISIS. Iraq has gone from a rogue state to a failed state, where mad dogs thrive. Fidelity to historical fact demands that Bush get Brownie points for that.
Mere weeks back, when Israel and Hamas were locking horns, two organic coalitions emerged in the Middle East. By DEBKAfile’s telling, the one “regional coalition” in the conflict included Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel-Fatteh El-Sisi, the UAE ruler Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, and … the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas. The rival axis consisted of Hamas, Qatar, Turkey and a turkey named Kerry (John). U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and “a brace of European ministers” joined this last group, known in the neighborhood as the “Save Hamas Squad.”
The first alliance was borne of “Netanyahu’s dilemma: Back Obama’s save Hamas policy, or fight for its downfall with Egypt and Saudis.”
My point? America thinks that it must and can be a force for good in the Middle East. Closer examination suggests that the region’s players march to their own drumbeat. In “Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923,” Efraim and Inari Karsh marshaled prodigious scholarship to show that, “Twentieth-century Middle Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior rather than an externally imposed dictate.” The trend obtains.
American efforts notwithstanding, Assad is hanging on for dear life. The Israeli government is already endeavoring to “radically change its tack on Syria, reversing a policy and military strategy that were long geared to opposing Syrian President Bashar Assad.” U.S. meddlers should grow a brain too and quit degrading the Syrian Army. Leave ISIS to Syria, Tehran and Tel Aviv.
“ISIL” is how President Barack Obama refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He pronounces it as one would the last syllable in “Moishel,” giving it the ring of a Yiddish diminutive. Yiddish adds an “-l or –ele” suffix to signify affection. “ISIL,” the more expansive appellation preferred by the president, stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Obama was set to tee off on the golf course, when the outfit released footage of its latest bloodletting in Iraq: a video clip depicting the handsome head of American photojournalist James Foley being sawed off by a masked man with a British accent – yes, the West either admits these Muhammadans through mass immigration, or grows them at home in hothouses of multiculturalism.
The life of another journalist, Steven Sotloff, now hangs by a thread.
Unlike our Israeli and European allies, the U.S. government does not haggle for the lives of its countrymen. In fairness, Obama had at least made attempts to rescue poor Mr. Foley. His predecessor, Genghis Bush, sat bone idle, never lifting a bloodstained finger to spare Paul Johnson, Nick Berg, Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong, of blessed memory, who also met the most ghastly fate imaginable: beheading.
Even before these men were headless, they were faceless to Bush and his followers.
From Martha’s Vineyard, Obama addressed the media. His response to the beheading of Mr. Foley exhilarated the groupies at CNN. “The entire world is appalled,” the president intoned solemnly. It shocks the conscience of the world. Foley was a good man who stood for “hope and civility.” The killers are craven cowards. They have no ideology, only an “empty vision.” They offer their neighbors nothing but “nihilistic” horror.
“ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. No faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day,” asserted Obama, before scampering back to his game.
Don’t be too harsh on the White House’s current occupant for symbolically severing the ISIS snake head from its Islamic body and tail. His predecessor was as devoted to promoting the Religion of Peace pie-in-the-sky. When it comes to anodyne assurances about Islam’s compatibility with diversity and democracy, Bush was every bit the delusional dhimmi Obama is.
As Paul Sperry documented in “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington,” Bush inaugurated the practice of always mentioning the nation’s churches and synagogues in tandem with its mosques. As did he promise Muslim leaders never to pair “Islam” with “terrorism,” a promise he kept. And never did Bush utter a peep about “Islamic terrorism,” emphasizing only equal-opportunity terrorism.
Bush hosted regular iftaar fast breakers and had selected as his “expert” on Islam a dabbler – a law professor called David Forte who doubled up as a “religious pluralist.” Forte crafted one of the Bush administration’s central stupidities: the notion that the essential Islam has been hijacked by a few bad-a–ed Arabs. Bush was forever offering incantations about Islam’s compatibility with liberty and tolerance; a faith based on love, not hate, ad nauseam.
As the ideologues that purport to be saving us from the scourge of Islamic terrorism see it, the Religion of Peace was doing what it does best – inspire peace and prosperity – when, out of nowhere, radicals materialized and derailed it. This is contradicted by history as well as an important primary source: the Quran.
The first attests that the sword has always been integral to Islam, and that conversion has invariably meant conquest and carnage. The second proves that Islam’s alleged “hijackers” have done no more than heed their scriptures. The soldiers of ISIS or ISIL are obedient Muslim. They’ve obeyed the Quran. “The Call to Jihad” instructs Muslims: “When you meet those who disbelieve smite at their necks till you have killed and wounded many of them.”
“Holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war as the Western students of Islam would like to tell us,” cautions Serge Trifkovic, author of “The Sword of the Prophet.” Even apologists for Islam à la John Esposito admit that murderous missionizing is a filament of the Islamic faith: “Jihad means to fight to spread Islam, not just to defend it, and to wage war against [Jews and Christians] who refuse Muslim rule.”
What can the aspiring dhimmi anticipate? Peace has its place in Islam, promises Sperry, who has mined the Quran, but “only after the entire world is conquered in the name of Allah.” And even then, peace is the province of Muslims, mainly, while others are subdued and must pay for protection.
The Quran’s ruthless particularism runs counter to the universal concepts of justice and love of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. The tenet of religious literalism, moreover, explains why Islam has changed little over 1,400 years. Unlike the Jewish (and no doubt Christian) holy texts that have been reinterpreted by the sages over the centuries, the Quran has not – its decrees are not debatable and are to be taken literally.
Before being hushed, the greatest theologian alive – no, he’s not Pope Francis I – worried out loud that Islam was a closed and irrational system, impermeable to reform. Pope Benedict XVI was threatened, in 2006, for marshaling yet more primary sources to show that Islam does not brook reason or reformation and is commanded to will the world to its ways.
You might say that the term “radical Islam” is something of a redundancy. Islam is radical, and by extension, so are its true believers. Some, like ISIS or ISIL, are simply more devoted than others.
Update: A fabricated report was spread by the UK Guardian newspaper and BBC that a Russian armored convoy entered Ukraine and was destroyed by the Ukrainian military. The German media including Die Welt picked up the false report and spread the hysteria. Once again we have confirmation that the Western media is corrupt and unreliable.
The drums for war are being loudly beaten in Washington, European capitals, and the presstitute Western media. A headline in the Asia Times is “NATO Is Desperate For War.” This time the target is Russia, a major nuclear power.
The deadly consequences of such a war would extend beyond Russia, Europe, and the US to the entire world. The Western use of lies to demonize Russia endangers life on earth and reveals the West to be both reckless and irresponsible. Yet, few voices are raised against this recklessness and irresponsibility.
Ron Unz brings to our attention the important voice of a distinguished Dutch journalist, Karel Van Wolferen. Wolferen and Unz himself are important offsets to what Unz regards, correctly in my opinion, as “the utter corruption and unreliability of the mainstream American media.”
Wolferen’s article is long but very important. Readers will see analysis akin to my own.
Wolferen shows how the Washington hegemon has captured Europe within an Atlanticist ideology that forecloses any independent thinking or foreign policy on the part of Europeans who are reduced to a state of vassalage. Wolferen concludes that as Washington drives Europe toward war, “Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.”
With no internal checks on Washington’s recklessness from allies, the media, and US Senators, the only brake on Washington’s drive to war is Russian, Chinese, Indian, and South American diplomacy. If this diplomacy fails, Fukushima, as bad as it is, becomes a mere raindrop in the ocean.
The slaughter by Washington, Washington’s Kiev stooges and Washington’s EU vassals of civilians in the former Russian territories that comprise the southern and eastern borders of present-day Ukraine is not only largely unreported in the Western media, but also denied or blamed on Russia.
The crimes that Washington is perpetrating while blaming Russia have aroused a high level of anger among the Russian people. Such anger is dangerous as it could force Putin, who continues to emphasize non-confrontation , to turn away from diplomacy to violence.
Egor Prosvirnin, the chief editor of a Russian news site, shows us the extent of the anger in Russia caused by the dangerous mixture of Washington’s broken promises with the vicious propaganda war against Russia and the German government’s complicity.
Prosvirnin expresses anger that is white hot: “Germans have failed their test. When Evil has returned again to Europe, you do not even attempt to resist it, and immediately fall prostrate at its feet like a slave.” As Russians see it, all of Europe is a slave to the evil emanating from Washington.
Why did Merkel allow Washington to force Germany into a conflict with Russia that has produced enormous Russian anger toward Germany? What accounts for Merkel’s total failure as a leader?
The Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes have set the world on the path to the final war.
How is it possible for their evil to go unrecognized?
The two murderous states are the US and Israel. By tolerating their endless slaughters and endless lies, the world prepares its own demise.
The only hope for life and truth is that the world unite against these two criminal governments, isolate them diplomatically and economically, and make it impossible for their government officials to travel abroad without being arrested and placed on trial.
Why does the world need Washington and Israel? Unless the world has a death wish, the world does not need Washington and Israel.
At the end of last week, Uruguayan President Jose Mujica passed along a message from US President Barack Obama to Cuban leader Raul Castro, in which Obama demonstrated willingness to hold a dialogue aimed at cancelling the US embargo against Cuba, the Uruguayan newspaper Busqueda said with reference to sources in official circles.
The newspaper claims that Obama’s message was passed along to Castro by President of Uruguay on the sidelines of the summit in the Group of 77 and China format, which took place at the end of last week in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz. Meanwhile, the newspaper does not specify in what form this message was given – oral or written.
For his part, Castro “shows great interest” having expressed willingness for rapprochement between Havana and Washington, but only in case the US did not impose their point of view.
According to the newspaper, Mujica assessed the meeting with Castro as “fairly optimistic”.
In May, Mujica visited the USA on an official visit and held talks with the US President. According to the Uruguayan newspaper, it was at this meeting that Obama reported to Mujika his readiness for closer ties with Havana.
Washington imposed sanctions against Cuba in 1961, after the failure of the operation aimed at overthrowing the government of Fidel Castro. In 1996, the US Congress adopted the “Helms – Burton Act” on additional sanctions against foreign companies trading with Cuba.
In recent weeks, a tide of young, unaccompanied minors crossing the Texas border illegally has pushed the US immigration system to its breaking point. Unable to cope with the volume of children crossing the border without their parents, immigration authorities have had to find emergency solutions, such as housing thousands in a San Antonio Air Force base, a California Navy base, and a makeshift detention center in Nogales, Ariz.
The Associated Press reported that the Nogales warehouse was running out of supplies.
The Obama administration has linked the trend to unrest in Central American countries, but Republican critics say an executive action that the president took in 2012 is to blame, calling the situation “an administration-made disaster.”
President Obama delayed rolling out new deportation reforms in late May partly because did didn’t want to further anger Republicans who accuse him of unconstitutionally bypassing Congress to set immigration policy. Now, if he proceeds, he will have to fend off fresh claims that the very policies he has set have pushed the country into crisis.
At issue is Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which in 2012 allowed some undocumented immigrants who came to America as minors to defer deportation for two years. Last week, the administration announced guidelines for how these immigrants could defer deportation for a further two years.
DACA would not apply to anyone coming across the border today. Only undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as minors before June 15, 2007, are eligible. But to Republican critics, DACA created the opportunity for misinformation and confusion.
“Word has gotten out around the world about President Obama’s lax immigration enforcement policies and it has encouraged more individuals to come to the United States illegally,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia, a key broker in immigration reform efforts on Capitol Hill, in a statement last week.
The numbers are stark.
During the decade preceding fiscal year 2012, the federal government agency tasked with caring for unaccompanied minors who cross the border illegally dealt with an average of 7,000 to 8,000 cases a year, according to a Department of Health and Human Services fact sheet. In fiscal year 2011, the number was 6,560.
The following year, however, the number jumped to 13,625. This fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2014, federal officials are estimating that the number could be 80,000, according to an internal memo cited by The New York Times.
The White House Fool has repeatedly declared erroneously and foolishly that it is “against international law” for Crimea to exercise self-determination. Self-determination, as used by Washington, is a propaganda term that serves Washington’s empire but is not permissible for real people to exercise.
On March 6 Obama telephoned Putin to tell the Russian President again that only Washington has the right to interfere in Ukraine and to insist against all logic that only the “government” in Kiev installed by the Washington-organized coup is “legitimate” and “democratic.”
In other words, the elected government in Crimea pushed by the people in Crimea to give them a vote on their future is “undemocratic” and “illegitimate,” but a non-elected government in Kiev imposed by Washington is the voice of self-determination and legitimacy.
Washington is so arrogant that it never occurs to the hubris-infected fools what the world thinks of Washington’s blatant hypocrisy.
Since the Clinton regime, Washington has done nothing but violate international law–Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Honduras, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia.
Does Russia have an Africa Command? No, but Washington does.
Is Russia surrounding the US with military bases? No, but Washington has used the NATO organization, whose purpose disappeared 23 years ago, to organize western, eastern, and southern Europe into an empire army with forward bases on Russia’s borders. Washington is determined to extend the boundaries of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization to Georgia in central Asia and to Ukraine on the Black Sea. Both Georgia and Ukraine are former constituent parts of both Russia and the Soviet Union.
Washington is doing the same thing to China and Iran. Washington is working to establish new air and naval bases in Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Australia, with which to block the flow of oil and other resources into China. Iran is surrounded by some 40 US military bases and has US fleets standing off its coastline.
In Washington’s propaganda, this rank militarism is presented as “defending democracy.”
The Russian government continues to act as though Washington’s thrusts at Russia’s independence and strategic interests can be defused with good sense and good will. But Washington has neither.
Since the Clinton regime, Washington has been in the hands of a collection of ideologues who are convinced that the US is “the exceptional indispensable country” with the right to world hegemony. Everything that Washington has done in the 21st century is in pursuit of this goal.
Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation itself. Washington funnels huge sums of money into NGOs inside Russia that serve as Washington Fifth Columns and work hand-in-hand with Washington to discredit Russian free elections, to demonize Putin and the Russian government, to spread anti-Russian propaganda and agitation. It is amazing how many Russians actually believe the Western propaganda.
Washington is also working to isolate China with the Trans-Pacific-Partnership, but at this time is primarily focused on destabilizing and isolating Russia. Washington is desperate to break up the BRICS, the emerging organization of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. With the largest countries and half of the world’s population, the BRICS organization is emerging as a political and economic power, especially with the organization’s plan to cease using the US dollar as reserve currency. Ringing Russia with US missile bases on Russia’s borders impairs Russian sovereignty and independence and, thus, weakens the BRICS as a countervailing power to Washington.
Many have been deceived by Washington’s propaganda. The world is slowly waking up, but is it in time?
The US media and much of Europe’s speak with one voice parroting Washington’s propaganda, demonizing Washington’s targets, and preparing insouciant Western populations for more war. The Western media, like Western governments, is devoid of integrity. Liars and whores rule.
Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the “Father of Reaganomics”. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, among others. He has recently published How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds and is coauthor with Lawrence Stratton of The New Color Line and The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
