Israel has deprived the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip of their rights since the war of 1967. 

Gaza is a prison camp under a long-standing Israeli blockade, punctuated ever few years by full-blow military assault. Peaceful protesters in Gaza have been shot by Israeli military snipers from outside the prison fence, killing hundreds and wounding tens of thousands. Israeli hardline Zionist refer to actions such as these as just “mowing the lawn.”

The Palestinians in the West Bank have no rights and are subject to military surveillance and Jewish-only settlements and roads, as well as a separation wall that snakes through the territory. It is naked apartheid in that Jews have full rights while Palestinians are treated like nonpersons.

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led movement that supports the advancement of freedom, justice and equality. The notion that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity, specifically in Israel. It is not so radical to believe that they should have the same rights as Israelis. Why even here, in the US, we allow Asians, Latinos, Arabs and Africans to have the same rights as Caucasians.

BOYCOTTS involve withdrawing support from Israel’s apartheid regime, complicit Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions, and from all Israeli and international companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights. 

DIVESTMENT campaigns urge banks, local councils, churches, pension funds and universities to withdraw investments from the State of Israel and all Israeli and international companies that sustain Israeli apartheid.

SANCTIONS campaigns pressure governments to fulfill their legal obligations to end Israeli apartheid, and not aid or assist its maintenance, by banning business with illegal Israeli settlements, ending military trade and free-trade agreements, as well as suspending Israel’s membership in international forums such as UN bodies and FIFA. 

The BDS movement is voluntary and selective for all those that choose to participate. I do not completely agree with the Sanction part of this movement. However, I do think that the $3.8 billion that Israel receives annually, in military appropriation, from the U.S. should be eliminated.

Currently, there are twenty-seven states have enacted anti-BDS laws or executive orders that prohibit state agencies and state-financed entities, such as colleges, from doing business with any person or firm that participates in BDS.

The absurdity of this legislation has recently come to fruition. Journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin and the state of Georgia had an incident over her allegiance to the Israeli government. Martin explained; “After I was scheduled to give keynote speech [about the media, not about BDS] at an upcoming @GeorgiaSouthern [University] conference, organizers said I must comply w/ Georgia’s anti-BDS law and sign a contractual pledge to not boycott Israel. I refused & my talk was canceled.”

Some of us may remember another situation involving a Texas public school educator’s allegiance to Israel. When in 2018, Bahia Amawi, a Houston-based children’s speech pathologist who worked with autistic, speech-impaired and other developmentally disabled children, lost her job after she refused to sign a similar document. Amawi had been at her job for nine years previously without a problem.

In this Texas case, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), managed to overturn every Texas boycott law on the grounds of their unconstitutionality and she is now free to return to work. Quoting a previous case, federal district Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the Texas anti-BDS law “threatens to suppress unpopular ideas” and “manipulate the public debate” on Israel and Palestine “through coercion rather than persuasion.” Judge Pitman added: “the First Amendment does not allow.”

All States exist from the taxes that everyone is forced to pay without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. Therefore, before the law, discrimination is wrong and a principle of equality must be followed. States, or any tax-financed entities, can not discriminate in hiring or contracting, particularly with conditions that infringe upon the right to free speech, like advocating BDS or peaceful action such as boycotting.

* The states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.

https://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2020/02/16/anti-bds-laws-violate-our-freedom/

What was the end game for the Trump administration’s reckless actions in Iraq. You remember those tit-for-tat killings in late December and early January. Those provocations could easily have, and still may, result in a war with Iran.  Who benefits from a U.S. – Iranian war?

When the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official, Qassem Soleimani, it openly killed a member of Iran’s government, a country with which the U.S. was not at war.  This is unusual enough, but the crime was committed in Iraq, a country with which both the US and Iran have a “working” relationship. These U.S. actions appeared to be aimed toward war. Diabolical, insane or just part of a larger plan. 

Upon the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, most of the immediate propaganda reasons were dispelled. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s justification, that Soleimani was in Iraq planning an “imminent” mass killing of Americans or Trump claiming that it didn’t matter whether there was an imminent threat: Soleimani was a “bad guy” so he deserved to be assassinated. The real reason was to provoke Iran into a response that would have justified a “hugely” retaliation.

Evidence shattered the Trump administration lies. Soleimani was in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We also know now that they lied about the “imminent threat” because the killing of Soleimani was planned in June of 2019.

The planning of Qassem Soleimani leads to yet another of the Bush administrations retreads. David Wurmser, a longtime advocate of war with Iraq in the Bush administration, wrote several memos to then-national security adviser John Bolton in May and June of 2019. In the documents, according to Bloomberg, Wurmser argued that aggressive action by the U.S. – such as the killing of Soleimani — would, in Wurmser’s words, “rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival.”

I mention Wurmser because just recently the White House acknowledged that Wurmser is now serving as an informal adviser to the Trump administration. According to Bloomberg News, Wurmser helped make the case for the drone strike that assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani. The neoconservatives in the Bush Administration, like Wurmser, Bolton and Abrams, oddly enough keep on reappearing. Their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven disastrous for U.S. interests. Why do the U.S. citizens have to tolerate these warmongers? 

In the mid-1990s Wurmser worked for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank greatly influenced by AIPAC. In 1996, he was one of the main thinkers behind a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that was prepared by an Israeli think tank for then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in 1996. 

The paper called for Israel to engage in preemptive attacks on its perceived foes and a “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” Then in 1999, Wurmser wrote a book titled “Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein,” In which Wurmser said, “the menace from Saddam’s Iraq will continue to grow” if the U.S. did not remove him from power.

After 9/11, Wurmser’s promoted the idea the U.S. had to respond to Al Qaeda by, as the 9/11 Commission later put it, hitting a “non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.” Wurmser was the senior adviser to Bolton, then-undersecretary at the State Department, together they  became the vociferous champions of a regime change war with Iraq. Wurmser and Bolton got what they wanted when the U.S. led invasion of Iraq began in March 2003.

Rest assured, with Wurmser in the ear of Trump we can expect more Soleimani moments considering that he has stated, if the U.S. failed to “trigger a fundamental change in behavior” by Iran’s leaders that America might “have to think seriously about going directly into Iran.”

Wurmser already shares the responsibility for hundreds of thousand deaths and the lives of millions that have been blighted by the Iraqi War. A million in Iraq, a million in Afghanistan what’s another million in Iran, pretty soon we’ll be talking “real people.”

Donald Trump instructed then-Defense Secretary James Mattis to devise a nuclear deterrence strategy that would be “appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats.” The upshot was a sub-launched low-yield nuke that could strike Iran or North Korea in just ten or fifteen minutes as opposed to the eleven hours it would take a stealth bomber to deliver a nuclear payload from its home base in Missouri. Who could wait when a mini-holocaust was finally at hand?

The Nuclear Posture Review of February 2018 was produced by the Office Of The Secretary Of Defense. Secretary of Defense James Mattis oversaw the report and published initiative for a new Nuclear Posture. A policy to “enhance deterrence by denying potential adversaries any mistaken confidence that limited nuclear employment can provide a useful advantage over the United States and its allies.”

James Mattis used the Russia-phobia narrative combined with scare tactic to advance the low-yield nuclear weapons into the U.S. military’s toolbox. Mattis’ nuclear solution to the “Russian strategic imperative” was backed up by statements like;

“Russia’s belief that limited nuclear first use, potentially including low-yield weapons”

“Russian statements on this evolving nuclear weapons doctrine appear to lower the threshold for Moscow’s first-use of nuclear weapons”

“Russia demonstrates its perception of the advantage these systems provide through numerous exercises and statements”

“Moscow’s perception that its greater number and variety of non-strategic nuclear systems provide a coercive advantage”

To justify the low-yield initiative, Mattis’ 2018 report went on to say, ‘… the United States will enhance the flexibility and range of its tailored deterrence options. To be clear, this is not intended to, nor does it enable, “nuclear war-fighting.”’ That is reassuring, giving the military more nuclear options to deter a nuclear war is like giving a junkie more drugs to prevent an overdose.

Mattis further justified, “… to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.” So, there you have it, that is why we need those “cute little nukes.”

Today, two years later we have US Navy vessels with those “cute little nukes” on board. The technical name “nuclear-tipped SLBM, submarine-launched ballistic missile” or W76-2.  In a Tuesday statement, undersecretary of defense for policy John Rood confirmed that the Navy has fielded the weapon to “strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon… and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment…” Sound familiar?

The deployment of the W76-2, a low-yield variant of the nuclear warhead traditionally used on the Trident missile, was first reported Jan. 29 by the Federation of American Scientists (FSA). The first to move out with the new weapon was the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), deploying from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia at the end of 2019, FAS reported.

Low-yield means somewhere around five kilotons, or roughly one-third the destructive power of the “Little Boy” nuclear bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima in the final days of World War II, killing tens of thousands of people.

Atomically speaking, this is hardly more than a firecracker. However, nuclear devices dwarf conventional weapons. Take for example the record-setting GBU-43/B MOAB (“Mother of all bombs”) that the US dropped on an ISIS tunnel complex in Afghanistan in 2017. A 2003 test of the MOAB prototype created a mushroom cloud visible from twenty miles away. To put this result in perspective, a low-yield five-kiloton bomb is 500 times greater than the MOAB.

In January 2019, when the low-yield nuclear warheads began rolling off the line the Democrats vowed to block their deployment. Recently Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, from Senate floor, said, “I maintain that this is one weapon that will not add to our national security but would only increase the risk of miscalculation with dire consequences.”

Clearly, at one time the House of Representatives agreed with Sen. Reed because the original version of the 2020 defense bill prohibited deployment of the modified warhead. Strangely enough, that verbiage got lost. 

What happened between January 2019 and today that may have diverted these “honorable” men and women in Congress? Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate and Impeachment come to mind, after all, bipartisan political games can be very distracting. The final 2020 defense budget passed in December with massive Democratic support and by the way it contained a line item allowing the W76-2 program to go forward.

Thank you Congress! You are always looking out for us! WTFU

I Love the Smell of “Primary Season” 

Every four years after the excitement of Thanksgiving, Christmas and the Super Bowl we enter into the primary season. The primary season is like a child’s Christmas. The child asks for stuff and a jolly old man is expected to reciprocate but only if good behavior is demonstrated. Well for the most part, the voters have been on good behavior; they “pay” their taxes, they obey the laws (mostly) and pay homage to the governmental God. 

Maybe this year the Democratic Party will give them what they ask for, a candidate for peace, liberty, justice and freedom would be nice. However, last weeks Iowa “circus” brought to mind a childhood musing.

“With visions of sugar plums dancing in my head,

I had just settled my brain for a long winter’s nap,

When out in Iowa there arose such a clatter,

I tore open the shutters, and threw up the sash,

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh, and her tiny rein-deer,

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St. Hill.

With a wink of her eye and a twist of her head

soon gave me to know I had something to dread.”

I thought this Democratic Party’s gift would be; blame China, Russia or Iran for hacking into the 2020 elections, thus nullifying the results and turning the presidential election over to the Electoral College or House of Representatives. Probably more in line with the US Constitution than what we learn in school or the primary hoax.

For all you tin-foil hat crazy conspiracy minded nuts, I’ve got another one.  How about the Democratic Party pre-empting a selection process, delegitimizing Iowa voters and exposing the true nature for the duopoly’s primary system facade. 

Those rascal Dems inserted another layer into an already flawed caucus process under the guise of protecting the American democracy from foreign hacks. By introducing an untested app, written by a company named Shadow, providing very little training, financed by one of the candidates, it was practically guaranteed to fail in the Iowa caucus.

Connecting Dots Or Is It “Bots”

Did I say “fail”? This particular “failure” enabled a temporary freeze at 62% of votes being acknowledged. By coincidence, Mayor Pete was in the lead with more than 1/3 of the votes not accounted for. The Iowa Democratic caucus results were intentionally withheld based upon Shadow’s app failure. Again, coincidently Shadow was financed by the self proclaimed winner, Mayor Pete. Buttigieg’s campaign had donated at least $42,500 to the makers of Shadow.

The connection does not end with finances. Tara McGowan, the CEO of its parent company, is married to a senior Buttigieg strategist. A number of senior members of Shadow’s team, including the CEO, Gerard Niemira, COO James Hickey, CTO Krista Davis and Product Manager Ahna Rao all helped to run Hillary Clinton’s 2016 primary bid.

More interesting connections between Buttigieg and Clinton are apparent when the funding and the data security for McGowan’s Company connects heavyweights like Reid Hoffman, Dmitri Mehlhorn, Seth Klarman and Robby Mook. The message is loud and clear that there is a new sheriff in town and this one has a powerful posse. Hillary could make Debbie Wasserman Schultz look like a schoolgirl.  

Why Iowa?

The major benefit that an Iowa victory provides is the “bump” in the national polls. When Bernie, the legitimate winner, was denied the victory speech it provided an opportunity for “the chosen” to declare victory and thus illegitimately reaping the only benefit that the Iowa caucus offers. After all what is of more value for the Democrat Party the old Caucasian farmers votes or getting rid of Bernie? 

There are two democrats running for president that do not represent the status quo of the security state.  Looking at the democratic party’s treatment of Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, it becomes clear that the Hillary gang has declared war on these two candidates. Hillary is hiding nothing, its full throttle, just Syria and Libya revisited.   

Democrat and Republican Corporations Scam 

Technically this really is not fraud, it’s business as usually. In 2016, the Democratic National Congress (DNC) rigged the election in favor of Clinton, preventing Sanders from becoming the nominee. It argued in court that they were under no legal obligation to provide the public with a clean election and it was its right under the First Amendment to put its thumb on the scale for Clinton. Words like “impartial” and “evenhanded,” as used in the DNC charter, it said, could not be interpreted by a court of law.

The Primary Pasture 

Let’s call this facade off and cut out this corrupt vetting selection exercise that we call primaries. Primaries are a system created by the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican corporation where candidates are pre-selected to maintain status quo. The two corporate giants conduct these exercises to placate the voters into believing that they are an active participant in a democracy. Maybe they should consult with Bolivia, Venezuela or maybe North Korea to see how real “fake” democracies work. 

These dog and pony shows only help the plutocrats select a pliable candidates that has charm enough that voters can tolerate. They give us these Trojan horses so they can continue with their nefarious agenda. When a candidate beats the system the neutering process goes “Full Monty”. (Russia-gate, impeachment, RFK treatment, what ever it takes) 

Shepherding  of Votes

Either case it is not in the best interest of its citizens. Issues like homelessness, opioids, decaying infrastructure, global warming and medical costs get lip service while Washington fights its war on global terrorism. “Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here,” what a joke. Substitute Russia, Iran or China for “terrorism” and pretty soon we are talking about a $738 billion defense budget. I’m so tired of keeping up with Washington’s “enemy of the week.”   

Washington’s non-elected elite are too powerful, elections are for show and with each presidential election more blatant acts of shepherding votes become obvious. This is why in a two party system we end up with only one choice, who is the lesser of the two evils.

Washington will repair the damage done in Iowa by buying their loyalty back; higher ethanol requirements, increased farm subsidies and more military contracts. Now those are bipartisan issues we all support. Thanks Santa!

“But I heard them exclaim, as they drove out of sight

Happy primary season to all, and to all a good night.”

Why We Are There

The results of the Iraq War(s) has succeeded to be exactly opposite to what the Bush administration’s neocons planned.  The mission was to create a secure U.S.-Israeli friendly government that would act as a placeholder around Iran. Then after a quick victory in Iraq, Syria would be the next to fall in line. How did that work out? Well, Washington is still hopeful.

Every move the US has attempted both in Iraq and Syria has empowered Iran. This is why the leftover neocons in Washington will not give up on their US-Iran proxy war. This proxy war, in Iraq, has waxed and waned for years, today it has waxed to its capacity. 

The United States of America has again fallen into the trap aided by disinformation and misinterpretation of events on the ground. The US may be lashing out due to their frustration of constantly being put in check by the Iranian Chess-Masters. Is there anyone in Washington not susceptible to a Fool’s Mate? 

Iranian Commander General Qassem Soleimani Execution

On the outskirts of the Baghdad International Airport, a US drone attacked a delegation including the top figure in Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), killing him as well as several others, including Iran’s Quds Forces commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani. The White House confirmed President Trump ordered the attack, and emphasized that they considered Soleimani a “terrorist.”

Trita Parsi @tparsi

Spoke to a very knowledgeable person about what Iran’s response to Soleimani’s assassination might be. This would be the equivalent of Iran assassinating (Gen.) Petreus or (Gen.) Mattis, I argued.

No, he responded, this is much bigger than that…

6:11 PM – 2 Jan 2020

Wrong Signal

The media and the think-tankers like Brookings, Carnegie, Hudson, the Washington Institute, the “Middle East Institute” and others were promoting a belief that the last weeks protestors were attached to an anti-Iran objective. These fools advocated a ‘weakness of Iran in Iraq’, a phenomenon based on a few street comments and a few arson-inspired fires. Its understandable considering their conclusions are based upon “non-journalistic” reports from WhatsApp, social media, Skype, activists, jihadists and other unvetted propaganda sources.

Events Leading To The Execution

On 27th December 2019, several rockets were fired from unidentified attackers against the K1 Iraqi military base in Kirkuk, north of Iraq. In this base, as in many others, Iraqi and US military are present on the same ground and within the same walls, even if they have different command and control HQs. Two Iraqi policemen and one American contractor were killed and 2 Iraqi Army officers and four US contractors were wounded.

Instead of ceasing the emotions of this tragedy and using sentiment to negotiated peaceful restitution, Washington decided to escalate. The following day, Defense Secretary Mark Esper called the Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister to inform him of “his decision to bomb Kataeb Hezbollah bases in Iraq”. Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper to meet face-to-face, and told his interlocutor that this would be dangerous for Iraq: he rejected the US decision.

Esper responded that he was “not calling to negotiate but to inform about a decision that has already been taken”. Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper if the US has “proof against Kataeb Hezbollah to share so Iraq can arrest those responsible for the attack on K1”. No response: Esper told Abdel Mahdi that the US was “well-informed” and that the attack would take place “in a few hours”.

In less than half an hour, US jets bombed five Iraqi security forces’ positions deployed along the Iraqi-Syrian borders, 538 kilometers from the K1 military base (that had been bombed by perpetrators still unknown!). The US announced the attack but omitted the fact that in these positions there were not only Kataeb Hezbollah but also included Iraqi Army and Federal Police officers. Most victims of the US attack were Iraqi army and police officers. Only 9 officers of Kataeb Hezbollah were killed.

These five positions had the task of intercepting and hunting down ISIS and preventing the group’s militants from crossing the borders from the Anbar desert. The Iraqi people held these groups in high esteem, after all they were the forces involved with saving many civilians from the horrors of ISIS.

Soleimani a Marked Man

The US strikes aimed at Kataeb Hezbollah backfired and provided an unexpected benefit to the Iranian supported PMU’s. Secretaries Pompeo and Esper’s actions were in perfect harmony with the goals of the Iranian-Quds brigade commander Qassem Soleimani. He appeared to have been instrumental in diverting the country’s attention towards the US embassy and providing means for the break-in of protestors. Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani ability to capitalize on American mistakes in the Middle East made him a marked man.

Members of Hashd al-Shaabi and other Iraqi forces units, along with families and friends of the 79 (killed and wounded) victims demonstrated outside the US embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Flags of Hashd al-Shaabi were flying over the entrance of the US embassy. The withdrawal of the US forces from Iraq has become the priority of the Iraqi parliament, the people and of Moqtada al-Sadr.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei: “Thank God Our Enemies Are Imbeciles”

Pompeo and Esper broke the Iraqi political stalemate in the direction of the Iranian based Hashd al-Shaabi. One single rushed decision emanating from inexperienced US policymakers, advice from neocons think tankers and a silent US Congress has dealt huge setback in the region’s proxy war. One has to wonder, was this “Blunder” shaped by incompetence, or a planned larger agenda?

Did these “experts” think that these blunderous retaliatory strikes aimed at Kataeb Hezbollah would make them unable or unwilling to respond? Did they believe that the “Kataeb Hezbollah” would be degraded by the US strikes? Did they think that Kataeb Hezbollah would be weakened? Check!

Iran and the Washington’s battle for hegemony in Iraq has reached a flash point and the next provocation on either side could set off a war. The fuse has been lit and no cooler heads can be found to douse it.

The Enemy of Our Enemy is Our Enemy

U.S. forces returned to Iraq in 2014, at the request of the Iraqi government, to combat ISIS. ISIS in Iraq has been decimated.  However, after the defeat of ISIS the rationale for troop presences changed. According to the Trump administration, the U.S. must remain there to combat the influence on the Iraqi military by Iranian militias.

These militia make up Iraq’s Fatah Alliance. The same units that we cooperated with to defeat ISIS. The Fatah alliance includes the Kata’ib Hizbollah, this is the group that the US recently accused and attacked in retaliation for a strike that killed a US contractor. These strikes have brought havoc to the US Embassy in Bagdad.

The attacks on the American embassy in Bagdad evokes memories of Tehran forty years ago. My only hope is that this does not end like the 1979 hostage situation or the deadly 2012 attack on the US consulate in Libya’s second city Benghazi or for that matter the embarrassing evacuation of the Saigon embassy in 1975.

Congress Do Your Job!

First off, Congress where are you? You must determine if our military presence in Iraq still justified, whether by the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, or by the 2002 Congressional vote to support the invasion of Iraq? It is well over due for Congress to vote to bring all our troops home from Iraq. Why does the U.S. still have approximately 5,000 troops plus an unknown number of private contractors in Iraq nearly seventeen years after our invasion?

U.S. military personnel are in Iraq supposedly on an anti-ISIS mission.  Under the Trump administration, there appears to have been mission creep, in Iraq as well as Syria, in which somehow confronting Iran has become part of a new mission.

That mission has never been justified. No one has explained exactly how the current Iraqi-Iranian relations threatens U.S. interests. Seemingly forgotten among all this is how Iran, and the Iraqi elements it supports, have been performing anti-ISIS mission, the same mission of the U.S. deployment.

 US policy have been heavily influenced by an unhealthy Iran obsession, making American troops and personnel less safe. Washington refuses to see things from the adversary’s side. They are constantly misjudging what will and won’t provoke anger and attract more attacks. They continually keep the American military presence in Iraq in a perilous state. Unfortunately, it seems that only more Americans killed will wake up a public outcry to force someone, anyone to put on the breaks to this foolishness.

Is That You, Israel?

Considering the course of events since July of 2019, the latest bombing and retaliation episode was very predictable. Attacks began on July 19 when a Israeli drone dropped explosives onto a PMU, a Fatah Alliance group, base near the town of Amerli, in Salahuddin Province, killing at least one resistance fighter and injuring four others.

Another Israeli drone attacks struck Sunday, August 25th a PMU convoy near the Iraqi town of al-Qa’im close to the Syrian border. It killed Kazem Mohsen, 45th PMU Brigade logistical support chief and severely wounded another fighter.

In a statement released in August 2019, Iraq’s Fatah Alliance held the United States accountable for the drone strikes on PMU bases over the past few weeks, which were reported to have been carried out by the Israel.

The PMU said that the deadly strike was launched under “air cover over the area from American planes.” “While we reserve the right to respond to these Zionist attacks, we hold the international coalition, particularly the United States, fully responsible for this aggression, which we consider a declaration of war on Iraq and its people.” It also called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, stressing that they are no longer needed there.

Oops, I Left Out Some Information!

At a press briefing January 2nd, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said there had been a sustained campaign by Kataib Hezbollah against U.S. personnel since at least October and the missile attack in northern Iraq was designed to kill. No mention of any correlation between the Israeli’s deadly drone attacks an the Kataib Hezbollah retaliations.

During the same press briefing, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Thursday there were indications Iran or forces it backs may be planning additional attacks, warning that the “game has changed” and it was possible the United States might have to take preemptive action to protect American lives. What does that even mean? Preemptive war, 1967 style?

Warning Missed

On November 8th, 17 Katyusha rockets were fired at an Iraqi military base south of Mosul that houses U.S. troops.  “If they hit that base and if you had dead U.S. servicemen, that would certainly be a red line where we could be hitting something in Iran, could we be bombing (Iranian port) Bandar Abbas? Potentially,” former CIA analyst Helima Croft said. “Iraq is where I think this whole thing comes to a head.”

Responsibility for those rocket attacks were not claimed and no casualties were reported, but commodities expert and Croft warned of the dangerous risk that could bring the U.S. into further confrontation with Iran. Hardline Iranian-backed Iraqi militias have been regularly threatening to attack Americans inside the country.

On Friday, December 27th Croft’s warning came to fruition. The Friday volley of some 30 107mm Katyusha rockets hit the K1 base which houses Iraqi and U.S. troops near Kirkuk, Iraq. The casualties from this attack included one killed U.S. contractor (mercenary/contractor?) two Iraqi and four U.S. soldiers were wounded.

 Instead of investigating to confirm the culprits – ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want to regain control over Kirkuk – almost immediately the U.S. declared that Kata’ib Hizbullah was the group guilty of the attack. Maybe they were  the guilty but where is the proof? Didn’t we learn anything about the OPCW scandal. What scandal?That’s right the media ignored that!

Pompeo Must Go!

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had informed Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi of the US retaliatory attack ahead of time. The prime minister asked him to call it off, and then publicly condemned it, calling it an unspeakable, vicious assault that will have dangerous consequences. How can we claim to be in Iraq to protect their democracy when we are obviously violating their sovereignty? 

Pompeo turned a deaf ear to the Iraqi official and proceeded with the plan. In response to the repeated attacks on Iraqi bases that host Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) coalition forces, U.S. forces have conducted precision defensive strikes against five KH facilities in Iraq and Syria that will degrade KH’s ability to conduct future attacks against OIR coalition forces.

The five targets include three Kata’ib Hizbollah (KH) locations in Iraq and two in Syria. These locations included weapon storage facilities and command and control locations that KH uses to plan and execute attacks on OIR coalition forces.

All of the KH positions that were hit were in the western Anbar desert, 450 kilometer away from Kirkuk. KH has bases on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border where it is engaged in fighting the still active ISIS.

The results of the air strikes were devastating, accounts of those attacks follow:

Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai – 6:20 UTC · Dec 30, 2019                                                              The al-Qaem/al-Bukamal border station is the only open one between Iraq and Syria which is not under U.S. control. The U.S. was furious when the Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdul Mahdi allowed it to be established. It was previously attacked by Israel which had launched its assault from a U.S. air force base in east Syria.

TØM CΛT @TomtheBasedCat – 6:11 UTC · Dec 29, 2019                                                                It wasn’t just Hezbollah Battalions members who were affected, there are also wounded among the ranks of the Missiles Forces / Rocket Battalion which is considered a separate unit apart from the numbered brigades. The strikes were designed to kill those who still fight ISIS in its most virulent hide outs:

Rania Khalek @RaniaKhalek – 18:44 UTC · Dec 29, 2019                                                          The PMF group that was hit by the Americans has been fighting ISIS for years. They were on the front lines protecting Iraq from ISIS in Syria and engaged in the ongoing battles with ISIS in the Syrian and Iraqi deserts. They were THE line of defense.

Eye For An Eye?

The American attack on this PMF group was a disproportionate act of revenge and has created a threat to regional security. The  over zealously strong U.S. response, taken from a page of Israeli retaliatory manual, was a huge blunder.  The act has put the U.S. personnel and other official in Iraq in harms way. It’s hard to believe that the world’s number one super power has to get into a fight with a small militia 7,000 miles away.

The five targets casualties included twenty-five fighters, including commanders, were killed in the airstrikes in Iraq. Another 51 fighters were wounded, the group has warned that the death toll could increase.

What Is It Called – When You Attack Iraqi Force in Iraq?

While the militia targets are closely tied to Iran, many Iraqis see it primarily as an Iraqi force and were angered by an attack on it by an outside power. “We are talking about a foreign force attacking an Iraqi force,” said Maria Fantappie, the senior adviser on Iraq for the International Crisis Group.

The populist cleric Moktada al-Sadr, for instance, urged the militias to abandon “irresponsible actions,” saying he would work with them to use legal and political means to kick out the Americans.

Analysts also said the scale of the American attack — on five sites in two countries with two dozen people killed — made it likely that Kataib Hezbollah would feel compelled to respond and could rally anti-Americanism.

The US attack on Iraqi government paramilitary forces has only added to seriousness, with officials calling it a “sinful violation” of Iraqi sovereignty. Though US officials have routinely presented Ketaib Hezbollah and other PMU militias as “Iranian forces,” there was no real mystery that they are part of the Iraqi government’s formal security forces.

The State Department’s comments suggest that the two sides are on the verge of open hostilities. PMU leader Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, a high-ranking Iraqi government official, is threatening a retaliatory response against the US as Trump threatening more attacks if there is any retaliation.

This is a very dangerous situation, US-Iraq ties are collapsing. What does this means for 5,000 US troops already in Iraq? Bring all the troops home!

 

 

 

The “Toilet Bowl”

The holiday season is bowl season for the fan of college football. For those of us that are fans of politics we have been treated to the Congressional Impeachment Bowl. This bowl differs from a football game because the final result has already been determined. The winner is the government and the loser is the citizens but it makes for good entertainment. My father in law use to refer to many of the college bowls as “Toilet Bowls.”

The Congressional Impeachment Bowl has been staged before a public audience, with play by play furnished by the announcers of your choice. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, New York Times whatever partisan view you prefer, you the viewer can choose. The Democrats and Republicans actors are convincing in their roles. Many of their fans believe that they are fighting for the interests of “our” team. Viewed through the eyes of the nonpartisan they more resemble pro-wrestlers than college football players.

While the US media has been mesmerized by the field performances of the Congressional Bowl actors, these prima donnas have been quite busy on the sidelines passing bills like the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The nearly 3,500-page bill authorizes $738 billion in defense spending in Fiscal Year 2020. That is a hell of a playbook to read while engaged is their performance. I can see why they might have over looked a little detail or two. Let me rant.

A “Space Force,” to expand the empire into the cosmos, continuing to allow government kidnapping (“terrorist”-Guantanamo) and letting the president send American troops into combat. You know, that guy the House just impeached. However, these moral performers did show their grit by discarding the Constitution, once again, to protect our children by raising the unconstitutional federal age to buy cigarettes to 21, “its all about the children.” By the way, those 18 year olds are the children you let the president sent off to our unconstitutional wars.

However, those Congress-critters hammered out a $1.4 trillion spending agreement with the Trump administration. The agreement, “fills in the details of a bipartisan framework from July that delivered about $100 billion in agency spending increases over the coming two years instead of automatic spending cuts that would have sharply slashed both the Pentagon and domestic agencies.”

So, Congress continued to ignore the Constitution by agreeing not to enforce its monopoly of declaring war before sending U.S. military to conduct offensive combat operations. They extended the NDAA provisions written into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, to authorize the arrest and “indefinite detention” of anybody the president decides might be associated with “terrorism” and subject them to the law of war. They handed out $1.4 trillion while declaring that 18 years olds can “Kill for us, but don’t get caught smoking.” Toilet Bowl indeed!

Civics 101 – What Did I Miss?

When did democracy become God? We worship it, we give it thanks, we praise it, we glorify it, we invade for it, we overthrow for it and now we impeach for it. What did I miss in civics class? 

Many of our Representatives have made statements that connect democracy with the Founding Fathers and point to the US Constitution as proof. Are they ignorant, nefarious or just stooges in this demigod called Democracy? Whatever, it is the ultimate “fake news” being perpetrated on the people. But the media loves those cute little patriotic sound bites. 

The fundamental principle, of the Constitution, is not to carry out the will of the people but is to protect individual liberty. The will of the people, also known as the democratic decision-making process, defiles the US Constitution. Most Americans do not fully understand the dangers surfacing from this misunderstanding. Our government officials continue to push “their” government away from liberty and toward democracy as we the people become servants of “their” government.   

Partisanship Can Not Be Removed From Democracy

American constitutionalism has morphed from protecting liberty to advancing democracy at the expense of liberty. The Founders saw the role of government as a protectorate of the rights of individuals, and the biggest threat to individual liberty was the government itself. They designed a government with constitutionally limited powers, constrained to carry out only those activities specifically allowed by the Constitution.

If you follow the principle of liberty first and foremost and prescribe to the notion that the government’s role is to protect the rights of individuals; one would clearly see that the principle of democracy, collective decisions made according to the will of the majority, is anti-Constitutional. The greater the allowable scope of democracy in government, the greater the threat to liberty.

This is reflected in the nature of the elections they prescribed in the Constitution.The Founding Fathers viewed elections as a method of selecting competent people to undertake a job with constitutionally-specified limits. With the extension of democracy, elections became referendums on public policy. If you recall there were several warnings against the dangers of factions (party’s, special interest, etc.) The Federalist Papers No. 9, No. 10 and No. 11. and Washington’s farewell address to name a few.

Democracy – Oops, There It Is

It is true that the Constitution did allow for one democratic process, a representative to be elected by a majority of a district’s constituents. However, the Founders wanted those who ran the government to be insulated from direct influence by its citizens. By insulating political decision-makers from direct accountability to citizens, the government would be in a better position to adhere to its constitutionally-mandated limits. However, re-election, partisan vote and campaign donation has created a landslide of outside influence. Influence to the point that my vision of a Congressman (woman) more resembles a race car driver than a diligent official.

The Constitution created a limited government designed to protect liberty, not to foster democracy. However, the United States has consistently moved toward more democracy, and the unintended side effect has been a reduction in liberty.

Democracy, No – Republic, Yes

It may have been Mark Twain, maybe Emma Goldman or possible Phillip Berrigan once said, “If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.“ Whoever said it, maybe they were on to something because there is a lot of truth to it.

In Randall Holcombe’s new book, Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History, Holcombe’s lays out the case for why “the Founders had no intention of designing a government that would respond to the will of the majority,” as illustrated by the fact that citizens “had almost no direct input into the federal government as the Constitution was originally written and ratified.”

The US Constitution allows for one governmental position to be elected by the people, Congressional representative, not President nor US Senator. “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States….”  Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 Because the founding fathers were not fans of mob rule, they purposely and meticulously limited democratic procedures for national positions.

Both US Senators and the President were not to be selected by popular vote. “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” Article I, Section 3, Clause 1

The 17th Amendment profoundly altered Article I, Section 3, by providing for direct election of the Senate. This Amendment tilted the scale of power in favor the central government over the states. This change to the selection process, making it democratic, eliminated the responsibility that the US Senator had to his/her state under the Founder’s Constitution.

Presidential Election- What is That?

The Constitution clearly did not intent for popular vote to determine the President either. read Article 2, Section 1 on executive selection:  https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2

It is the Electoral College that was designated to vote for the president, completely independent of any popular vote. An understanding of the Electoral College would discard any presumptions behind the current debate over the National Popular Vote.  In fact, the Founders anticipated that in most cases no candidate would receive votes from a majority of the Electors. “The Founders reasoned that most electors would vote for one candidate from their own states…and it would be unlikely that voting along state lines would produce any candidate with a majority of the votes.” Holcombe

Consequently, in reality: “the Founders envisioned that in most cases the president would end up being chosen by the House of Representatives from the list of the top-five electoral vote recipients…Furthermore, there was no indication that the number of electoral votes received should carry any weight besides creating a list of the top five candidates…The process was not intended to be democratic.” Holcombe

How Do You Really Feel?

Therefore, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, championed the new Constitution in his state precisely because it would not create a democracy. “Democracy never lasts long,” he noted. “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”

New York’s Alexander Hamilton”We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” wrote in The Federalist, No. 10: “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”

Can We Handle It?

After the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. A Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,  “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The difference between a democracy and a republic is not just semantics but is fundamental. The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica — which means simply “the public thing(s),” or more simply “the law(s).” “Democracy,” on the other hand, is derived from the Greek words demos and kratein, which translates to “the people to rule.” Democracy, therefore, has always been synonymous with majority rule.

The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, health care, etc.

Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”).

Robert Welch explained in a 1961 speech:

“… rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority any more than they can be by the decree of a conqueror. The idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or just becomes as absurd and unacceptable as the idea that right and justice are simply whatever a king says they are.”

Congress – Read The Constitution   

The Constitution contains only 4,543 words, including the signatures. The Founding Fathers envisioned US Representatives to Congress to be competent people to undertake a job with constitutionally-specified limits. I am sure they would include reading and understanding the Constitution as a prerequisite to being a competent person. I do!

Is A Presidential Veto – Obstruction of Congress?

Yes dear, forever wars, homelessness, opioids, health care, infrastructure crumbling, national debt as Congress fiddles with impeachment. Who’s the criminal?

The absurdity of these charges, made by our body of elected officials, reeks of arrogance and delusion. I am not a fan of Trump but I am a fan of the US Constitution. Congress needs to reflect and evaluate the damage that they have created by not following it. Instead they will continue to look for others to blame. The story of Nero comes to mind.

In July of 64 A.D., a great fire ravaged Rome for six days, destroying 70 percent of the city and leaving half its population homeless. According to a well-known expression, Rome’s emperor at the time, the decadent and unpopular Nero, “fiddled while Rome burned.” The callousness of playing music while his people suffered and the shirking of leadership responsibility when needed in a time of crisis are obviously similar.

The US House of Representatives has become a present day Nero. Sadistic and cruel while building Golden Palaces surrounded by pleasure gardens blaming others for the fires that continue to rage in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iraq.

The recent Washington Post report reveals that U.S. officials have been engaged in a campaign to mislead the American people. Under three successive presidents — George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump — who all promised to avoid getting sucked into an open-ended nation-building mission, civilian and military leaders, writes the Post’s Craig Whitlock “failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan…, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”  “This dishonesty, in fact, is a big part of why the war persists.”

Why and on who’s watch was this allowed to happen? Congress is the common denominator. Look in the mirror, the cause is standing in front of you. It happened in 1964 with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and then again in 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Why does Congress continue to let the Genie out of the bottle? 

The Congress Shall Have Power To …Declare War

When the US Constitution is compromised and the checks and balance of power is distorted, the Executive branch and its military goes rogue. The US Constitution makes it clear that Congress shall have the power to declare war. Article1, Section 8, of the US Constitution reads; “The Congress shall have PowerTo …Declare War…”

“The framers of the Constitution were reluctant to concentrate too much influence in the hands of too few. They had the vision to deny the office of the President the authority to go to war unilaterally. They firmly believed that if America was going to survive as a republic, they reasoned, declarations of war required careful debate in open forums among the public’s representatives.”

Fool Me Once – Shame On You

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution (1964) (H.J. RES 1145) dated August 7, 1964, gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to increase U.S. involvement in the war between North and South Vietnam. It stated that “Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repeal any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression.” As a result, President Johnson, and later President Nixon, relied on the resolution as the legal basis for their military policies in Vietnam.

Fool Me Twice – Shame On Me

On Sep 18, 2001: Congress Passed S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): This joint resolution reads: “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The AUMF was a free pass for the President to declare state force (war), on any nation, organization or person labeled “a terrorist.” The AUMF became the catalyst for sending our husbands, wives, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters into harms way. The US military force perpetrated on innocent people included; murder, torture, war crimes, bribery, lying and corruption. Just to name a few of the crimes.

Show Me The Money

The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, is the latest budgetary monster created by the DC swamp. The 2020 version of the annual Department of Defense funding bill provides $738 billion to the Pentagon compared to pre-AUMF level of $429.45 billion. (see summary here)

https://republicansarmedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/FY20%20NDAA%20Conference%20Summary%20_%20FINAL.pdf

U.S. military spending from 2000 to 2018 chart of budget:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/

The $30 billion increase, from 2018 budget, is to be wasted on failing weapons projects and an ever growing bureaucracy to support and promote the endless wars.  It requires our government coerced taxes to fund our state sponsored violence programs.

To approve the $738 billion NDAA budget, at a time when the annual federal budget deficit surpasses $1 trillion is criminal. Endorsing ambitious military strategies without considering obvious resource constraints is mind boggling. Our elected officials, in both parties, have failed to come to grips with the nation’s fiscal situation and our abusive military actions.

Bribery – That Is An Impeachable Offense

If this NDAA passes, it will be another sign of how U.S. foreign policy is writing checks that Americans who have not yet been born will have to pay. While Congress members, that vote to approve, will benefit financially from donation made by the corporations that procure the new and extended governmental contracts coming from the $738 billion. Taking payments of money in exchange for favorable treatment, government contracts – campaign donations. Is that bribery?

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2020&ind=D

Treason – That Is An Impeachable Offense

The oath of office that every member of Congress takes is a pledge to “support and defend the Constitution.” The Constitution clearly states that the nation’s war powers are vested in the Legislative branch, not the Executive. Members of Congress who have refused to revisit the AUMF are derelict of their duty. And those in Congress who have blocked any consideration of that question, are guilty of a far greater breach of trust: they are “subverting the Constitution.” Is that Treason?

Bring Them Home

The results of Congress passing its Constitutional responsibility on to another branch of government has been disastrous. How many Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Libya’s, Syria’s or Yemen’s do we have left before we implode as a nation? Put the Genie back in the bottle, rescind the AUMF and bring all of our troops home.

Ukraine – Who’s Zooming Who?

Ukraine has been the recipient of vast US and western military and economic aid, a condition that has turned it into a honeypot for some of Washington’s finest thieves (corporations and individuals). It appears that some influence peddling ensnared the, business as usual, Biden’s and co-oped the DNC in the 2016 US election. But when Trump “ask” President Volodymyr Zelensky “do me a favor” get to the bottom of this corruption, impeachment breaks-out.

At the Trump impeachment inquest, US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland made the narrative clear, “in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression.” Ah-ha moment – its about Russia. However, if you listen closely its initiated by an out of control non-elected Foreign Service backed by the intelligence community to promote the Washington’s “business as usual” approach to regime change.

The Democrats have hitched their wagon to the Deep State masters. They have been dragging out of the NSC and State Department woodwork some very impressive bellicose “patriots”. Using fear as a weapon, the neocon recite their testimony about the Russkie threat and Ukrainian being the “front line.” This talk should have woken the American public to the absurdity of the entire Cold War 2.0 campaign. Fighting the Russkies in the Donbass rather than on the shores of New Jersey. Come on!

Washington and its compliant media continues to mislead Americans concerning the following: Russia; the Ukrainian Coup of 2014; Vladimir Putin; Crimea; Donbass and Malaysia’s Airlines’s Flight MH17. The fog that is being propagated by the impeachment trial has shielded the public from some scary facts. Henry Kissinger once said, “It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but what is perceived to be true.” This is so true when we peel back the layers of this onion.

 Russia (Enemy #1?)

Russia, a kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging population with a third-rate economy and little capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders. Reality is that Russia is not a military threat to the US homeland. Russia is essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet Union war machine. The US, is the world’s only globe-spanning imperial power, with a massive conventional armada.

The notion that a cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer against Russian aggression is just not logical and “plain idiocy.” So, what is it about Ukraine that makes it qualify for the case for America’s absurd $900 billion defense and national security budget.

The idea that that US is needs to defend any European country from Russia is also nonsense. Europe can take care of its own security and relationship with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent. After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and the current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more than that of Russia. Besides, the only tensions that exist in Europe exist because of the illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 promoted by US aggression.

The pre-Coup

In 2013, the European Union proposing an association agreement with Ukraine while U.S. neocons and other hawkish politicos and pundits envisioned using the Ukraine gambit as a way to undermine Putin inside Russia.

In late 2013 the Ukrainian leaders attempted to align itself economically and politically with its historic “daddy” in Moscow rather than the European Union and NATO. The democratically elected and constitutionally legitimate government of Ukraine then led by Viktor Yanukovych was leaning toward Russia’s offer because it was a better deal from Moscow than that being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.

The EU’s proposal “required that Ukraine double prices for gas and electricity to industry and homes, eliminate a ban on private sale of Ukraine’s rich and fertile agricultural lands, cut state funds for children and the elderly to “balance the budget.”  The infamous “association agreement that Yanukovich refused to sign was a military agreement that would have transformed Ukraine into a military base further completing the encirclement of Russia, and turning Ukraine into a puppet of Nato.” Carla Stae, Global Research

President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed these harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine’s economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych’s decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country’s western and more pro-European region.

The Ukraine Coup (For Freedom and Democracy?)

Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, took notice of Yanukovych move toward Russia. Nuland advocated strenuously for Ukraine’s reorientation toward Europe. Strenuous for some indicates diplomatic strategies, Nuland became a bit over zealous.

Ms Nuland (aka The Maidan Cookie Monster) a U.S. State Department official, brazen and undiplomatic actions brought about a coup.  Nuland’s successful efforts, have been haunting us now for over five years. Without Ms Nuland the Ukraine crisis might not exist, Trump impeachment might have actually focused on real impeachable offense and the Democrats might not have to lie or behave paranoiac when Ukraine is mentioned.

Nuland was a neocon holdover who advised Vice President Dick Cheney. Nuland gained promotions under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and received backing, too, from ex-Secretary of State John Kerry. After all, promotions come easy when you have the right stuff, family connections. Victoria Nuland is the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan and is the sister-in-law of the Gates-Petraeus adviser Frederick Kagan.

In September 2013, Nuland undertook an extraordinary effort to promote “regime change” in Ukraine. She personally urged on business leaders and political activists to challenge elected President Viktor Yanukovych. She reminded corporate executives that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations,” and she literally passed out cookies to anti-government protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square

Working with other key neocons, including National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and Sen. John McCain, Nuland made clear that the United States would back a “regime change” against Yanukovych even though neo-Nazi and other right-wing militias were pouring into Kiev. Never the less, these groups were the recipients of US support.

In early February 2014, Nuland discussed U.S.-desired changes with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, a veteran diplomat well seasoned in “regime change”. Nuland leaked telephone conversations reveals her proposing a new line-up of Ukrainian officials as if she were selecting her fantasy football team. “Yats is the guy,” she said of her favorite Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to succeed the over-thrown Yanukovych.

Nuland, disparaged by the European Union less aggressive direction, uttered “Fuck the EU” and brainstormed how she would “glue this thing” as Pyatt pondered how to “mid-wife this thing.” Their unsecured phone call seamed to have indicated that Joe “Elmer’s” Biden had the stickiness to be Obama’s point man and besides he could be a good cheerleader to give “an attaboy” to the guys.

The coup against Yanukovych played out on Feb. 22, 2014, as the neo-Nazi militias and other violent extremists overran government buildings forcing the president and other officials to flee for their lives. Nuland’s State Department quickly declared the new regime “legitimate” and her guy “Yats” Yatsenyuk took over as prime minister.

Putin – (In the Cross-hairs?)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, was presiding over the Winter Olympics at Sochi, was caught off-guard by the coup. The coup, next door to Russia, held a crisis session to determine how to protect ethnic Russians and Russian interests. Those interests included Russia’s primary national security asset – the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea which had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries under czars and commissars.

The the US State Department, peddled a propaganda theme that Putin had instigated the Ukraine crisis, the credulous U.S. mainstream news media used this lie to promote the made-up sort that Putin orchestrated the coup in Ukraine so he could begin invading Europe. After all, didn’t Secretary of State Clinton created that narrative when she compared Putin to Adolf Hitler.

Speaking of Hitler – Ukraine and Ghosts of WW2

Washington’s obtuseness to this history reflected pure imperial arrogance. Ukraine specifically, was not really a Warsaw Pact “captive nation” like Poland or the Czech Republic. It had actually been an integral component of the old Soviet Union, and before that a vassal and province of Czarist Russia.

A 1897 map indicates, that today’s Ukraine barely even existed as an independent state during the final centuries of the Czarist Russian Empire.  Donbass, the Russian-speaking regions in what is today eastern Ukraine had been known as “New Russia” owing to the Czarist policy of settling Russians there to prevent encroachments by the Ottoman Turks.

In 1923, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, was incorporated by Moscow. During WW2 Western Ukraine had sided with the Nazi and Hitler’s Wehrmacht as it brutally made its way through Ukraine to the siege of Stalingrad. Eastern Ukraine had lined up with the Soviet Red Army during its equally bloody campaign of destruction and revenge as it chased the defeated Nazi army back to Berlin after 1943.

When Washington recruited modern-day political descendants of the WWII pro-Nazi brigades  of the west to replace the Yanukovych government, ruffled the feathers of many ethnic Russians. As the violence in the streets of Kiev increased, instigated mostly from Washington and pro-Nazi backed factions, further drove a divide between Ukrainians and the ethnic Russians. In February 2014, the US funded and engineered putsch successfully overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine. Basically, the US regime change intervention was on the grounds that he was too friendly with Moscow.

Washington’s reaction to Nuland’s “success” was best summed up by Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy, incidentally, funded by the U.S. Congress.  President Carl Gershman called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and an important interim step toward eventually toppling Putin in Russia. Gershman, wrote: “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

Crimea (Russian Troop Invasion?)

When Washington helped to install a ultra-nationalist government, with its neo-Nazi vanguard, the mobs on the street of Kiev reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine’s bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the east and Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin’s brutal rein in Ukraine during the 1930s and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler’s Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and back during the 1940s.

It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven outbreak of Russian separatism in the Crimea. In March 2014,  Crimea held a referendum vote to determine its own future. They formally voted to re-affiliate with Mother Russia. Any familiarity with Russian history and geography one would conclude that Crimea had nothing at stake or saw any legitimacy in the US backed Ukraine coup results.

Crimean History

In 1954, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev donated Crimea to Ukraine without considering the wishes of the Crimean population, who strongly opposed their new arrangement because they overwhelmingly considered themselves to be Russians, not to be Ukrainians.

Crimea favors Russia and feel loyalty to what they consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of “unity with Russia.”

In 2010, Russia and Ukraine had signed a 25-year extension on the lease that Russia had had on Russia’s Black-Sea-Fleet naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea ever since 1783, when Crimea first became a part of Russia. It has been reported that one of Obama’s objectives in taking over Ukraine in the 2014 coup was to cancel the remaining 21 years on Russia’s lease.

 The March 16th plebiscite results to rejoin Russia or remain under the administration of an Ukraine’s illegal regime was a no brainer. The referendum of the voters in Crimea, produced a 96% vote to secede result. Some people, the Ukrainian Government’s officials in Crimea at the time opposed holding any such referendum and Army did issued a statement: “The Ukrainian army units remained loyal to Kyiv.” After all they had their jobs and future to consider

What Russian Troops Invaded?

The only thing that made Crimea’s departure possible was the presence of Russian army.”  That too is true, just not relevant: because the Russian troops were already there as part of the lease agreement for protecting Russia’s naval base, at Sevastopol. If they were not in Crimea, the same situation that exists in Donbass today would be happening in Crimea.

Question: “Did the Crimean favor or oppose rejoining Russia?”                                            The following results, from Gallop Polls clearly answers that question: Gallup polled 500 Crimean in May of 2013, and conducted another poll in April 2014:

• 15% considered themselves “Ukrainian.”
• 24% considered themselves “Crimean.”
• 40% considered themselves “Russian.”

2014 results

• 71.3% of Crimean viewed as “Mostly positive” the role of Russia there
• 4.0% viewed it as “Mostly negative”;
• 2.8% viewed the role of the United States there as “Mostly positive,”
• 76.2% viewed it as “Mostly negative.”

Gallop’s 2014 poll: Of the 500 people that were sampled in Crimea were asked, Please tell me if you agree or disagree: “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status [to rejoin Russia] reflect the views of most people here.” 82.8% said ‘Agree.’ 6.7% said ‘Disagree.’” Crimea’s final voting results before the February 2014 coup were: 80% of Crimean had voted for the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

So, the President for whom they had overwhelmingly voted, the man that was overthrown in a bloody coup, the coup that had US fingerprints smudged all over it, voted to secede from Crimea. In the hearts of the local residents, Crimea was still Russian territory, after an involuntary hiatus of 60 years. The Russian Government accepted them back again, into Russia.

This is what the US Government and its mainstream media calls Russian Aggression and the Russian Invasion of Crimea. It one was to look abjectly they may conclude that it was not ‘Russia’s seizure of Crimea,’ but Russia’s protection of Crimean citizens, from the invasion of Ukraine by the resultants of a bloody coup.

Donbass (Russian Aggression?)

The new Kiev government, in the wake of their loss of Crimea, launched a brutal “anti-terrorism operation” to subdue an uprising among the large ethnic Russian populations of eastern and southern Ukraine. Nuland and other American neocons pushed for economic sanctions against Russia and demanded arms for the coup regime and her neocon cronies complied.

Washington “Releases the Hounds”

The White House confirmed that CIA director John Brennan arrived in Ukraine the weekend of April 13-14, under an assumed name, and held a “series of secret meetings” with Kiev’s “power bloc.” Immediately following CIA director Brennan’s “secret” visit to Kiev, the newly western installed and un-elected junta in Kiev launched lethal military attacks against unarmed Ukranian civilians in Kramatorsk. 

Former Ukranian President Yanukovich accused the CIA of being responsibility for the decision to use military force against non-violent pro-Russia demonstrators. The Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns.

They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became misrepresented the exodus as escaping “the violence” caused by the “Russian invasion.” The Nato commander, General Breedlove even lied as he announced 40,000 Russian troops were “massing” even though forensic satellite evidence offered none.

Deadly military actions, in Odessa and at Kramatorsk airfield killed more than 50 civilians. In Odessa, Russians burned alive as police stood by and unarmed civilian were shot while in the American and British media, reported the a “tragedy” resulting from “clashes” between “nationalists” and “separatists. The Wall Street Journal referred to these deadly actions as:  “Ukraine Uses Military Force for the first Time. Soldiers Fire on Pro-Russian separatists at Air Base;  U.S. Supports Kiev Response.”  

Most of the”separatists” were citizens that wanted to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous “states” were a reaction to Kiev’s attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences. These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine sought a federation that reflected the country’s ethnic diversity autonomous of Kiev and independent of Moscow.

In May the eastern Ukrainian region of Donetsk voted for self-rule, 89%, and the neighboring Lukansk region voted 96% for independence. The pro-Russia separatists landslide victory, calling for the creation of a new, quasi-independent entities in eastern Ukraine, marked a new watershed in the country’s crisis.

The referendum in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which Putin, advised the separatist leaders to postpone was portrayed as a Putin scheme to take over eastern Ukraine. However, Putin rejected any proposals to annex these two provinces.

Separatist leader, Denis Pushilin, served warning that all Ukrainian troops on his territory would become illegal. “All military troops on our territory after the official announcement of referendum results will be considered illegal and declared occupiers,” Denis Pushilin said. “It is necessary to form state bodies and military authorities as soon as possible.”

Malaysia’s Flight MH17 (War Crime?)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17)[ was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. It was shot down on July 17, 2014 while flying over eastern Ukraine’s airspace. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed. The White House, almost immediately, blamed Russia for the shooting-down of the Malaysia’s airliner.

The White House and its Ukrainian regime used the fact that the separatists had already shot down several Ukrainian bombers and omitted the fact that the Ukraine bombers were flying at much lower altitudes and that the separates did not have the capability to shoot down aircraft at higher altitudes was ignored.  The US’s premature accusation that Russian was directly or indirectly responsibility was the basis for another crucial hike in the economic sanctions against Russia. 

As it turned out, the Ukrainian Government shot down the airliner. It was proven the the Malaysian plane carrying 283 passengers and 15 crew members was downed by gunfire and missile-fire from Ukrainian fighter-plane(s).

Conclusion (Who Is Zooming Who?)

The Ukraine putsch was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign nation, a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world. A nation that has shared strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties, with Russia going back centuries.

US/Nato forces encouraged Kiev’s military onslaught, including war crimes in an attempt to provoke Russian President Putin into making a mistake. Instead, Putin confounded the war party by seeking an accommodation with Washington and the EU, withdrawing Russian troops from the Ukrainian border and urging ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon their referendums.

No Russian leader would survive politically, if he or she were to ignore Ukraine’s abduction from Russia’s sphere of influence. Ukraine had historically functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia, serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike. Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join NATO was not just plain nuts, its evil.

Ukraine has attracted the same old Russia-phoebes funding think tanks, NGOs, foreign policy experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies – from DOD through the State Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Board for International Broadcasting and countless more – which ply their trade in the Imperial City.

Washington sidling up to Ukraine has generated events that has turned Ukraine into another Washington beltway goldmine. “Fighting Russian aggression” generates jobs, money and lucrative defense contracts. Cold War 2 may be a gravy train for the career minded government bureaucrats but its a disaster for US and Ukraine citizens. So, when the newly elected Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky promised to solve its eastern border separatist situation and heal Russia relations, the red flag gets hoisted.

Nevertheless, the defense inappropriate military and economic aid to Ukraine and the corruption in both Washington and Kiev, is the real reason this posse of neocon stooges took exception to the Donald’s legitimate interest in investigating the Biden’s and the events of 2016. So, when US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland says, “the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression,” he is just repeating Washington’s narrative on Ukraine, keep the gravy train rolling.

Impeach Trump for legitimate reasons like his continuation and escalation of wars in Syria, Afghanistan or Yemen not for inappropriate diplomacy and his lame attempt to expose corruption. 

Resources:

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/02/whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/

https://step-back.org/ukraine-timeline/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-in-east-ukraine-us-natos-paranoid-falsification-of-reality/5400195 

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/13/putin-ukraine-and-what-americans-know/

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/21/a-coming-russia-ukraine-war/

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957