A Cycle of Stupidity

“We are officially putting Iran on notice,” with that Gen. Michael Flynn drew the line in the sand. Translation: “Iran we are looking for reasons to bomb you!” The cycle of stupidity continues.

Is it a crime for Iran to test ballistic missiles within its borders? No! Is it a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (the Iran Nuclear Treaty)?  No! So, why are we threatening Iran? Maybe history can shed some light.

Like other U.S. Presidents, Donald Trump and his “boys” are cherry picking historical events to support further hostilities, most recently Iran. The Saudi’s and Israelis understand this and take full advantage of our historical amnesia.

Israel with a “never let a good crisis go to waste” policy and the Saudi’s with the US petro-dollar connection are the first to push us into open conflict with the Iranians. After all, “Iran is the principal source for world terrorism and regional disorder.”

Our relationships with Israel and Saudi Arabis is amplified by the fact that President Trump choose to surround himself with Israeli-Saudi cheerleaders. Both Flynn and “Mad Dog” Mattis, are full pledged belligerents towards Iran.

General Flynn keeps repeating that Iran’s clerical regime cannot be reformed and that the only way to deal with it is to bring about a regime change.

Meanwhile Mattis calls Iran the “most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East,” and “the single most belligerent actor in the Middle East”. Mattis also has described Iran as “not a nation state (but) a revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem.”

Can Flynn’s and Mattis’ hatred be trace back to the he 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombings that killed 241 of Mattis’ fellow US Marines? After all the suicide driver of that explosive laden truck was an Iranian national.  It is believed that the “newly formed” Islamic Republic of Iran (1979) was heavily involved in this bomb attack.

Many believe that this attack was “blowback” orchestrated from Iran for two reasons. First, Iran suffered greatly from America’s support of Iraq in the 1980 Iran–Iraq War.  Thats right, back in the day we aided and abetted Saddam Hussein against Iran. Secondly, during that war the U.S. extended a $2.5 billion trade credit to Iraq while halting the shipments of supplies, arms and other needed exports to Iran.

In the 1980’s the US’s policy was heavily influenced by the 1979 Iranian revolution when Iranian students protested that the US allowed the  “Shah” to enter the US for medical treatment.

The students protests culminated with the taking of more than 60 US hostages for 444 day. The students demanded that the leader of the tyrannical Pahlavi (Shah) Regime be extradited to stand trial for crimes committed against the people of Iran.

This demand put the US in a dilemma, a “Catch-22″,  after all, the Shah was installed into power after a 1953 US/CIA backed coup that overthrew the very popular Prime Minister Mosaddegh’s government.

In 1951, Mosaddegh was overwhelmingly elected prime minister in a fair democratic process. However, he quickly fell out of favor when he proposed to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. So, in 1953 he was out. History, you cannot ignore it.

Examining the 3 reasons for Flynn putting “Iran on Notice.”

Reason #1 “Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch.” The reference here is that Iran is in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

Resolution 2231 was the result of the negotiations between six world powers – (the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany) and Iran. There was never any linkage between Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile programs.

The limiting of Iran’s missiles was discussed early in the proceedings but after Iran balked at the proposed restriction of domestic ballistic testing the United States dropped the matter. It did not seem to be a problem, since the United Nations and other international organizations already had some missile restrictions in place.

However, Resolution 2231 rescinded six previous resolutions aimed at Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. It negated Resolution 1929, which instructed that “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency—the organization responsible for monitoring Resolution 2231—has confirmed this. The Iranian foreign ministry statement indicates that missile tests “are an integral component” of Iran’s self-defense.”

The Security Council resolution enacted after negotiation of the nuclear agreement did include a hortatory clause “calling” on Iran to lay off the missile tests.  This is at best a stretch to call the latest test a “violation” of this resolution, and it certainly is not a violation of the nuclear agreement or any other agreement that Iran has signed.

Logically, it makes sense that country should be allowed to develop their ballistic missile defensive capabilities. I do believe that Iran has one or two enemies in the Middle East and beyond.

Besides, if the nuclear agreement is upheld and Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, the Iranian ballistic missiles are of minor importance because they do not pose a threat to U.S. interests. All indications support the fact that Iran has, to date, complied with Resolution 2231.

Iran has a large missile arsenal with no long-range ballistic missiles; three of its regional neighbors do. Iran has no nuclear warheads for its missiles; two of its regional neighbors do. Iran does not have a large and modern air force as an alternative means of projecting force as do Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Reason #2 “an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants”

The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and Yemen since March of 2015, when a coalition of Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia, supported by the United States, began an aggressive campaign, known as Operation Decisive Storm, aimed at restoring their “guy” back into power.

The Saudi’s blockades and bombings have devastated the Yemeni people. The Saudi’s bombing campaign destroyed Yemen’s infrastructure. They have destroyed bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, water wells and reports indicate that even farms and orchards have all been targeted.

The Saudi Arabian coalition enforcement of a naval blockade on Yemen has shut down its imports. Ninety percent of food and medicine required by the Yemeni has virtually disappeared. The United Nations estimates that more than 80 percent of Yemen’s population of 23 million are in immediate need of humanitarian assistance.

By the way Gen. Flynn, we are right there behind the Saudi’s operation. We supply the bombs, the intelligence and the maintenance that allow their aircraft to wreak havoc on Yemen. * Recent history of Yemen

The Houthi and the Saudis are at war. In war the combatants attack each other. A US General knows this, why use “miss-information”. In this war, the Saudis are not immune from any of Yemen’s or Houthi retaliation. In fact, I would be more surprised if the Houthis did not try to go after Saudi forces at sea as well as on land.

Is there evidence that Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship?                  

Did Flynn disregard the fact that whatever aid Iran gives to the Houthis pales in comparison to the direct military intervention by the Saudis and Emiratis, which is responsible for most of the civilian casualties in Yemen.

Gen. Flynn you can not disregard that the Houthis are not obedient clients of Iran. In the past the Houthis have ignored Iran when they advised them to restraint their operations and ignored them when they suggested not to attack Sana.

There has not been any evidence whatever, at least not among what is publicly known, that Iran had anything to do the attack on the Saudi ship. Even if Iran supplied the hardware or even the intelligence for the attempted bombing of the Saudi vessel how does this pose a threat to U.S. assets in the area?

Nor was anything said that the major U.S. terrorist concern in Yemen, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is also an enemy of the Houthi.  Nor is there any mention that the former president and longtime U.S. counterterrorist partner Ali Abdullah Salih is allied with the Houthis. Does Flynn understand this quagmire?

Come on man! Pulling the Houthi-Iran card out is ridiculous. Don’t beat around the bush just come out and say it. You can even quote General Curtis LeMay, “they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.”

Reason #3 “Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.”

What destabilization? Hezbollah, Hamas, supporting Assad in Syria or is it the Houthi connection? All I can say Israel, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who bitterly opposed the 2015 nuclear agreement, immediately condemned the Iranian missile test on last Monday. He said he would press the Trump administration to renew economic sanctions on Tehran when he visits Washington this month.

Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” What aggression? Never let a good crisis go to waste, may have been a more appropriate response from Netanyahu.

The Saudi king spoke with Trump last Sunday. Did he persuade the president to get America more engaged against Iran? After all Riyadh and the United States are unquestioningly sided in their rivalry with Iran.

Our relationship has endorsed “A four-decade long, $100 billion global Saudi effort to box in and undermine, a post-1979 revolution Iranian system of government. The Saudi’s see the Islamic Rule of Iran as an existential threat to the autocratic rule of the Al Saud family. The Saud family in turn has funded ultra-conservative political and religious groups has contributed to the rise of supremacism, intolerance and anti-pluralism across the Muslim world and created potential breeding grounds of extremism.”

Meanwhile many of the US neo-cons in Congress like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and Paul Ryan are delighted with the White House tough talk. How can US Congressmen fail to realize that it is not good diplomacy to back a country into a corner?

A public threat against  Iran, “putting them on notice”, makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Tehran is almost obliged to defy it. Sovereignty allows for nations to test conventional missiles for their defense within their borders.

In 1983, after the Beirut Barracks Bombing, President Reagan realized that we did not belong and he withdrew our troops. He did not submit to escalation, he prudently allowed for extrication. Please review the very brief history of non-intervention and ignore the voice of General LeMay.

Please just step off the cycle of stupidity.

 

* Recent history of Yemen: The country that we have been droning since the 2002; the country that just last week we lost a Navy seal in Trump’s first boots on the ground attack: the country that just last week we killed civilian women and children: the country that we have executed US citizens ranging from ages 40 years old to 8 years old: the country where we bomb the AQAP (al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula) while supporting al Qaeda in Syria.

 

“A time comes when silence is a betrayal” 

Martin Luther King Jr. is arguable one of the greatest men in American history. In his brief thirty nine years on this planet he made a difference. His legacy is primarily built upon his fight for civil rights, unfortunately, his stance against war is often overlooked. Dr. King’s position as an antiwar advocate should be revisited.

The following speech is Martin Luther King’s, “Why I Am Opposed to the Vietnam War” giving on April 30, 1967, at the Riverside Church in New York. Many believe that this speech was the first step toward his rendezvous with death on that fateful day in Memphis one year later.

This speech is as relevant today, 50 years later, as it was in 1967. Dr. King  discusses his seven reasons for opposing the Vietnam War.

I have edited Dr King speech.  I removed his references to the Vietnam War and added Middle Eastern: countries, groups and locations in hopes that his message is heard in 2017. *I removed a few words and phases to make his oral presentation read smoother. The content was not changed.

Interventional Wars may vary in location but the formula used by governments to garner support and  justification remains consistent.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s 1967 speech:                                                                                 “The sermon which I am preaching this morning is not the usual kind of sermon. I will be discussing today one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I’m using as a subject from which to preach, “Why I Am Opposed to the War”

I see war as an unjust, evil, and futile. I preach to you today on war because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about tragic war.

In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism.

He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. “Ye shall know the truth,” says Jesus, “and the truth shall set you free.”

I’ve chosen to preach about war because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war.

Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we’re always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has been dissent during war, by the American people.

Polls reveal that Americans explicitly oppose the war. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden.

This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history.

Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It’s a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent.

But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.

Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of war.

Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say.

And so, this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.

This sermon is not addressed to (Syria, or Iraq). It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy. Nor is it an attempt to make ISIS or the “moderate rebels” paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem.

This morning, however, I wish not to speak with (Damascus, Aleppo, Mosul or Bagdad), but rather to my Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing war into the field of my moral vision. There is very obvious and almost facile connection between the war and the struggle I and others have been waging in America.

A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up of war.

I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like (Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria) continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.

And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population.

We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties … which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. We have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room.

So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years–especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems.

I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, “So what about Iraq?” “So what about Afghanistan?” They ask if our nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted.

Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.

For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent.

Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they’ve applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can’t do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement–we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation.

They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor; when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark.

There’s something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, “Be non-violent toward little brown Arab children. There’s something wrong with that press!

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission–a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man.

This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war.

Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative.

Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Iraqi, or to Syrians, or to Kurds, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life?”

Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them.

As I ponder the madness of war and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of the (middle east).

I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.

Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators.”

Dr. King, at this point in his speech, gives a brief history of Vietnam. I have omitted that part of his speech. However, in a future blog I will discuss the similarities between Vietnam and the Middle East. 

 

 

Dr. King continues: “The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform.

Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Arabs, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met.

They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops.

They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals.

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation.

This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments.

I’m convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.

When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act.

One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway.

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation.

It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.”

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.”

This business of bombing, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born.

The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, “Ain’t gonna let nobody turn me around!”

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of radical Islam, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries.

This has driven many to feel that only radical Islam has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, radicalism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated.

Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.

With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.”

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men.

This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind.

When I speak of love I’m not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality.

It is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: “Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.”

Let me say finally that I oppose the war because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world.

I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.

We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State–they are God-given.

Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America’s strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.

It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.”

I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue.

Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world.

God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, “You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name. Be still and know that I’m God.”

Now it isn’t easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job…means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, “Why do you have to go to jail so much?”

And I’ve long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it–bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace.

Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I’m not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

I can still sing “We Shall Overcome” because: Carlyle was right: “No lie can live forever.”

We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: “Truth pressed to earth will rise again.”

We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: “Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne.” Yet, that scaffold sways the future.

We shall overcome because the bible is right: “You shall reap what you sow.”

With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.

With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it.

With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we’re free at last!”

With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we’re free at last!”

With this faith, we’ll sing it as we’re getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore.

I don’t know about you, I ain’t gonna study war no more.”

 

The “Moderated Rebels” in Syria

“This is a war on Syria, with terrorists from over 100 nations, waging their wicked and distorted version of Jihad in Syria, or just acting as paid and drugged out mercenaries.” Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett.

East Aleppo has been occupied by a number of groups backed by the United States, NATO and their allies in the Gulf, like Saudi Arabia, and Israel. “And we’re going to learn a lot more about the “rebels” whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.” Robert Fisk – The Independent

We know that the ‘rebels’ of eastern Aleppo have executed their enemies and have slit the throats of their prisoners. We know that the “rebels” include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the “folk” – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11^th 2001. Remember the War on Terror. Remember the “pure evil” of al-Qaeda.

“Does McCain Have Any Shred of Honor Left?”- The Atlantic

However, in Washington, we hear “How could the US stand by watching and not do anything?” The audacity of these interventionist, neocons and their mainstream media sock puppets. Hello! We did do something! We helped to created Aleppo and the Syrian tragedy because we did not stand by and watch. The US picked “sides” in the Syrian civil war. Our side is the side of the ‘moderate rebels” and a push for regime change in a sovereign country.

Remember when then Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama both called for regime change. Does that catch phase “Assad must go” ring a bell? Remember when war hawk Senator McCain was begging for funds and military support for any and all rebels groups fighting for “freedom” in Syria. We chose to support some of those rebels.

So who are these freedom loving rebels that want to spread democracy? In 2013, McCain entered Syria, probably illegally, to meet with the “moderate rebels”. It was a great photo opportunity to send pictures back home to the gang. There is nothing like a photo of some old war hawk hanging out with the rebels to get the blood flowing. It just like Viagra for the neocons.

Showing up in those “photo ops” were ISIS members, Al Qaeda and members of the Free Syria Army. In the McCain photos there were many high profile “rebel” commanders, including the leader of ISIS himself, Al Baghdadi. It was a virtual who’s who of murders.

McCain’s tweet describing the gallery was “Important visit with brave fighters in #Syria who are risking their lives for freedom and need our help” How can anyone even look at this buffoon let alone listen to him. He has no credibility but he continues to bang that drum. Earlier this month Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was joined by (maybe a bigger buffoon) Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to criticize the Obama administration for “inaction” on Syria.

As president Bashar Assad’s forces are reclaiming Aleppo from McCain’s rebel buddies, maybe the mainstream media should shine more light on the rebel groups. Under further scrutiny the rebels may be exposed as a group not quite living up to McCain’s billing as freedom fighters.

Aleppo

The battle of east Aleppo has been brutal. The Syrian military admits that it has killed civilians. But the civilian casualties of artillery shells on western Aleppo fired by the ‘rebels’ has been, until recently, almost totally ignored.

Civilians in the government-held area of western Aleppo describe these groups as “terrorists,” Most Syrians make no differentiation between any specific group. According to the Syrian civilians, these groups are made up of criminals, mercenaries and terrorists.

Canadian Eva Bartlett is one of the few independent Western journalists covering the horrific conflict in Syria has traveled to Syria six times in the last two years and three times in the last six months. She is currently touring the US with a coalition called Hands Off Syria.

Her full interview can be read at Consortium News:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/20/extracting-aleppo-from-the-propaganda/

In the interview Eva describes the activities that the “moderate rebels” perpetrating on the Syrian people in Aleppo. “Terrorists that are in many ways backed by the West and Gulf nations, financially and otherwise, were, on a daily basis, firing a variety of bombs on the civilian areas of Aleppo, which we never hear about in the corporate media.”

In a first hand account of her stay in Aleppo she describes the damage that the US backed “moderate rebels” inflicted. “In May of this year the al-Dabit Maternity Hospital was destroyed by a terrorist’s fired rocket. And when it was destroyed, three women inside were killed, and many more were injured. This was not, to my knowledge, reported in the corporate media, although the media’s always talking about alleged (Russian/Syrian) strikes on hospitals in Aleppo.”

Ms. Bartlett refers the rebel groups as terrorist not moderate rebels. “I do mean terrorists from those groups and also from the so-called Free Syrian Army. The Free Syrian Army has been as heinous and as gruesome as ISIS and as al-Nusra.” The same rebel groups that Sen McCain’s had his picture taken with just a few years ago.

The “lackey corporate media”

Ms Bartlett talked about the tactic that the U.S. administration and their “lackey corporate media” use to whitewash the crimes of the terrorists as they vilify the (Syrian) government. They report the allegations but ignore the findings. The example she gives is in reference to the alleged gassing of Syrian citizens by the Assad government.

“The myths we’ve heard about Syria, over the years, the Syrian government has been accused of so many things, chemical weapons, they’ve been accused of massacring civilians. And every time there has been an investigation, all fingers have pointed to the rebels. Even Carla Del Ponte, who’s of the U.N. investigative team in a 2013 chemical attacks accusations, said, “No, it was the terrorists/rebels that had sarin.”

When asked what’s missing from the U.S. corporate media’s picture?  She responded, “what we’re not hearing, now, from the corporate media: The scenes, the voices of the people who have been liberated, saying “Thank you” to the (Syrian) army. The army, by the way are not Assad’s forces. The army, the Syrian army is actually made up of Syrian people. And it’s not simply Alawite. It’s Sunni, it’s Alawite, it’s Christian and the people in Aleppo… you will find footage of people praising the army. And people who have been terrorized for years by these terrorists that the West calls “moderates”.

Asked, “what would your advice be to U.S. officials dealing at this point? What would you want to see happen?” Ms Bartlett’s solution is to “stop arming the terrorists, stop whitewashing their crimes. Stop allowing Turkey to keep its borders open and terrorists to flood in and out through Turkey’s borders. Stop supporting the regimes of Saudi Arabia, which are in turn arming terrorists, which are brainwashing terrorists. Stop interfering in a sovereign nation.”

“Economic Terrorism”

Is the Syrian conflict just another NATO intervention, a dirty war being inflicted upon a sovereign nation, with the objective of “regime change”? Regardless of the why, the cost of this war is the bloodshed and devastating costs incurred by the Syrian people.

In March 2015, a member of the Syrian parliament, Maria Saadeh, addressed the United Nations Human Rights Commission wrote “In 2011 the UN and its member states started to impose “economic sanctions” against the Syrian regime. These sanctions imposed have been a punitive action against the Syrian people”

In the document entitled ‘Economic Terrorism’ compared the results of terrorist organizations in Syria with the effects of coercive measures taken under the label of ‘economic sanctions.’ These sanctions violate international law in the same way as terrorism does. Their results and effects are the same; they attack Syrian society and violate human rights, especially the right to life.

As a result of the sanctions, unemployment has risen from 8.6% in 2010 to 50% in 2014; poverty reached 75% in 2013 where it was 9% in 2010; the number of children in primary education has fallen to 50%; the same number of hospitals and factories have closed as a result of the sanctions as a result of terrorism.

Ms. Eva Bartlett concludes, “So, you know, if U.S. officials, with all their crocodile tears, actually care about human rights in Syria, stop supporting the terrorists who are destroying the country.”  She went on to say, “nobody is saying the government (Syria) is perfect. Because no government is perfect.”  Not even the US Government.

Part 2 “America is killing the Yemeni people.”

Graffiti on walls across the Yemen capital of Sana reads: “America is killing the Yemeni people.” Why is the US being singled out? Could this be a cry of desperation? If it is the world is choosing not to listen. The graffiti is directed at the major supplier of the military arms to Saudi Arabia. There is no mistaken the United States is embroiled in another protracted War, this time in Yemen.

The United Nations human rights office reports that that air strikes by the Saudis coalition are responsible for an estimated 60 percent of the deaths in Yemen. A UN panel in January found 119 air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition potentially breached human rights law. Both the UN and human rights groups have discussed the possibility that the Saudi offensive constitutes war crimes.

To further exacerbating the growing humanitarian crisis, the Saudis coalition blockade of Yemen’s ports has prevented food and fuel aid into Yemen putting 80% of the country’s civilian population in need of humanitarian aid.

Publicly, the United States has kept its distance from the war, but its decades-old alliance with Saudi Arabia, underpinned by billions of dollars in weapons sales, has left American fingerprints on the air campaign.

Although U.S. forces are not “directly” involved in the fighting in Yemen, the U.S. has supplied weapons to Saudi Arabia. It is the weapons that have made the Saudi bombing campaign possible. The United States has been providing the Saudis with bombs, intelligence, and aerial refueling for its jets. The US Military advisers are often present in the Saudi-led campaign’s control room.

Since spring 2015, U.S. planes have flown more than 1,000 refueling sorties and offloaded tens of millions of pounds of fuel to Saudi aircraft. US officials have also provided advice on target development and training for the Saudi pilots.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest importer of arms. They spent $9.3 billion in 2015. Saudi Arabia in the past year has purchased Eurofighter Typhoon jets, F-15 warplanes and Apache helicopters, as well as precision-guided weapons, drones and surveillance equipment.

U.S. is the world’s top arms exporter.  The U.S. is the supplier of approximately one third of all the arms on this planet. In 2015 the US exported almost $23 billion worth of arms. Saudi Arabia is arguable it’s best customers. The business of producing and selling arms is solid.

One example of the world’s increasing demand for arms is Lockheed Martin. The company has recently signed several multi-billion deals with Saudi Arabia. The company’s sales revenue was $46.1 billion in 2015, up by around $500 million on 2014 sales.

The United States’ Department of Defense deals with Saudi Arabia since March of 2015.

• May 2015 MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters — $1.900 billion,
• July 2015 Ammunition RSLF $0.500 billion
• July 2015 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missiles — $5.400 billion,
• October 2015 Black Hawk Helicopters RSLF Aviation Command $0.495 billion
• October 2015 Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ships $11.250 billion
• November 2015 Air-to-Ground Munitions RSAF $1.290 billion
• February 2016 MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems $0.154 billion
• February 2016 USMTM Technical Assistance Field Teams Support $0.200 billion
• August 2016 M1A2S Tanks and Related Equipment $1.150 billion
• 8, 2016 Chinook Cargo Helicopters and related equipment, training, and support. The estimated cost is $3.51 billion.

Marine General Smedley Butler published a book in the 1930’s called “War is a Racket”. In his book, General Butler, a two-time Medal of Honor recipient, discussed how warfare provided profiteering opportunities to business.

Another prominent US General, President Dwight Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell warned the US citizens about the “unwarranted influence”, of the business, that he called the “military industrial complex”.

U.S. in Violation of International Law?

A report by Amnesty International identifies three of the bomb types in the U.S. arms sale as having been used in Saudi Arabia’s unlawful airstrikes. Yemenis often find the remains of American-made munitions, as they did in the ruins after a strike that killed more than 100 mourners at a funeral earlier this year. Remember the graffiti?

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was the first global treaty to regulate the conventional military arms trade. As of 1 July 2016, eighty-six (86) States had ratified or acceded to the ATT including the US. The ATT declares that “states are not allowed to sell weapons to a party engaged in armed conflict, if it knows the arms could be used “in attacks directed against civilians or other war crimes as defined by international law.”

In January 2016 the ATT concluded that some signatory States are in direct violation of the legally binding Treaty obligations when they supply arms to Saudi Arabia. The ATT concluded that there is clear risk that the arms sold to Saudi Arabia will be used in breach of international law in Yemen.

The UN Security Council on Yemen identified 119 coalition air sorties relating to violations of *International humanitarian law (IHL). The report states that airstrikes have targeted civilians and civilian objects, including residential areas, markets, schools, mosques, factories and food warehouses, and gatherings such as weddings. reports and stress to need for urgent action and the immediate halt of arms transfers to the Saudi-led coalition.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have produced evidence that US and UK munitions have been used in Saudi-led coalition airstrikes against several residential neighborhoods in Yemen.

In spite of this information the current administration has offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training. The agreements included everything from small arms and ammunition to tanks, attack helicopters, air-to-ground missiles, missile defense ships, and warships. Washington also provides maintenance and training to Saudi security forces.

Just maybe President-elect Trump should make General Smedley Butler’s “War is a Racket” and President (General) Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Address required readings for the Generals he has nominated for positions in his cabinet.

 

* This is the law that regulates “Conduct of War”.  It seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities, the civilians and children.

Oh Yemen! – Man It’s Hard Just to Live

There is a war going on in Yemen, just as brutal as the war in Syria. Yet, it has received very little media attention.

“Yemen is a media blackout,” said Jamie McGoldrick, the top U.N. humanitarian official in the country. “It’s not getting the attention it deserves. It’s not Aleppo. We don’t have drones flying over it showing the destruction. We don’t have a Mosul, which has BBC cameras 24-7 on it.”

In order to understand the real tragedy in Yemen, one must turn away from the US mainstream media’s “real news” and seek alternative “fake” media sources. A good start would be the powerful documentary by the BBC “Starving Yemen”, produced by Nawal Al-Maghafi.  (www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37423263) This documentary exposes the real causalities of war, the civilian, especially the children.

The chief executive of Oxfam, Mark Golding, stated: “Yemen is being slowly starved to death. First there were restrictions on imports including much need food. When this was partially eased, the cranes in the ports were bombed, then the warehouses, then the roads and the bridges. This is not by accident. It is systematic.”

Before, the current civil war began, Yemen was the poorest country in the Middle East, it still is. Yemen’s food and medicine has to be imported. More than 90 percent of it’s supplies must be imported and come into the country’s by way of it’s ports and airports.

The Yemen civil war can be traced back to the Arab Spring of 2011. Since then Yemen has reeled from one political shock to another. The Arab Spring resulted in it’s authoritarian leader President Saleh being ousted and “agreeing” to a power-transition deal he signed in 2011.

Saleh actually backed out of signing the GCC (Gulf Co-operation Council) power-transition deal three times. However, after a June 3, 2011 bomb attack on his presidential palace, which killed 14 bodyguards and government officials, he reconsidered.

From Saudi Arabia Saleh issued a decree, authorizing Hadi, who he had appointed as vice-president in 1994, to assume the role of acting president. Hadi would negotiate with the opposition to sign the GCC-brokered power transition deal.

The deal called for forming a national unity government from the Yemeni ruling party GPC and the opposition coalition Joint Meeting Parties (JMP), each accounting for 50 percent representation and a presidential election to be held.

This deal made Yemen the first Arab Spring nation where an uprising led to a negotiated settlement brokered by a foreign coalition, the GCC. The Gulf Co-operation Council is made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This deal was also backed by Washington DC, the European Union and the United Nations.

The “open and free” democratic election that followed was a bit suspect. Hadi was the only candidate on the ballot. Two of the most popular factions in Yemen, the Houthis in northern Yemen and the southern Ansar al-Sharia (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), both called for a boycott of the election. To cast an even larger shadow over the results, Yemeni police reports indicate that they arrested “hardliners” that alleged sought to forcefully prevent people from voting.

Then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed the 2012 Presidential election in Yemen and promised continuous support to the Arab nation as it confronts challenges ahead. She extended her congratulations to the Yemeni people on the “successful” presidential vote, and called the election “another important step forward” in Yemen’s democratic transition process.

Secretary of State Clinton, in a written statement, concluded that, “Today’s election sends a clear message that the people of Yemen are looking forward to a brighter democratic future.” Probable the same message the Secretary sent to Trump after the results of the 2016 US Presidential Election were learned.

Hadi was elected president but he had a country beset by a host of problems. Separatists and rebels rejecting the brokered GCC deal and not acknowledging the legitimacy of the single candidate election.

Reactions soon turned violent. The Houthis movement in the north and a growing threat from al-Qaeda in the south escalated.  In September of 2014, the Houthi rebels took power in Yemen and on  January 22, 2015, under Houthi arrest, Yemen President Hadi resigned from his office but is was not over.

Ex-president Hadi, escaped the Houthis’ house arrest and fled to Arden. In February 0f 2015, he  retracted his January resignation as president and reestablished himself as the President of Yemen.

By March 2015, with the Houthis advancing to the outskirts of Aden, Hadi left Yemen and took refuge in the Saudi capital Riyadh. Today Hadi’s provisional government resides in Saudi Arabia.  The GCC countries, the United Nations, the European Union and the US continued to back Hadi as the legitimate leader of Yemen.

By the end of March 2015, a coalition of Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia and supported by the United States began an aggressive campaign, known as Operation Decisive Storm, aimed at restoring the Hadi government.

So as of March 2015, the civil war became multi-national when Saudi Arabia took sides in the Yemeni civil war in behalf of “Hadi’s legitimate government.” The results of their intervention has devastated the Yemeni people. The country has imploded even further as the Saudi-led coalition entered the fray with it’s blockades and bombings.

The Saudi’s  bombing campaign have laid waste to Yemen’s infrastructure. Their bombs have destroyed bridges, roads, schools, hospitals, water wells and reports indicate that farms and orchards have all been targeted. Saudi Arabian and its coalition partners have also established a naval blockade around Yemen.

The result of Saudi’s actions has shut down imports into Yemen. Thus the 90 percent of food and medicine required by the Yemeni has virtually disappeared. The United Nations estimates that more than 80 percent of Yemen’s population of 23 million are in immediate need of humanitarian assistance.

Why is Hadi government considered the “legitimate government”? Is it because he was “democratically” elected? Or is it because the Gulf Co-operation Council made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates says so? Or is it a way for Saudi Arabia to fight a proxy war against Iran? Or is it just a good market for the Industrial Military Complex?

How ever the legitimacy is rationalized none are addressing the popular sovereignty of the Yemeni people nor their welfare. Two final question about the legitimacy of Hadi’s leadership should be answered.

1. What kind of leader would allow a foreign coalition to devastate his country, kill his innocent civilians, starve his defenseless children and deny the Yemeni any medical supplies? 
2. Do we really think that Hadi could go back to Yemen and gain the support of the Yemeni people?

Oh Yemen! – Man It’s Hard Just to Live.

 

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is Amended

We have been taught in school that, “no taxation without representation” were the Colonists first cry for liberty. However, the first screams for liberty began when James Otis Jr. took action against illegal search and seizure.

John Adams sought to make sure that invasive searches and seizures were never carried out again when drafting the Fourth Amendment. In it, he wrote “a warrant must specify the “persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure.”

An amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on December 1^st. It now reads:  “A magistrate judge with authority in any district where activities related to a crime may have occurred has authority to issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district if: (A) the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means; or (B) in an investigation of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the media are protected computers that have been damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.”

The amendment is a game changer for the FBI’s regulation over search and seizure. This change will allow federal agencies to obtain a warrant for “remote-access” searches and seizures of digital materials. I would argue that it is a returned to the days when America was ruled by the King of England and the British Parliament.

To give some historical context, we need to go back in history to the the 1760s. British authorities were allowed to carry out searches of anyone at anytime, regardless of whether or not they were suspected of a crime.

The reason John Adams was so vehemently opposed to unwarranted searches and seizures was because he watched as James Otis Jr, a Boston attorney, challenge the British hierarchy on the legality of the searches and seizures afforded to the British officials and custom agents under the writ of assistance issued

A writ of assistance is a written order (a writ) issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official, such as a sheriff or a tax collector, to perform a certain task.

In the England, writs of assistance were first authorized by an act of the English Parliament in 1660 to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to “assist” the customs official in carrying out his duties.

The writs of assistance for the customs officials served as general search warrants. The writs were permanent and even transferable; the holder of a writ could assign it to another official. Any place could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. In practice, this put anyone who had such a writ above the laws.

These writs of assistance were being used in an effort to curtail the “smuggling” by the merchants of Boston. The authority of the writ was used in an attempt to capture the taxes and gain control on the illegal goods being “smuggled” into Boston.

Colonists protested that the writs violated their rights as British subjects. The writs were challenged by a group of 63 Boston merchants represented by Attorney James Otis, Jr. Otis technically lost his challenge to the authority of the King and Parliament writs but made a strong impression on both Samuel Adams and John Adams as the watched the trials with great interest.

In a pamphlet published in 1765, Otis expanded his argument that the general writs violated the British unwritten constitution. The constitution opposed any law in violation of the Magna Carta or “natural law” was void.

Natural Law protects natural rights. *Natural rights are addressed in our Declaration of independence. They are called inalienable rights “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 Otis’ next challenge came in September of 1766 when customs officials in Boston, with the help of a deputy sheriff, searched merchant Daniel Malcom‘s home. His home was also his place of business. They claimed the authority to do so by a writ of assistance issued to a British customs agent. The writ was issued based upon the information of a confidential informant.

Malcom allowed the agent and deputy sheriff to search, but denied them access to a locked cellar, arguing that they did not have the legal authority to break it open. Malcom threatened to use force to prevent them from opening the door. Malcom claimed that his threat was specific to his resisting an unlawful forced entry.

The officials left and returned with a specific search warrant, only to find that Malcom had locked his house. A crowd of Malcom supports had gathered around the house and were hostile to the customs officers when they returned.

The British officials described Malcom as acting in defiance of the law. His lawyer, James Otis Jr, argued that Malcom’s actions were lawful. Otis’ push against the validity of writs of assistance produced more challengers. In 1768, John Hancock, a wealthy Boston merchant, would resisted a search in a similar manner when customs officials attempted to search his ship Lydia.

Although no violence occurred during these defiant acts the British Governor of Massachusetts reports back to England created the impression that riots had taken place. These incidents furthered Boston’s reputation in Britain as a lawless town controlled by “mobs”.

This reputation would contribute to Parliament issuing a series of acts called the 1767 Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts were met with further resistance in the colonies, prompting the occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768, which eventually resulted in the Boston Massacre of 1770.

Today law enforcement officials and proponents, of the amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal, claim that this is just a necessary alteration which fits the digital age. It is not. It is a concession of another one of our “natural rights”. For the American citizens it is a loss of privacy.

In the 1760’s the enforcement of the writs of assistance for the custom officials’ illegal searches and seizures became the catalyst that prompted our founding father quest for liberty and independence. Today it is just a footnote.

 

The 2016 Electoral College results, for ages 18-25, would have been over 500 votes to under 25 vote in favor of Hillary Clinton. I do not know the exact connection between that statistic and this blog but it is what fueled these thoughts. How can 95% of this demographic results be so overwhelming? Especially when the choice was two flawed candidates.

 Education – “Going Fishing” – Its Local

Is ignorance a bad thing?  If one has never been exposed to information, then how can they be expected to know.  A doctor would prescribe a dose of education to cure ignorance. The process may seem simple but it is not. What the good doctor prescribes for both sickness and ignorance has to be approved by a governmental agency. The Food and Drug Administration certifies the medical prescription just as the Department of Education certifies conscription into public education.

The word educate comes from the Latin word educare, which means “to draw out that which lies within.” The educational system should be an active process involving a series of stimuli and a response. In education we distinguish between the two. The stimulus is most often provided by the teacher and the response is drawn out of the student.

The responsibility of the teacher is to present information and the responsibility of the student is to respond to it. In its simplest form, the educational process allows for the teachers to use a variety of tools to draws out raw and honest responses from the students. However, the education process begins after the initial response is drawn out.

It is the dialog, a conversation, created between the two parties that is invaluable. Adversarial positions should be encouraged in order to express all opinions from all sides of the discussion. The exchanging of ideas promotes diversity of thought. Diversity is required in order to explore the topics in depth.

I would be naïve not to think that this process would be free of prejudice. Pre judgment is part of the drawing out and in many cases the information going in. Pre judgment abounds. Pre judgments are generated by geographical, cultural, religious, racial, sexual, economical, basically all environmental and social exposures.

The environmental and social situations we experience are unique to all individuals. Any one or combination of the above pre judgments are the bases of our diversity. It is our differences that impact the processing of information. Pre judgments lead to different conclusion from processing the same information.  After all diversity means different.

Diversity has to be considered in the educational process. Let’s “go fishing”. On the island of Martha’s Vineyard if I am asked by a friend, “do you want to go fishing? “My logical conclusion is that we would be going salt water fishing in the ocean. If this same situation occurred in the North Country of New Hampshire, less that 200 miles away, the conclusion would be different. The going fishing would indicate fresh water fishing in a stream, a river or a lake.

The conclusions are different because they are based upon pre judgments. However, both assumptions are more than likely correct. Why? Because the conclusions were arrived at by two independent, geographical diverse fishermen.

Let’s stay with the fishing venue. Change the question to “what would you need to go fishing?” The most obvious responses by both fishermen would be a fishing pole and some sort of bait. However, if the same question is asked of a commercial fisherman in New Bedford, less than 30 miles from Martha’s Vineyard, the response may be a boat, fuel and nets.

These questions produce diverse responses, yet all of the “answers” are correct. This may cause havoc with the validity of an assessment. To judge the level of correctness of these responses is difficult and can be arbitrary. So who then should be empowered to assess the quality of the response?

Consider this, would the assessment of the fishing responses differ between a Midwestern educator than that of an Atlantic Coast educator? Again, so who should assess the quality of the response? I say the most local educator, the one I know, the one I can call, text, e-mail or even meet face to face. Why opt for a disconnected evaluator?

When a distant assessor is put in charge we lose the local pre judgments and local interpretations. The US Department of Education clearly believes that education from the top down is preferential. This exhibits the arrogance of a governmental agency “we know what is best for you.” theory. The local communities are the patches that make up the quilt of society. Bottom up must be promoted to save the community school.

The true injustice of this system is amplified by the weight that we have assigned to the results of standardized testing. They have become the fare required to take you to the next grade level, a diploma and even the college of your choice. Is this process fair? I say no. It is discriminatory and unjust. We have created a faceless distant bureaucracy to be the gatekeeper in charge of “entry into the club.”

The local teacher, the local administration and the local school board must be independent in order to select the needs and direction of the community. When assessment and curriculum development are controlled locally real diversity of thought is allowed to flourish. Local control is personal and nurtures students not statistics.

Standardized testing selects national or global essential understandings. Whether it is Washington DC or the state, standardized testing is turning local control over to an intervening agency. The priorities of the two do not necessarily reflect the needs of the local community and its neighborhoods. The locally elected school board is beholden to their citizens while state and national boards are beholden a political boss that may change every four years

Think local because, in reality, the community is our only jurisdiction. Teachers of previous generations were valued based upon their ability to define challenging essential understanding. Their evaluations were connected to their ability to draw thoughtful and independent response from their students. An invested teacher is a better teacher.

Standardization is coercive and regressive. Teachers are not only expected “to lead the horse to a designated watering hole” but to enforce their consumption and regulate how to drink. When a central authority is allowed to uses: extortion for funding; compulsory taxes: evaluations; certifications; licenses and accreditations; to “collaborate” with local districts it is clear that our schools have become servants.

Standardization of “truths” and thought become a byproduct of this system. If there is a reward for standard response, then standard processing of thought is controlled. Social justice warriors, conservatives and progressives need to understand its impact. Standardizations lead to a clean and pristine society in lock step with a distant cadence. Whether standardization occurs in education or in politically correct speech it is stifling.  The result is a society void of non conformity. The patchwork quilt becomes a one flavor utilitarian blanket.

A standardized society is destructive. A standardized society is a selective society. Historically, standardized evaluations have been used to justify atrocities. They were misused in the 1920’s by the Eugenics movement. That movement targeted thousands of individuals for sterilization. Nazi Germany took standardized achievement results to the limit, extermination.

95% to 5% is a loud statement. Hell 95% of the population cannot even agree upon the color of a dress. When one’s future is predicated upon appeasing a master the compliant are rewarded while those of independent and critical thoughts are nullified. The safest choice may be conformity but is also the most dangerous.

The Lesser of Two Evils

“There are men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.”(Alexis de Tocqueville) This quote is from his book “Democracy in America” written in 1835. It is as current today as it was in the 1800’s. In 2016, our two party democratic system produced two unprincipled candidates.

My response to de Tocqueville’s observation is that we need to empower responsible people to find those “men(women) of principle”. Our founding fathers actually set up a process in the Constitution that accomplished that, it is called the Electoral College. Unfortunately, we have strayed so far from the original intent of the Constitution those “men of principles” are not being identified as our national leaders.

The constitution set up a government that was a representative republic not a democracy. The founding fathers were not fans of the democratic process. They understood that majority rule could be volatile, fickle and dangerous. To defend liberty, they limited the democratic process in favor of a representative republican process. The citizens would entrust elected official to make decisions for them.

Thomas Jefferson declared: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”  Even the top Federal of the day Alexander Hamilton asserted that “We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”

The sirens of democracy are seductive. Their songs have lured many a nation onto the rocks of destruction with empty promises. The thought that “we the people” could rule by popular vote is attractive and empowering. However, the majority will choose security over freedom, self interest over the principle and nationalism over sovereignty. Consider this, who wins in a popular vote when two wolves and one chicken vote to chose “what is for dinner?”

Fisher Ames (1758-1808) a Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment warned that “the known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” The liberties that the founding father valued so dearly were to be protected by the republican form of government they outlined in the Constitution.

After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Ben Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  What did Franklin mean by this statement? Have we reached the destiny that he feared?  Franklin’s warning makes it perfectly clear that our fore fathers knew that it would be hard work to maintain liberty.

The Constitution’s version of a republic was to empower the “people of the … States”. Democracy turns the power of governing over to an individual, the President, to rule over individuals and states. This I believe is the mind set of many. We elect a President to change the country for better or not.

Our leaders promote democracy as something great and wonderful that should be spread across the world. Public education endorses this concept and it is emphasized in our core curriculum. In reality this misconception keeps us ignorant of the fact that a more democratic process brings us closer to tyranny.  Ill informed protesters beg for a democratic popular vote to elect a shepherd to protect the flock against the evils of terrorism, racism, sexism, and all the other “…isms” out there.

I find it disheartening that most protesters are calling for a further destruction of our republican process in favor of more “democracy”. To eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a popular vote iniative would be a huge mistake. It would be a one giant step closer to a democratically elected Monarch.

It is encouraging that the protesters are calling for a “refusal” to comply and serve a President. But I am concerned that their motives are out of fear. The fear, that is being generated by the media and by the losing party. The fear of a new president is over blown.

The anger of those protesting is misdirected. The calm for the anger is not the other candidate, especially a candidate that in her political career has never opposed a war. The solution is not to change the Electoral College process to a majority rule. The solution is to educate ourselves on the workings of government according to the Constitution.

The role of the President defined by the Constitution resembles an ambassador as much as it does a powerful national leader. There are only a few responsibilities that the President holds omnipotent control over. In the oath he accepts the responsility to: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. This makes him the chief executor to enforce the laws of the United States and the power to commission all the Officers of the United States to ensure this.

Presidential powers includes being the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the State Militias, “when called into the actual Service of the United States.” This means only in time of war.

He is granted the power, on extraordinary occasions, to convene and to adjourn both Houses in Congress and the power to temporary fill vacancies when the of the Senate is in recess. He is also to be our nations number one “host” to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.

The Constitution describes the duties of the President that are to be approved and vested by Congress. These shared powers include the ability to make Treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. To “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment.

However, the powers of the President have grown with every administration.  The number of Executive Orders, issued by the past two presidents, is outrageous.  The fact that they go unchallenged is proof that we have become numb to the usurpation of power by the Executive Branch. The increasing number of rules, regulations, restrictions, quotas, fees, fines and licenses passed by the Executive Branch’s regulatory agencies are painful and further strip us of both personal and economic freedom.

How would a popular elected President change this? It wouldn’t. The opposite would occur. A popular elected President would increase the powers of the Executive Branch. It would eliminate another safeguard to the distribution of power. The balance of power is delicate, we can not continually grant more power to the President and the Executive Branch.

The energy of those protesting should be directed to the political process that they have the most control, local politics. Think locally, the local level includes the electing of city, town, county, state legislators and Congressmen that emphasis liberty and put principle over party politics.

Solution – The Changes Required

Change #1 – The House of Representative, is the catalyst for change.  A good start would be to make the representation ratio in the House of Representatives meaningful. The Constitution called for one congressman to represent not more than 30,000 people.  From 1789 until 1833, the House of Representatives grew from having 65 members to having 240. The result was that over that entire period, the average congressman never represented more than 60,000 people. In 1913, the House of Representatives was fixed by law (but not the Constitution) at 435 members. The result is that: today there are more than 730,000 U.S. residents per member of Congress. 730,000 to 1 is not a meaningful representation. It must be changed.

Change #2 – The US Senator would be next. In the Constitution the Senators were selected by the States’ legislators. This process ensured that our states would have a say in foreign affairs. On April 8, 1913, the 17^th Amendment, was ratified. The 17^th Amendment made the two US Senators from each state elected by popular vote.

The result of the 17^th Amendment allowed eliminated most, if not all, of the States’ influence in Washington. The more “democratic process” moved the balance of power away from the states and toward Washington DC. President Wilson was the first to explore Washington’s newly granted powers, the Federal Reserve Act, World War 1, Revenue Act (Federal income tax) and the list goes on.

In order to regain influence in Washington the 17^th Amendment must be repealed. I believe this change would open up more discourse into our role an Imperialist nation. It would help to harness the “security and intelligence” agencies that have metastasized and put a halt to our interventionist foreign policy

Change # 3 – The Electoral College is the saving grace of the Constitution. It is the last safeguard to prevent us from becoming a Nation State ruled by an elected Monarch. The Electoral College is state based. The members are selected by the States’ legislators and it is those members that “theoretically” select the President.

This would act to preserve the states sovereignty and be another barrier to protect the balance of power between the three branches. This process described in the Constitution is not being followed. It has to return to the function that our founders envisioned. The electoral members should not be appointed by political parties. The selection of its members must be based upon principle. They need to be independent, non partisan citizens, committed to liberty and state issues.

Final Thoughts

Getting our government under control begins locally. Let us re-empowering the citizens and the states. Congress needs to become more responsive to a lesser number of constituents. The repealing of the 17^th Amendment will re-empower the states in domestic, national and international policies. This would disrupt the power of Washington’s perpetual bureaucrats, neocons and cronies embedded in the “deep state”.

A return the Electoral College described in the Constitution is vital to preserve our Constitution Republic. Allow an independent group of respected citizens, appointed by the state representatives, beholden to their constituents, to select the President.  This process would eliminate many of the pollutants that make the Presidential waters undrinkable; the two party systems, the presidential primaries, self promoting narcissists, national party conventions, the buying and selling of candidates, media pandering, empty promises and lies.

Well respected, independent, Electoral Members, from all 50 states, must be trusted to select our leader. I believe that when we return to this process, principled men and women will emerge. Our current system has failed to produce good choices. How long we will continue to be forced to choose the lesser of two evils? This is the result of a “democratic process” that our founding fathers went to great lengths to avoid.

The U.S.’s #1 Priority is to Mend Russian Relations   Part 2 – Syria

A brief summary of Syria’s recent history leading up to the Arab Spring. The Ba’ath movement took over leadership in Syria after a coup in 1963. This event marked its independence. Since then Syria’s standard of living has risen.  The country’s life expectancy increased by 17 years, infant mortality improved from 132 deaths per 1,000 live births to 17.9, primary school enrollment improved to almost 100 percent of males and 85 percent of females and the adult population literacy rate increased dramatically.

Syria was an independent country with a centrally planned economy. They did not rely on Western economic assistance. Syria was able to improve it’s living conditions and economy largely from aid by the Soviet Union, Iraq and China. Strike one.

In 1979, Syria’s was added to the State Department’s Sponsors of Terrorism list. Primarily due to its support to Lebanese Hezbollah and continued relationship with Iran. It also aided the Palestinian people and their resistance in Israel and maintained close economic relations with Russia. Strike two!

The Soviet Union provided Syria with millions of dollars in loans to build its infrastructure including the Tabqa dam. The dam also enabled irrigation throughout the Syrian countryside and electricity to many parts of the country. Soviet technicians have worked on several infrastructure project. China has invested millions of dollars in Syria to modernize the country’s oil and gas infrastructure. Strike three!

In 2011 Syria became part of “Arab Spring” uprisings. Protests in Syria began after two dictators, in Tunisia and Egypt, had stepped down in a response to the pro-democracy demonstrations in their countries. Syrian protesters peacefully opposed the arrest and mistreatment of a group of young people accused of writing anti-Assad graffiti.

An International Crisis Group reported that Assad first response to protests was to release some of the political prisoners and instructed his officials “to pay greater attention to citizen complaints,” His attempts to pacify the protests were not effective. They were followed by a show of force and an increased usage of censorship.  By the end of April, the situation grew out of his control. The Syrian government deployed troops into the streets to battle with the Syrian civilians. Civilians were killed and battle lines were cast. However, due to foreign interventions and the influx of multiple factions with various motives, the battle lines became unclear.

The Western media represented the Syrian civil war as a “battle for democracy”. The truth is somewhat different. It is a complex situation and has become a battleground for many causes. Including: a war for Syria to remain a sovereign nation: a Sunni caliphate involving several different versions of Wahhabism: a battle for Sunni Islamic dominance between ISIS and various Al-Qaida terrorist organization such as Nusra Front, the “Islamic Front,” the “Islamic Liberation Front,” and the “Ahfad al-Rasoul Brigades: a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia: a Kurdish war for existence against Isis, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq: and just maybe a Turkish attempt to gain back influence that it once held during the Ottoman Empire days.

One could argue that Syrian Civil War has grown into one of the worst humanitarian crisis since the World War 2. Over a quarter million killed, roughly the same number wounded or missing, and half of Syria’s 22 million population displaced from their homes. Syria has become the largest battlefield of Sunni-Shia sectarianism clashes the world has ever seen. The results of this war will probably have implications for the future boundaries of the Middle East.

Russia has intervened on behalf of the Syrian loyalists (Assad) and the United States has intervened on behalf of the “moderate” rebels. The U.S. has “tried” to help only certain rebels, providing arms and training to “vetted” moderate rebel groups. The term “Moderate rebels” is an oxymoron.

This contradiction of U.S. goals has confused the media and the US citizens. America wants Assad to go but we are also fighting ISIS, one of the strongest anti-Assad forces in Syria. The U.S. position defies the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” or does it? How was ISIS formed and how did it grow from a handful of radicals to 100,000 international members? Maybe that question needs to be directed to our allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and then Secretary of State Clinton. The same money sources that funded ISIS “donated” funds to the Clinton Foundation.

Russia’s approach is less sensitive to the differences among rebel groups. Russia has made it clear that it opposes all of them. In September 2015, at the U.N. General Assembly Vladimir Putin made an offer to the United States. He proposed for U.S.-Russian to fly joint airstrikes against the Islamic State and associated jihadists. Putin described his plan to be “similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind.” However, the demonization of Vladimir Putin was well underway and his offer was spurned by Western leaders.

Russia began its military intervention in late September 2015 without the United States. Putin and motives were clear, destroy the rebels, all of them. The Russia’s intervention seriously reversed the jihadists’ advances in Syria.

The US understood why Russia intervened. Secretary of State Kerry said “The reason Russia came in is because ISIL [another acronym for Islamic State] was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus, and that’s why Russia came in because they didn’t want a Daesh government and they supported Assad,” he said in the leaked discussion. Kerry’s comment suggests that the U.S. was willing to risk Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to oust Assad.

However, the US. Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S., rather than seriously fight Islamic State in Syria, was ready to use the growing strength of the jihadists to pressure Assad to resign, just as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Agency document. “We thought however we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him.”

The West has been further infuriated by Putin’s rhetoric. Putin on French TV stated: “Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western partners’ forces? … These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d’Azur, for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same from happening in Syria.”

Now it is Hillary Clinton and the neocons plan to continued to push for a military intervention in Syria in order to promote regime change in Syria.  In the most recent presidential debate Clinton declared, “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria … not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians”.

I am baffled that her statement was not challenged. I get angry at how the Clintons hide their motives under the disguise of humanitarian acts. From Kosovo, to Haiti the Clinton and their foundation, 6% of the money raised going to actual humanitarian efforts, continually deceive the public for personal gain. A “no-fly zone and safe havens sound like good humanitarian acts but they are Acts of War. Both of these strategies require “boots on the ground” to invade, capture and the military control of land in a sovereign country.

For what reason do we need to “gain leverage over Syria and the Russians”? The “democratically” elected Assad, whether you agree with his regime or not, is trying to preserve the sovereignty of his country. Russia is in Syria at the invitation of Assad. If Assad fall who will fill the void of power? Moderate rebels, how did that work out in Libya? ISIS and the Wahhabism caliphate or some other group that makes ISIS and the “moderates” look tame?

The winds of war are blowing, especially in Ukraine and in Syria. Is it due to “Russian aggression” or the military posturing of NATO and the U.S.? WW3 may be closer than expected. The two leading candidates for presidents  are not non-interventionist. Hillary is a “war hawk” and Trump’s position is unclear. Where have you gone Ron Paul?

 

 

Our #1 Priority is to Mend Russian Relations  Part 1 – Ukraine  

Has NATO over stepped its boundaries or is Vladimir Putin and Russia determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe. NATO and the United States claims that it is Russia that is attempting to expand its influence in Eastern Europe and beyond.

NATO has accused Russia of causing unrest in Ukraine and “land grabbing” of Crimea. Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, it is Russia that is attempting to protect ethnic Russians and is being pushed into a corner.

Russia has also claimed that the United States has failed to uphold a promise, made in the 1990’s, that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. If one examines the history and facts it appears Russia has a valid point.

Most people with an awareness of post WW2 history know that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. NATO countries were clearly defined as the other side in the “Cold War” against the Soviet Union. In recent years NATO has emphasized that its role includes “a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”

This expanded purpose may be NATO’s only justification of existence. If NATO was formed in response to the threat of the Soviet Union, then when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 NATO should have also dissolved. In reality, since the 1990’s, NATO has expanded immensely.

The disbanding of the Soviet Union created a void in the old Warsaw Pact (Iron Curtain) countries. The void was ripe for NATO to expand its shield of influence. In the past 25 years NATO’s borders have expanded from the old West Germany border to the Ukraine and into the Balkins.

When the Berlin Wall fell, the question was whether the reunified Germany would be aligned with the United States and NATO or the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The George H.W. Bush administration advocated for the reconstituted German republic to be include in NATO.

On February 9^th 1990 U.S. leaders met in Moscow with the Soviets and a verbal agreement was struck. According to transcripts of the meetings then Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, the U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin the reunification of Germany talks.

Although no formal deal was struck, the evidence indicates that a quid pro quo was initiated. Gorbachev would agreed to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion. In June of 1990 Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.”

In 1999 Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic joined NATO. In 2002 at the Prague Congress center Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were invited to join NATO. In 2004 at the Istanbul summit, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia were welcomed in NATO as members. NATO leaders also made substantial progress towards receiving Ukraine into membership.  In 2011, NATO officially recognized four more members: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro.

Russian leaders Yeltsin, Medvedev and Gorbachev have all protested that U.S. and NATO have violated the non-expansion arrangement of 1990’s. Putin has become the loudest Russian leader to protest against NATO’s advance into Eastern Europe. Putin’s rhetoric over NATO’s expansion has been termed by most politicians (including Clinton) and the compliant US press as “aggression and saber-rattling.”

NATO used a US backed regime change in Ukraine to cast an even darker shadow on Putin.  But the situation was distorted by the US, NATO and mainstream media. In February of 2014, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland “masterminded” the “regime change” in Ukraine, that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych. The State Department convinced the ever-gullible U.S. mainstream media that the coup wasn’t really a coup but a victory for “democracy.”

The U.S. organized a propaganda campaign to promote the coup-makers as heroes, not the brown shirts that they actually were. The New York Times and The Washington Post and most all of the West’s mainstream media twisted their reporting into all kinds of contortions to avoid telling their readers that the new regime in Kiev was permeated by and dependent on neo-Nazi fighters and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who wanted a pure-blood Ukraine, without ethnic Russians.

In Crimea, the ethnic Russians, who had been Yanukovych’s political base, resisted what they viewed as the illegitimate overthrow of their elected president. Crimea held a referenda seeking separation from Ukraine. On March 16, the referendum was organized by the elected legislative assembly of Crimea. Some 95.5% of voters in Crimea supported joining Russia. Vladimir Putin accepted the results of the Crimean people’s and Crimea joined Russia, after all Crimea has been under Russia on and off since 1783.

Meanwhile this past summer NATO conducted Anaconda-2016 a 10-day military exercise, involving 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from 24 countries. It represented the biggest movement of foreign allied troops in Poland in peace time. The exercise, launched in Poland, was promoted as a test of cooperation between allied commands and troops in responding to military, chemical and cyber threats. The question should be asked “From where are these threats coming?”

The only non-NATO country in that part of the world that is capable of being a Military threat is Russia. The DNC and Hillary can tell us exactly who the leading suspect of Cyber terrorism is. Hillary in the presidential debates concluded “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.” When in trouble blame the Russians.

George Washington advised against “permanent alliances,” and Jefferson, in his inaugural address on 4 March 1801, declared his devotion to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” World War 1 was the enactment of  a series of those alliances that went into affect after the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Leaving NATO may just be a preventative move to avoid WW3. Where have you gone Ron Paul?