Bombs Away! Washington Has Gone Stark Raving Mad

Guest Post by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

America’s spanker-in-chief is at it again - threatening to bomb Syria owing to the uncivilized actions of its inhabitants. And when it comes to Syria, Washington avers that there are punishable malefactors virtually everywhere within its borders.

Exactly one year ago Obama proposed to take Bashir Assad to the woodshed because he had allegedly unleashed a vicious chemical attack on his own citizens. That was all pretext, of course, because even the CIA refused to sign-off on the flimsy case for Assad’s culpability at the time—-a reluctance corroborated since then by the considerable evidence that hundreds of Syrian civilians were murdered during a false flag operation staged by the rebels with help from Turkey. The aim of the rebels, of course, was to activate American tomahawk missiles and bombers in behalf of “regime change”, which was also the stated goal of the Obama Administration.

Now the White House is threatening to bomb Syria again, but this time its “regime change” objective has been expanded to include both sides! In 12 short months what had been the allegedly heroic Sunni opposition to the “brutal rule” of the Assad/Alawite minority has transmuted into the “greatest terrorist threat ever”, according to the Secretary of Defense.

So Obama has already unleashed the drones and surveillance apparatus to identify targets of attack that will help bring down a regime in northern and eastern Syria—the so-called Islamic State—which did not even exist a year ago. And a regime that is now armed to the teeth with America’s own latest and greatest weaponry as previously supplied to the disintegrated Iraqi army and the Syrian rebels trained by the CIA in Jordan.

Adding to this blinding farce is the warning of Syria’s Foreign Affairs minister that Obama should please to request permission before he rains destruction from the sky on the Opposition—-that is, the opposition to the very same Damascus regime which the White House has vowed to eradicate. Needless to say,  the Washington apparatus is having nothing to do with aiding the enemy of its new enemy:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying, “We’re not interested in trying to help the Assad regime.” However, he acknowledged that “there are a lot of cross pressures

In fact, there is apparently an option emerging from the bowels of the war machine that calls for an odd/even day plan to bomb both sides, thereby making clear that Washington is an equal opportunity spanker. Apparently, whether you use a 12th century sword or 20th century attack helicopter as a means of rule, you will be bombed by the “indispensable nation”, as Obama put it, adding that “no other nation can do what we do”.
Well, that involves some “doing”. According to AP, it appears that Syrian airstrikes are imminent, but could be carried out under the odd/even day plan:

“In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets.”

Is any more evidence needed that Washington has gone stark raving mad than even the possibility that such an absurd option could  be under consideration? Has not the imperial city on the Potomac become so inured to its pretensions of global hegemony and to instant resort to deployment of its war machine that any semblance of rationality and coherence has been dissolved?

Indeed, in the context of Syria’s fractured and riven tribal, religious and political splinters how could anyone in their right mind think that a bombing campaign without boots on the ground will accomplish anything other than function as a potent recruiting tool for ISIS, and a generator of jihadist blowback for years to come. By the same token, the White House’s polling machine surely documents that an outright Iraq-style invasion of the Islamic State is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people, and rightly so.

Accordingly, the silly, hapless man in the Oval Office stumbles forward, apparently unaware that he’s not merely playing video games during his sojourns in the Situation Room. Indeed, the make-believe “nuanced” bombing options that are likely to be ground out by the national security machinery are destined to fail and drag Washington ever deeper into the violent cauldron of Mesopotamia and the Levant. The trillions of treasure wasted, the millions of lives lost and the venomous tribal enmities resulting from Washington’s misbegotten ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan provide all the proof that is needed.

The fact is, the artificial states created by the Sykes-Picot map drawn up by the French and British foreign offices in 1916—- as they carved up the Ottoman empire— are now destined for the dustbin of history. The fracturing remnants of Syria and Iraq cannot be fused back together by means of lethal deposits of metal and chemicals delivered by tomahawks and F-16s.

So let the region rearrange itself without Washington’s unwelcome meddling and mayhem. If Turkey and an independent Kurdistan can make mutually acceptable political and economic arrangements, which are already well-advanced, so be it. If the Shiite south in Iraq and the  Alawite/Shiite southwest in Syria break-off from their present Europe-bequeathed boundaries and form independent regimes, how does that jeopardize the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE and Spokane WA?

And, yes, if the Islamic State temporarily manages to coalesce within the Sunni lands of the Euphrates Valley and the upper Tigress why is that really a national security threat which requires launching an unwinnable war, a new round of hostility to America in the Islamic world and the blowback of legions of jihadi with a score to settle?

Now that you know about the Yazidis, did you ever hear of the Sheitaat tribe of Sunnis who inhabit the minor oil province around Deir al-Zor in northeastern Syria?  There appear to be about 100,000 members of that sect in the region and they have been declared apostates by the medieval butchers who run ISIS:

Hundreds of members of the Sheitaat clan have been executed after their tribe refused to submit to Islamic State. The entire tribe have been deemed “hostile apostates” by the group, an offshoot of al Qaeda that has declared a “caliphate” in the territory it holds.

Islamic State has declared the Sheitaat tribe “an unbelieving sect” that should be fought as if they were infidels, according to a report from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks violence in the Syrian war.

At least 700 hundred members of the tribe have already been executed, the Observatory reported on Aug. 16.

Another 1,800 are still missing after being detained by Islamic State, according to the Observatory, which gathers information from all sides in the Syrian war. Its efforts to pledge allegiance to Islamic State have been rebuffed.

Pictures of the bodies of men apparently slain by Islamic State fighters in Sheitaat areas are surfacing every day, said Rami Abdelrahman, founder of the Observatory. “We have repeatedly expressed concerns about extermination,” he said.

“It is the first time that the Islamic State has used these (religious) concepts against an entire tribe,” he said.

Three Sheitaat villages seized by Islamic State have been designated as a military zone, the rebel and another activist from the area said. The clan’s property and livestock have also been seized, another person from the area said.

Islamic State has declared that no truce is possible with the Sheitaat, that its prisoners can be killed, and its women are unfit for marriage, according to the Observatory.

“We’re still seeing Islamic State trucks loaded up with furniture and rugs from Sheitaat homes in those villages, which are now totally abandoned,” said one person from the area contacted by internet link, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Islamic State has started to use house demolitions as a punishment. A video posted over the weekend shows what appears to be the detonation of a rural home as the narrator, who identifies himself as from Islamic State, explains that the home belongs to Sheitaat “apostates”.

Why would you believe that a viable state can be built in today’s world on the tactics of Genghis Kahn? The Islamic State, such as it is, is not rich, does not have enough oil to make a difference, will soon be bogged down in the insuperable problems of governance by the sword and will flounder on the impoverished economics of the dusty villages and desert expanse which comprise its natural territory. And it will eventually mobilize its neighbors—-Turkey, Hezbollah, the rump regime of Assad’s Alawite Syria, Kurdistan, the Shiite alliance of Iran and lower Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia and the oil sheikdoms—to contain its external ambitions.

So Washington should call off the bombers and get out of harm’s way. The American Imperium has failed and the prospect of bombing both sides of an irrelevant non-country’s ancient tribal wars ought, at last, to make that much clear.

Chris Hedges: "Our Liberty Has Been Sacrificed On The Altar Of National Security"

Guest Post by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The relationship between those who are constantly watched and tracked, and those who watch and track them, is the relationship between masters and slaves.
- Chris Hedges

Below you will find an extremely powerful and inspiring speech by Chris Hedges. The award winning journalist has been ahead of the curve on many issues of national and global importance, including being one of the earliest critics of the Iraq war. Chris has an unshakable moral compass and a passion to match it. He has been a shining light in a sea of darkness and cowardice when it comes to public figures speaking truth to power, including having led the charge to sue the Obama administration on the right to imprison American citizens without trial.
Thank you for all you do, Chris.



Here is Chris Hedges' infamous comparison of two frightening visions of the future...

The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavement. Orwell saw the second.

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through sensual gratification, cheap mass-produced goods, boundless credit, political theater and amusement. While we were entertained, the regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled, the laws that once protected us were rewritten and we were impoverished. Now that credit is drying up, good jobs for the working class are gone forever and mass-produced goods are unaffordable, we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.” The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is sliding toward bankruptcy. It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy. We are moving from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled. 

...

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation. Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”

The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. The culture, under the tutelage of these corporate courtiers, becomes, as Huxley noted, a world of cheerful conformity, as well as an endless and finally fatal optimism. We busy ourselves buying products that promise to change our lives, make us more beautiful, confident or successful as we are steadily stripped of rights, money and influence. All messages we receive through these systems of communication, whether on the nightly news or talk shows like “Oprah,” promise a brighter, happier tomorrow. And this, as Wolin points out, is “the same ideology that invites corporate executives to exaggerate profits and conceal losses, but always with a sunny face.” We have been entranced, as Wolin writes, by “continuous technological advances” that “encourage elaborate fantasies of individual prowess, eternal youthfulness, beauty through surgery, actions measured in nanoseconds: a dream-laden culture of ever-expanding control and possibility, whose denizens are prone to fantasies because the vast majority have imagination but little scientific knowledge.”

Our manufacturing base has been dismantled. Speculators and swindlers have looted the U.S. Treasury and stolen billions from small shareholders who had set aside money for retirement or college. Civil liberties, including habeas corpus and protection from warrantless wiretapping, have been taken away. Basic services, including public education and health care, have been handed over to the corporations to exploit for profit. The few who raise voices of dissent, who refuse to engage in the corporate happy talk, are derided by the corporate establishment as freaks.

...

The façade is crumbling. And as more and more people realize that they have been used and robbed, we will move swiftly from Huxley’s “Brave New World” to Orwell’s “1984.” The public, at some point, will have to face some very unpleasant truths. The good-paying jobs are not coming back. The largest deficits in human history mean that we are trapped in a debt peonage system that will be used by the corporate state to eradicate the last vestiges of social protection for citizens, including Social Security. The state has devolved from a capitalist democracy to neo-feudalism. And when these truths become apparent, anger will replace the corporate-imposed cheerful conformity. The bleakness of our post-industrial pockets, where some 40 million Americans live in a state of poverty and tens of millions in a category called “near poverty,” coupled with the lack of credit to save families from foreclosures, bank repossessions and bankruptcy from medical bills, means that inverted totalitarianism will no longer work.

...

The noose is tightening. The era of amusement is being replaced by the era of repression. Tens of millions of citizens have had their e-mails and phone records turned over to the government. We are the most monitored and spied-on citizenry in human history. Many of us have our daily routine caught on dozens of security cameras. Our proclivities and habits are recorded on the Internet. Our profiles are electronically generated. Our bodies are patted down at airports and filmed by scanners. And public service announcements, car inspection stickers, and public transportation posters constantly urge us to report suspicious activity. The enemy is everywhere.

...

“Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?” Orwell wrote. “It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.”

And while Hedges nails it, we leave it to Emmet Scott to sum up the present in relation to Huxley and Orwell's prophecies:

The most striking parallel of course is that both men foresaw the future as totalitarian rather than democratic and free. Neither presumably believed their vision of the future to be inevitable, though it is equally clear that each saw aspects of mid-twentieth century life which clearly pointed in the totalitarian direction. Thus 1984 and Brave New World may be seen as warnings against what might be if the trends identified by the two authors persisted. What these trends were and why the authors saw them leading towards totalitarianism is an important question and one that will be addressed presently.

The totalitarian states described by Orwell and Huxley differed in most details, though there were also many correspondences. Both Big Brother’s world and the Brave New World are ruled by authoritarian elites of a basically socialist/communist nature, whose only real purpose is the maintenance of their own power and privileges.

Why Things Don't Get Better - Theater and Artifice Rules The World

Guest Post by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

There's only one small problem with relying on artifice: we haven't actually fixed what's broken in the real world.

As I noted yesterday, we now game dysfunctional systems rather than actually repair them.

Rather than fix the dysfunctional system of higher education, for example (as I proposed in my book The Nearly Free University and The Emerging Economy), students and their parents go to extraordinary lengths to game the Ivy league university admissions system.

Rather than actually address the structural causes of unemployment, we lower interest rates to zero and reckon the resulting financial bubble will fix unemployment (and everything else).

To avoid having to deal with unemployment as an issue, the unemployment rate is heavily gamed by counting marginal jobs (working 1 hour a week--you're employed!) and removing tens of millions of unemployed people from the work-force.

The primary tool of increasing prosperity is the expansion of asset bubbles that supposedly boost the wealth effect, an internalized belief that one is wealthier. This internal belief is presumed to encourage more borrowing and spending which is then presumed to lift all boats in the economy.

This is of course all artifice: the elaborately choreographed applications to the Ivy League, the massaged statistics designed to manage our perceptions of reality rather than address reality itself, and the selling offree money for financiers as a policy that magically helps everyone, even those far from the money spigots of the Federal Reserve.

How did we arrive at a systemic dependence on contrivance and artifice to manage problems? We have no choice. Why do we have no choice?

Because any attempt to actually fix dysfunctional systems necessarily steps on the toes of deeply entrenched vested interests that profit from the dysfunctional Status Quo-- interests who will devote every resource in their command to water down, co-opt, divert or defeat any reforms that lessen their share of the national income or their political power.

As a result, true reform of hopelessly dysfunctional systems is politically impossible. Since politicians are elected to give everyone more of what they want, politicos have no choice to but to game the dysfunctional systems via perception management and statistical sleight of hand to make them appear to give everyone more of what they want. Meanwhile, the politicos collect personal fortunes from the Elites and insiders benefiting from the dysfunctional Status Quo.

Artifice and perception management appear to be win-win: everybody seems to win if they see dysfunction as not just "the way the world works," but as a positive approach that benefits everyone in some fashion.

There's only one small problem with relying on artifice: we haven't actually fixed what's broken in the real world, and those dysfunctions continue to fester beneath the glossy surface of gamed statistics and happy stories we tell ourselves about how well everything is working.

At some point--the actual date is unpredictable, but 2021-2025 is as good a guess as any--the dysfunctional systems will break down and no amount of artifice, bogus statistics or perception management will mask the rot.

Once reality crashes through the thick constructs of artifice, faith in the Status Quo will be lost. At that fragile juncture of destiny, the opportunity to fix what is broken will finally emerge.


A Note from the Editor - I disagree with the conclusion. We always have a choice, choose wisely.

The Guns of August

By Israel Shamir

On the Pushkin square in central Moscow, McDonald’s, this symbol of Pax Americana, has been shut down this week. It was opened 23 years ago, as the USSR collapsed, and the unipolar world of One Superpower came into being. Soviet people queued for hours to get in and try this divine foreign food. They were so innocent, so inexperienced, the Russians of yesteryear! For 23 long years, the US has ruled the world alone, while McDonald’s served its burgers. Meanwhile Russia has changed. McDonalds is no longer an attraction for world-weary Muscovites. Across the Pushkin square, there is now another fashionable eatery, Café Pouchkine, serving the best Russian haute cuisine. In a tit-for-tat, the cheeky Russians had established a new Café Pouchkine in Paris, on Boulevard St Germain, teaching the French the joys of Russian cooking.

The Americans did not accept the challenge lightly. Kill Putin, called American pundits. They proposed to strike against Russian forces from the NATO bases in the Baltics. Pentagon extolled advantages of the first nuclear strike. The Russians gloomily prepared for the worst. In a quiet dacha summer-house to the west of Moscow, my Russian scientist friends discussed Andrey Sakharov’s plan codenamed The Wave to wash away the entire Eastern seaboard of the US by means of a giant tsunami (yes, it is the same Sakharov). They lauded the Perimeter, the Doomsday weapon system Russia inherited from the USSR ensuring total destruction of the US even if Russia were erased. New and secret weapon systems were mentioned. August 2014 increasingly reminded of August 1914 or August 1939, the countdown to a Great War. At that time, conciliatory tone of President Putin’s Crimea speech signalled that the danger of general conflagration abated somewhat. Russia stepped back from abyss.

Ostensibly this is a duel of nerves between Russia and the US; though many states, great and small, from China to Bolivia, are interested in dismantling the US hegemony, meanwhile Russia is the only one with political will, military clout and economical stamina to mess with the bully.
In order to preserve its place of the ultimate consumer at the top of food chain, the US wants to cut Russia down to size; publicly humiliate Putin and remove him; to assert its superiority; to harm European economies and strengthen their submission to Washington; to stop loose talk of its decline, to eliminate opposition; to turn treatment of Russia into a case study for all possible challengers.

Russia’s aims are not so grand: the country wants to live peacefully its own way and to be respected. This desire has been summed up by its opponents as “challenging the architecture of the post-cold-war order”, and it is probably true, for “the order” denies countries’ right for peace and independence.
Americans do not mind a war. They gained in every war: they had sustainable losses, they preserved their industrial base and they profited by their victories. Their world wars and their recent wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria were profitable. A war between Russia and Europe with some American support has attractive sides, for them.

Russians want to avoid war. They had hard and bad experience in world wars: Russia collapsed in the course of the First world war, and suffered a lot in the Second one. In both cases, their development was retarded, a lot of human misery and economical disaster befell them. They did not enjoy their smaller wars: none gave them an advantage or profit of any kind.

Paradoxically, Russian desire to avoid war brings war closer home. The US military and politicians do not mind to play chicken with Russia, as they are sure: Russians will chicken out. This false certainty makes them more daring and fearless with each round.

Russia is not alone. China usually supports its moves, India under Modi gets closer, Latin America builds its alliance with Russia, Iran looks for friendship in Moscow. Equally important, in every state there are people who are dissatisfied with the existing post-cold-war set-up of diminished sovereignty. They are not too far from power in France, where Marine Le Pen makes gains in elections. Americans who prefer to live their own way, just like the US did before the WWII, a normal country, not the world sheriff are potential Russian allies, as well.

The US is not alone. It has its faithful allies, England the devoted, Saudi Arabia the wealthy, Israel the cunning, – and a plethora of important politicians in all countries on the globe that were supported and promoted by various US agencies. There is probably no country without the US agents near power: Karl Bildt of Sweden, Tony Blair of the UK… In Russia they occupy many positions around pinnacle of power, as they were installed during Dark years of Yeltsin’s rule. Whoever wants his country to serve the Empire is an American ally.

This is not only the US vs Russia, but Machine vs Man, as well. In plotting its foreign policy, the US increasingly relies upon the computer-driven game theory using its formidable data resources, while Russians prefer manual human control. Modern super-computers and surveillance techniques give the US an edge over Russia’s decision-making. Increasingly, President Obama appears to be a perfect cyborg of right appearance who says the right things in the right time and right place, but whose actions bear no relation to the words. I wouldn’t be amazed if in a length of time we shall learn that Obama has been the first humanoid robot in the helm of power. And if he is human, he is truly wonderful actor at pretending he is a robot. Even his wife Michelle and girls seem to be well-chosen movie props rather than live partner and children.
Putin is undoubtedly human and manly. One may dislike him, and a lot of people do, but there is no doubt about his belonging to human race. This makes the chicken game less predictable than the US leadership considers. After Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi’s horrible executions, much can be said in favour of an all-out nuclear war in comparison with defeat and surrender. And the young Russian generation does not share their fathers’ fear of war, and they do not mind to try some of better toys their country has. Satan, anyone?
Moreover, the game theory (partly declassified in the last decade) is not perfect yet in cross-cultural conflicts, where antagonists may play different games. For instance, you play chess, but your opponent is kickboxing. This seems to be the case here. The US plays chicken with Russia, while Russia skilfully evades the horns of charging American bull.

The US considers itself the exceptional city on the hill, the God’s Chosen, predestined to rule the world now and forever. History is over. They want to lecture and impose their rules upon the world. Amusingly, the Soviets had similar ideas of Communism being predestined to complete History, so the Cold War between two predestined states was a natural thing. Nowadays Russians do not believe in predestination. Countries rise, and go down, and form alliances, and there is no End of History in sight. The unipolar world is a fluke, now reverting to its normal multipolar state. The best and most comfortable arrangement is each country lives the way it likes. Leben und leben lassen.

For a long while the US was itching to teach Russia a lesson. Russia was not in full rebellion: it sold its oil and gas for US greenbacks, it kept profits in the US Treasury papers, it observed the sanctions on Iran, it did not interfere with despoiling of Libya. Still it was not sufficiently obedient. Russia blocked destruction of Syria; it toyed with de-dollarisation of oil trade; it was for Christ and against gay marriages; cunningly it tried to undermine the Western unity by building pipelines and bridges and bribing Europeans. In short, Russia forgot its collapse of 1991.

The Ukraine was chosen by the US as a suitable place to ignite a war, or at least to put Russia a couple of notches down and to get rid of Putin who became by far too independent.

The Ukraine

The US is winning ground while Russia loses ground in the Ukraine. Putin stubbornly refuses to send his troops in; he strains to come to terms with the US and the West over future of Ukraine. Russia has been humiliated while proposing humanitarian aid to the besieged cities of Donbass: its loaded lorries are still delayed at the border, waiting for Kiev regime permission to move forward. Half a million Ukrainian refugees crossed the Russian border, a few thousand civilians, militia and army personnel were killed in the confrontation.

The war for Donbass was not especially successful for the Russians. Though the military reports are exceedingly obscure and conflicting, it seems the rebels are losing the battle against the Ukrainian army, as they have no external support. While the US claimed that the conflict is caused by Russian intervention, Russia tried to stay out of this conflict. Russia did not interfere in Kiev, when all Western ambassadors and ministers encouraged the revolt against the legitimate president. When Donbass flared up, Russia did not support it.

Putin did not want to take Donbass, in the first place, he did not want to take the Ukraine, secondly, and he did not want to resurrect the USSR, thirdly. He was forced to take the Crimea, the home base of Russian fleet, an old part of Russia, populated by Russians, willing to join Russia, as otherwise Crimea would become a NATO navy base, but he did not want to proceed anywhere else. It did not help him: Putin is blamed internationally for the conflict and internally, for non-involvement and the subsequent defeat.
The revolt in Novorossia (the Russian-speaking half of the Ukraine) was a popular response to the West-inspired coup in Kiev, as this coup had a strong nationalist anti-Russian flavour. People of Novorossia would not try to secede if their language and culture weren’t persecuted, and if their ties to neighbouring Russia weren’t endangered. But they would not be able to proceed far, unless their revolt attracted some rebels looking for a cause, first of all – the military genius and a great romantic figure, Colonel Igor Strelkov, a “Russian Lawrence”.

Igor Strelkov read history in Moscow U, but he decided (like T.E. Lawrence) that it is more fun to make history. He fought in Transnistria, a small sliver of land between Moldova and Ukraine, defending local people from the onslaught of Moldavian nationalists. He volunteered to a Serb militia in Yugoslavia; he forced the indifferent Russian Army command to take him as an officer to the First Chechen war; he served in the Second Chechen war, and as a volunteer, he served in Syria and Dagestan. He writes beautifully, he is a superb tactician, able to lead soldiers by the strength of his charisma. His acquaintances describe him as a daredevil who does not care about money, comfort, family life or pleasures.

For Strelkov, the campaign in Novorossia had a taste of destiny. Like many Russians of his generation, he dreamed of resurrecting Russia as it was, whether the Soviet Union or pre-revolutionary Russian Empire (his preference). Like many Russians of his generation, he considered the Ukraine – a natural part of Russia, and an independent Ukrainian state – a misnomer. Despite his military rank, Strelkov was a free agent; he came to Novorossia without Putin’s blessing and he would come and stay against Putin’s will, too. We shall probably hear more about this remarkable man.

Strelkov was not alone: quite a few brave fighters from Ukraine and Russia came to join the rebels. Their initial success was a surprise for Putin’s administration. But the rebellion failed to take over other provinces. In Odessa, the private army of Kolomoysky the ruthless oligarch burned some fifty unarmed rebel sympathisers alive in a grisly autodafe, and this cruel act scared the timid and jovial Odessites. In Kharkov, the governor made a deal with Kiev regime and the rising miscarried. It seems that Strelkov, though a military prodigy, was less than a wonderful demagogue. His dream of Great Russia did not make sense to the people of Novorossia. Yes, they spoke Russian, yes, they hated Kiev and Lvov neo-nazi gangs, but they did not understand Strelkov’s Russian nationalism.

Without direct Russian involvement, a separatist movement in Novorossia was doomed to fail. There was a way to win: to conquer the whole of Ukraine, perhaps barring its far-west, and afterwards to make arrangements for federalisation or even for break-up. It could be done by using an inclusive ideology, acceptable for Donetsk, Odessa, Kiev, Poltava. Perhaps some neo-Soviet ideas could be employed; dissatisfaction with the oligarchs could be used. But Strelkov and other rebels with their firm rejection of Ukraine per se could not sweep the masses, and they did not even try to move towards Kiev or Kharkov.
Putin minimised Russia’s involvement in the Donbass war. He supported it much less than the United States supported the Texas revolution of 1835. His government tried to patch up with Kiev regime, but its ‘president’ steadfastly refused, under American orders. In Kiev, far-right radicals attacked the Russian embassy; and the regime’s armed forces began indiscriminate shelling and bombing of rebel cities. This was a great humiliation for Putin who promised to defend the Russians in failing Ukraine. His advisers, notably Sergey Glazyev, an expert on Ukraine, called to take a leaf from the Western book on Libya and impose a no-fly zone over Donbass. (In March 2011, as a rebellion flared up in Benghazi, the US and its allies imposed no-fly zone over parts of Libya professing horror of Qaddafi’s ruthless shelling of the rebels. Russia and China abstained, and the French-British draft became the Security Council resolution authorising not only no-fly zone but “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from harm.) Kiev regime certainly killed more civilians than Qaddafi did; but Putin did not declare a no-fly zone, he did not use his firepower to suppress Kiev artillery shelling civilians.

Russia did very little for Donbass. Now, the Russians try to negotiate a conclusion to the Donbass war. The reports predict some autonomy for Donbass within Ukraine.

Many Russians are likely to be greatly disappointed. But some enterprises – worthy and unworthy – fail. Life is full of disappointments. I remember Ibo separatists of Biafra, who were eventually defeated by the central government. Separatists of Iranian Azerbaijan were defeated, though Josef Stalin supported them. The US failed to re-conquer Cuba. Argentines failed to liberate Malvinas. This list is endless. Perhaps Russians have to wait for a better opportunity.

Did Putin chicken out?

Why did Putin gave up on Novorossia? There is no doubt, Novorossia is extremely important for Russia. NATO troops and US missiles in Donetsk and Lugansk would endanger Russia. Its loss would threaten Russian defence industry as this part of Ukraine was fully integrated with Russia since Tsar’s days. Was it fear of an all-out war? Did President Putin consider intervention of R2P mode a too dangerous step for his country?

In Putin’s view, Europe is more important than Ukraine. He is willing to sacrifice Donbass in hope to gain Berlin. For years, he courted old Europe. Even his Olympic games with its expensive show aimed at Europe: he wanted to tell the Europeans that Russia is part and parcel of Europe. Putin speaks German, he served in Germany as KGB operative in the last years of the USSR, and he has a soft spot for Germany.
The US propaganda machine called upon Europeans to defend Ukraine from the Russian bear, claiming the Russians will not stop in the Ukraine but continue to the Atlantic. This claim was quite successful; especially as it came after the very long anti-Russian media campaign (gays, orphans, toilets in Sochi etc.). Putin was afraid that by taking Ukraine he will alienate European public opinion. So he procrastinated, until the Malaysian liner disaster struck.

The liner

The Malaysian liner crash was a terrible disaster in many ways. Not so much per se: three hundred people are being killed each day in Gaza, Iraq, Donbass. Europeans and Americans forgot the Cuban air liner flight 455, or Iranian liner flight 655, or Libyan liner flight 114, as these liners were downed by “our side”. But this was a chance for the Western media machine to unleash its dreadful might. This machine is as powerful as nuclear weapons; when in full blast, it incapacitates leaders and countries. Thousands of TV channels, newspapers, radio programs, bloggers, internet sites, experts, ministers, presidents united in one single message, terrifying as vox Dei, though it’s not even a vox populi, just a device of Masters of Discourse, akin to big trumpets used by Romans to scare the barbarians.

All British newspapers ran photos of dead children with captions like “He was murdered by Putin”. Russians were overwhelmed by the furious blast of propaganda. People wept; some weak and emotional personalities admitted their guilt and lit candles in front of Netherlands embassy in Moscow. Why Netherlands, if the liner was Malaysian? (Because Netherlands is a European “white” country, while Malays are not?) Why guilt, if nothing was known yet? Why did not we see pictures of slaughtered Gaza kids with caption “murdered by Netanyahu”, killed Iraqi kids “murdered by Blair”, murdered Afghani babies “murdered by Obama”? This is the incredible power of the Masters of Discourse: when they go full blast, people lose mind and panic.

I welcomed every conspiratorial scheme in this case, as well as in 9/11 case. Not because I believe or even prefer this or other scheme. I see it as a useful device to release minds from the holding power of mass hysteria induced by mass media. It is necessary to sow doubt in order to release minds and regain sanity.
A successful 9/11 conspiracy theory could have saved lives of thousands of Muslims killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Recently Israeli Jews were induced with mass hysteria as three young settlers disappeared. This mass hysteria resulted in half a million refugees and two thousand dead of Gaza. An attempt to sow doubt regarding the official story (claiming they were stolen by Mossad etc.) was an attempt to save lives. Likewise, every way to sow doubt regarding the Malaysian plane was a way to save lives.
Now, one month later, we know that there was no evidence of Russian involvement in the tragedy. There are strong pieces of evidence suggesting Kiev and US involvement, the best of them is a negative one: if Kiev and Washington would have a proof of Russian and/or rebels’ guilt we would hear of it day and night. If you are interested in detailed analysis of the disaster, you can read this one, recommended by our friends. I must admit I am not interested in details, for the reasons similar to those of Noam Chomsky regarding 9/11. While every explanation that differs from one promoted by Masters of Discourse is good because it breaks their hold on minds, importance of such an event is greatly overblown by media. Anyway, the air liner is out of news and out of mind by now, and this means it was an accident or a failed provocation by Kiev or Washington, for otherwise we would hear about it.

However, in real time the air liner disaster made a huge impact on Russian minds. For a while, I feared Putin would retire or be retired or removed from power, and Russia would fall apart. The US wanted to get rid of Putin and place a more pliable figure on the Russian throne, preferably an oligarch like Poroshenko.
Their thinking was summed up by Herbert E. Meyer, a spook (“an ex- Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council”). He wrote: “Since subtlety doesn’t work with Russians, the president and his European counterparts should also make absolutely clear that we have no interest whatever in how these people solve their Putin problem. If [the oligarchs] can talk good old Vladimir into leaving the Kremlin with full military honors and a 21-gun salute — that would be fine with us. If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us.”

Tension peaked at the most dramatic night between Sunday, July 20 and Monday, July 21, when Putin delivered a short message to the nation – at 01.40 am. For such an unusual time, it was quite a tame message. Putin said nothing of importance. Next day, he was supposed to make a major speech at his own security cabinet. Again, he said nothing of importance. In my view, President Putin wanted to show he is still alive and well and still in command. Apparently this was not obvious for some persons, in Russia or abroad, at that fateful night.

(to be continued)

Israel v. Palestine: MSM Unreported Truths

by Stephen Lendman 

On Tuesday, Israel's Operation Protective Edge aggression entered day 50. Mass slaughter and destruction continue.
MSM scoundrels largely lost interest. Killing Palestinians no longer matters. Justifiable outrage is absent. 

So-called halted US arms shipments to Israel two weeks ago was head fake deception. Deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said no change in US support for Israel exists. 

Weapons include Hellfire missiles, attack helicopters and powerful bunker buster bombs.
Israel uses them to kill Palestinian civilians. Doing so violates core international laws, norms and standards. 

Washington unconditionally supports and encourages Israel's killing machine. It uses banned weapons. They include chemical, biological and radiological ones.
Medical professionals report treating injuries never before seen. Palestinian suffering goes unnoticed. 

On August 26, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) reported what MSM scoundrels ignore. 

"Israeli occupation forces have continued their brutal and immoral offensive on the Gaza Strip for the 50th consecutive day in violation of the international law," it said. ?
"They have employed their full-fledged arsenal to attack the Gaza Strip from the air, sea and land, killing and wounding thousands of Palestinians, mostly civilians, including children and women." ? 

"Many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes that attacked their homes without prior warnings." ? 

"Israeli forces have attacked homes and civilian facilities and property."
In the past 24 hours alone, Israeli bombs, missiles and shells murdered 14 Palestinians. Another 120 were injured. Many seriously.
Some won't survive. Others are maimed for life. Mostly non-combatant women and children are affected. 

"Additionally," said PCHR, "a charity, 2 mosques, a workshop and a poultry farm (were) destroyed." 

Hundreds of thousands of Gazans are displaced. Most parts of the Strip lack water, electricity and other basic services. 

Every square inch of Gaza is unsafe. No safe havens exist. Israel considers civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, mosques, schools and UN refuges legitimate targets.
State terror is official Israeli policy. War without mercy continues. It rages lawlessly. Western leaders support Israeli genocide. 

Ceasefires come and go. Israel claims a divine right to mass slaughter and destroy with impunity. 

It does so for any reason or none at all. It commits virtually every imaginable crime and then some. 

International laws don't matter. Nor UN resolutions. Accountability is nonexistent. 

Fact: Israel's entire history is bloodstained.
Fact: It reflects lawless depravity.
Fact: Early Zionists called for "establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Eretz Yisrael." It began a process of:
? settling Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine;
? organizing effective action groups in various countries;
? building Jewish consciousness and a national identity; and
gaining acceptance for a Jewish homeland.
At issue was replacing Arabs with Jews. In 1917, Britain unilaterally "establish(ed) in Palestine (a) national home for the Jewish people."
The 1915 McHahon-Hussein Agreement guaranteed one for Arabs. Britain betrayed them. So did America and France.
Sykes-Picot (1916) carved out Western regional spheres of influence. Ottoman Arab provinces were divided their way. Arabs had no say.
In 1920, Britain's Mandate period began. It assured:
? a liberal Jewish immigration policy;
? immediate citizenship for Jews;
? easy Jewish land acquisition at the expense of indigenous Arabs;
? contiguous settlements to solidify a Jewish presence;
? employment for Jewish immigrants;
? favorable customs policies to develop Jewish commerce; and
? partiality toward Jews at the expense of indigenous Arabs.
Zionist founder Theodore Herzl called Palestine "our unforgettable historic homeland." He called for establishing it by replacing Arabs with Jews.
In his book "Overcoming Zionism," Joel Kovel wrote:
Zionism seeks "the restoration of tribalism in the guise of a modern, highly militarized and aggressive state."
"(It) cut Jews off from (their) history and led to a fateful identity of interests with anti-Semitism (becoming) the only thing that united them."
"(It) fell into the ways of imperialist expansion and militarism, and showed signs of fascist malignancy."
If you accept "the idea of a Jewish state," you mix its twin notions of "particularism (and) exceptionalism?"
They're "the bane of Judaism?(They give) racism an objective, enduring, institutionalized and obdurate character."
It turned Israel "into a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses."
Its bloodstained history reflects it. Israel rules by strength, confrontation, intimidation, force and violence.
State terror is official policy. So are institutionalized racism, colonization and apartheid.
Lawless occupation continues. Premeditated aggression is called self-defense.
Peace is pure fantasy. Palestine's Nakba never ended. Palestinians are considered existential threats.
Israeli Arab citizens are called fifth column ones. At issue is creating an ethnically pure Jewish state by any means necessary.
Zionism is a cancer. It harms Jews and non-Jews alike. It justifies Jewish ethnocracy, exclusivity and superiority.
Laws favor Jews. Arab rights don't matter. Judaization and de-Arabization reflect official policy. So does slow-motion genocide.
Treat them like "dogs" so they'll leave, said Moshe Dayan. Ben-Gurion favored "terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation," and violence.
Palestinians remain isolated on their own land. Besieged Gazans suffer most. Israel terrorizes, mass slaughters and destroys.
It does so with impunity. Accountability is nowhere in sight.
Official policies include:
? premeditated naked aggression;
? other high crimes against peace;
? calling wars of choice self-defense;
? blaming Palestinians for its crimes;
? ignoring core international laws, norms and standards;
? violating binding UN resolutions;
? maintain large stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;
? using illegal weapons in all its wars;
? inventing pretexts to wage them;
? using US tax dollars to commit mass slaughter and destruction;
? refusing to declare official borders to advance its Greater Middle East agenda;
? maintaining the myth of unique Jewish suffering;
? calling legitimate criticism anti-Semitism;
? land theft;
? settlement expansions on stolen Palestinian land;
? imprisoning Palestinians for wanting to live free on their own land;
? denying them self-determination and other fundamental rights;
? torture;
? targeted assassinations;
? treating Palestinian children like adults;
? brutalizing them;
? murdering them in cold blood;
? at the same time, claiming victimization;
? using Palestinians as human shields;
? targeting civilians like combatants;
? collectively punishing millions of Palestinians lawlessly;
? denying diaspora ones their legitimate right of return;
? stealing Palestinian resources;
? controlling virtually every aspect of their lives;
? terrorizing West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinian communities;
? conducting unjustifiable multiple daily pre-dawn raids;
? imprisoning Palestinians for belonging to the wrong political parties;
? incarcerating many thousands of Palestinian political prisoners;
? subjecting them to brutalizing gulag prison harshness;
? maintaining lawless, militarized occupation;
? claiming a divine right to do it; and
? prioritizing premeditated wars without mercy. 

Operation Protective Edge continues. Peace, equity and justice remain more fantasy than reality. 

Palestinians yearn for liberation. Some day they hope. For sure no time soon. 

These should be looked at as people not religions or nations. Until fairness is achieved for all there will be no peace.
 

Understanding the ISIS Threat and It's Connection with Globalization

Guest Post By Douglas J. Hagmann

The current threats posed by ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, to world stability in general and to the U.S. specifically are very real and extremely dangerous. However, the origins of the group and hence the threats are not to be believed “as advertised.”

We are being subjected to more lies from the White House to Foggy Bottom, along with many elected leaders who know the real story but insist upon pushing a false narrative. Collectively, they are bringing us to the brink of World War III through Syria, which I have long contended, while simultaneously opening our country to a large scale attack that could equal the September 11, 2001 attacks. Unlike 9/11, however, we know at least part of their strategy.

First, ISIS did not mysteriously or unexpectedly originate from vaporous pockets of Islamic terrorists in an area that is referred to as the Levant, or the geographical region roughly bounded by southern Turkey to the north, Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west and Iraq to the East. No, ISIS was created through an intentional process of deliberate default by the U.S. and Western powers—including Israel, working in conjunction if not on behalf of the Saudis, Kuwait and Qatar. This unconventional alliance will be addressed later, but for now, it must be identified to understand the truly dangerous and evil confederation of complicity.

The formation of ISIS: Conception to birth

To understand the present, we must identify—and fully comprehend—the importance of certain pivotal events that brought us to this point. As the first decade of the 21^st century, consumed by the Bush years of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was coming to a close, elements of Western and Saudi intelligence were deeply involved in orchestrating what is now known as the Arab Spring. As these plans were being laid, the process to select a new U.S. President was in progress. Specifically, the selection of the democratic nominee between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama was at issue.

Given the requirements needed to accomplish such an ambitious objective as reshaping the power structure of the entire Middle East, it is relevant to cite the “odd meeting” that occurred during the Biderberg Conference in Chantilly, Virginia attended by Obama and Clinton, almost a year to the day (or exactly one calendar year if you use the starting and end dates) before Obama’s infamously important Cairo speech. It was on June 5, 2008 that Obama and Clinton went out of their way to ditch the press and sneak off to the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and other globalist leaders were meeting at the Bilderberg conference. Shortly thereafter, it was Obama who was selected as the democratic nominee and ultimately, the next leader of the United States. A wise selection, perhaps, considering the globalist plans as detailed herein.

Whatever happened at that secret meeting, Obama was ultimately named as the 44^th President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton was appointed as his Secretary of State.

From the very outset of the Obama foreign policy agenda, the intent to reshape the power structure of the Middle East was telegraphed to the world, but few understood the far reaching and world changing implications of this policy. On June 4, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama delivered his “New Beginnings” speech at Cairo University as referenced above. Perhaps the new restructuring of power within the Middle East was discussed at the ranch of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, located outside Riyadh, where he spent the night on his way to Cairo. From that point forward, it became increasingly obvious that the Saudi agenda was pushing America’s foreign, strategic and even military agenda throughout the Middle East. Obama’s bow to the Saudi king was deep, all we saw was his bony posterior protuberance, which is a lesson in political, or globalist perspective.

Obama: A necessary Saudi asset

At the risk of appearing to digress, it is nonetheless important to revisit the controversy surrounding the legend of the man who is known as Barack Hussein Obama. We should recall the influence of the Saudis over Obama, from his college years to his presidential campaign. Was it not Saudi influence that paved his way into higher academia? During his campaign where he seemed to be cash poor, was there not controversy surrounding the contributions made to his campaign through anonymous internet donations, made possible through the campaigns failure to adhere to standard protections against fraudulent and illegal giving? Suddenly, Obama had funds to carry him through the election cycle, many thousands untraceable to their origin but seemingly originating from overseas and in particular, Saudi Arabia.

Let’s also recall that the controversy surrounding the background and Constitutional eligibility of Obama remains at issue. The long form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) still lacks the proper authentication to pass for legitimate documentation, and the person responsible for its origination was mysteriously the only fatality of nine occupants of a small plane that made a water landing off the coast of Hawaii last year. That’s quite a coincidence.

The truth, at least from my vantage point as a veteran investigator experienced in background investigations of top executives to hold their positions in Fortune 500 companies, the man known as Barack Hussein Obama has failed to furnish any authenticated proof of his Constitutional eligibility to hold office. Contrary to the corporate media, this issue has never been resolved in any court. This raises not merely a point of law, but the subject of allegiance. Look at the world today and ask yourself whether the commissions or omissions of Obama have benefitted the United States. If not, who or what nation appears to be the primary beneficiary of his agenda?

Much like the secret meeting in Chantilly where it would appear that critical decisions were made outside of the public’s purview and in violation of the Logan Act, it appears that there is a hidden power structure behind this particular man, and a concurrent shield of protection by the media to avoid any meaningful probes of his background. To mention any such things, however, is to be shunned, ostracized, and vilified.

ISIS in gestation

 It strains credulity that the most powerful intelligence apparatus in the world didn’t see the formation of ISIS coming. The closer one looks, the more that can be seen in the creation of this nebulous entity that is unrestricted by borders, which is a very important and significant characteristic of this threat. ISIS was created by design, with the full knowledge of those in power.

As the world watched the transformation of power in the Middle East through what is referred to as the Arab Spring, American intelligence assets landed on the shores of Libya. The landing contingent included U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was previously involved in diplomatic relations with Syria. Shortly thereafter and with the help of U.S. and other Western and Saudi intelligence assets, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a now pliant and co-operating ally against terrorists, became the next victim of this U.S.-Saudi led agenda. Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted the news with shameful and unstatesman-like giddiness. In Libya, with Gaddafi removed and his son imprisoned, the U.S., with the aid of the British, French, Saudis, Qataris and others, established the largest CIA logistics center in Benghazi to ship arms and fighters across North Africa to Syria via Turkey.

While Michael Reagan was perhaps the first to write about this illegal covert arms operation in his column Building on a kernel of truth, I have authored more than four dozen reports on the role of Benghazi and the road to World War III. It is Benghazi where the truth must win out to prevent us from entering our death race to Damascus, or the beginning of World War III. To date, everyone has been misdirected, or intentionally directed to the “red herring” of diplomatic security as the proximate cause of the death of four Americans in Benghazi. It is nothing of the sort. The attack at Benghazi was an attack by proxy to stop the flow of arms and fighters on a mission to oust Assad and destabilize Syria, which is Russia’s red line in the sand.
Regarding Benghazi, the Select Committee on Benghazi, led by Trey Gowdy, will begin in about a month. We shall see whether this committee will be effective in ferreting out the truth, or be muzzled like the other queries before it. I expect that we will hear one of two things; either the committee will succumb to the official narrative that Benghazi was “a failure of security,” or less likely, provide the refreshing truth that it was a covert yet broadly orchestrated mission involving interwoven groups running arms and fighters across North Africa with sights set on Syria. The latter would then identify the true beneficiaries of this globalist agenda—the Saudis—and their captive agent in the Oval Office. This will not be permitted to happen, in my view, considering the “gang of eight” who knew the agenda far in advance.

As Benghazi blew up in the faces of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the larger plot to oust Assad had to take different forms. Yet, the American public had awakened, even if for a few moments, and said “no” and “hell no” to yet another offensive or war in the Middle East. This pushback, however, did not stop the Obama-Saudi alliance from additional attempts to engage us in a conflict. We were treated to false flag events that included a chemical weapons attack purportedly conducted at the hands of Assad. Other attempts were made to engage us, yet our collective stomachs were full of the bile of this Renegade-in-Chief’s agenda.

As time marched on, we bore witness to the selection and installation of John O. Brennan as head of the CIA, an interesting choice considering his former involvement not just with the CIA, but with Obama and in particular, the Saudis. It is important to note his reported role in the passport office break-in in 2008, and his possible role with the video that supposedly sparked riots throughout the Middle East, leading to the attacks of 9/11/12. We also saw Hillary Rodham Clinton extricate herself from Foggy Bottom, a political move as she must insulate herself from the continued controversy of a foreign policy contrary to U.S. interests, especially if she intends to seek the 2016 democratic presidential nomination.
Clinton’s natural replacement was none other than John Kerry, whose personal and professional history is conducive to the globalist agenda. It is at this point where we see the actual birth of ISIS.

The birth of ISIS

During John Kerry’s Middle East foreign policy tour during the 2013 Christmas and 2014 New Year, we heard Kerry state that the United States will not intervene in Iraq, which at this time is falling like a rock to jihadist terror groups. It was at this time that ISIS was birthed from conception to reality by Obama’s “hands-off” approach and Kerry’s implementation of the same. The U.S. essentially left our military hardware, Toyota Tundras and Humvees, keys still in the ignition, arms and other assets and walked away upon orders from the Renegade-in-Chief.

This action permitted the formation of a rag-tag group of hardline terrorists to suddenly become fully armed and hardened, now birthed with the necessary firepower to wipe out any Iraqi military and police presence, the presence we trained, equipped and promised to back-up, yet unceremoniously reneged on our promise. This allowed ISIS members to give the Iraqi military and police one of two choices: leave or die. Many chose the former, but unfortunately many others were caught in the latter, looking for the assistance promised by the U.S. They are no longer looking.

Now equipped with some of the best hardware American taxpayer money could buy, ISIS began to grow and overtake the region, perhaps somewhere on the eighth hole of one of Obama’s perpetual golf games. Was it incompetence? It would appear doubtful based on the evidence to date.

ISIS as a threat

Understand that the ouster of Assad against the wishes of Putin remains a primary objective of this globalist crowd of U.S. and foreign leaders. We’ve opened up a new front via the creation of ISIS to get to Assad and Syria, a move fully understood by Putin. Meanwhile, the globalist leaders, including the IMF which was first on the ground in Ukraine, also opened up the Ukrainian front against Russia and Putin, to keep him occupied while the U.S.-Saudi globalist alliance is busy in the Middle East. We are watching a global chess game for power at multiple levels, and these seemingly disparate events are linked by a globalist agenda.
The globalist leaders seem to be making their boldest moves yet to bring about the conditions necessary to unite the world against a nebulous terror threat known as ISIS. The open southern borders have provided unfettered access into the United States by ISIS members, or at least the perception of infiltration, as we prepare for the next 9/11 event. While we’ve seen so many “false flag” scenarios in our lifetime, from the Gulf of Tonkin to more recent domestic events, we can be certain of one thing: an event on par with, or exceeding that of 9/11, is needed to get the attention of the American public. It is the only thing that will serve to galvanize the public into acceptance of a new front, a new war, a new offensive, or the method to get us to rally behind the agenda we have so far rejected. This is the reason that the situation today is so precarious. Simply stated, false flags and the cry for the need of additional foreign entanglements aren’t working anymore.

Is ISIS a threat to us? Indeed it is, but one made in the basement laboratories of the globalists and the lawless leaders of our own government, and those of our allies.

The end-game objective is to create a threat so dangerous and nebulous that we must come together in a globalist fashion. Most Americans would not relinquish their national sovereignty to a one world government structure—not now, not yet. They would not consider a one world, or “new world” order under the present conditions. The attacks of September 11, 2001 softened us up to accept a Third Reich formation of “homeland security” and caused many otherwise rational Americans to accept a fatal blow to our civil liberties. Think about what the next attack of an equal or greater magnitude will accomplish. Oh, by the way, does anyone recall a recent report of a few missing nuclear weapons?

May God be with us all.

Airborne Transmission of Ebola

Guest Post By Ronald R. Cherry, MD 

The public has been misinformed regarding human-to-human transmission of Ebola. Assurances that Ebola can be transmitted only through direct contact with bodily fluids need to be seriously scrutinized in the wake of the West Africa outbreak.

The Canadian Health Department states that airborne transmission of Ebola is strongly suspected and the CDC admits that Ebola can be transmitted in situations where there is no physical contact between people, i.e.: via direct airborne inhalation into the lungs or into the eyes, or via contact with airborne fomites which adhere to nearby surfaces. That helps explain why 81 doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers have died in West Africa to date. These courageous healthcare providers use careful CDC-level barrier precautions such as gowns, gloves, and head cover, but it appears they have inadequate respiratory and eye protection. Dr. Michael V. Callahan, an infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital who has worked in Africa during Ebola outbreaks said that minimum CDC level precautions

“led to the infection of my nurses and physician co-workers who came in contact with body fluids.”

Currently the CDC advises healthcare workers to use goggles and simple face masks for respiratory and eye protection, and a fitted N-95 mask during aerosol-generating medical procedures. Since so many doctors and nurses are dying in West Africa, it is clear that this level of protection is inadequate. Full face respirators with P-100 (HEPA) replacement filters would provide greater airway and eye protection, and I believe this would save the lives of many doctors, nurses, and others who come into close contact with, or in proximity to, Ebola victims.

The United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases conducted a monkey to monkey Ebola study in December 1995, published in The Lancet, Vol. 346. (Here is a link to the abstract, but the entire article must be purchased.) Several Rhesus monkeys were infected with Zaire Ebola by intramuscular injection while three control Rhesus monkeys were kept in cages separated 10 feet from the infected monkeys. All of the injected monkeys died of Ebola by day 13 and 2 out of 3 control monkeys died of Ebola by 8 days after that. The authors of this study concluded that:

"The exact mode of transmission to the control monkeys cannot be absolutely determined, although the pattern of pulmonary antigen staining in one of the control monkeys was virtually identical to that reported in experimental Ebola virus aerosol infection in rhesus monkeys, suggesting airborne transmission of the disease via infectious droplets... Fomite or contact droplet transmission of the virus between cages was considered unlikely. Standard procedures in our BL4 containment laboratories have always been successful in the prevention of transmission of Ebola or Marburg virus to uninflected animals. Thus, pulmonary, nasopharyngeal, oral, or conjunctival exposure to airborne droplets of the virus had to be considered as the most likely mode of infection... Our present findings emphasize the advisability of at-risk personnel employing precautions to safeguard against ocular, oral, and nasopharyngeal exposure to the virus."

Another NHP to NHP (monkey-to-monkey) study was published in July of this year. Rhesus monkeys were infected with Ebola via intramuscular injection and they were terminated on day 6 after becoming unresponsive, but without developing vomiting, diarrhea, or apparent respiratory illness. Ebola virus was detected in their blood, and genetic fragments of Ebola were found in their nose, mouth, and rectum, but no intact infectious Ebola virus was found. Control Cynomolgus monkeys were caged 1 foot away from the infected Rhesus monkeys but did not become infected with Ebola. This experiment is not a helpful comparison in human to human Ebola infections which are characterized by GI (vomiting & diarrhea) and respiratory (cough and expectoration of sputum) shedding of the intact infectious virus. The monkeys in this year’s study simply died too fast, not allowing time for them to shed infectious Ebola particles. It goes without saying that monkeys which do not shed infectious Ebola particles cannot transmit Ebola to other monkeys. Had this year’s rhesus monkeys been infected by the nasal route, as was the case in a pig-to-monkey experiment in 2012, or if they had lived up to 13 days as in the 1995 study, allowing time for intact infectious Ebola virus to appear, and thus more closely matching human Ebola disease, then we may well have seen monkey-to-monkey airborne transmission of Ebola. The authors of this study concluded that:

“NHPs [non-human primates such as monkeys] are known to be susceptible to lethal EBOV infection through the respiratory tract [just like humans] putting the onus of the transmission on the ability of the source to shed infectious particles.”

We know that airborne transmission of Ebola occurs from pigs to monkeys in experimental settings. We also know that healthcare workers like Dr. Kent Brantly are contracting Ebola in West Africa despite CDC-level barrier protection measures against physical contact with the bodies and body fluids of Ebola victims, so it only makes sense to conclude that some -- possibly many -- of these doctors, nurses, and ancillary healthcare workers are being infected via airborne transmission. It makes perfect sense that sick humans, as they vomit, have diarrhea, cough, and expectorate sputum, and as medical procedures are performed on them, have the ability to shed infectious Ebola particles into the air at a similar or higher level compared to Sus scrofa (wild boar) in the pig-to-monkey study.
Dr. Brantley acquired Ebola while strictly following CDC guidelines (simple mask, goggles, or face shield, gloves, gown, leg covering, shoe covers), so it is likely he became infected by inhaling contaminated droplet nuclei into his lungs or having them settle into his conjunctival (eye) sacs despite the use of CDC level protection against direct contact. Dr. Brantly apparently did not use a full-face respirator with P-100 filters, but rather a simple or N-95 face mask. An interviewer noted that

“Brantly says he isn't sure how he got infected. He's certain he didn't violate any [CDC] safety guidelines.”

It is pretty clear from the current West African Ebola outbreak, particularly in the case of Dr. Kent Brantley and the doctors and nurses working with Dr. Callahan in previous Ebola epidemics, that Ebola-infected human beings are very good at shedding Ebola particles, particularly in the hospital setting. People gravely ill with Ebola are in no way comparable to the Ebola-infected monkeys described in this year’s experimental laboratory setting.
Aerosol-generating medical procedures such as surgical operations, endotracheal intubation, airway suctioning,and the operation of mechanical ventilators or BiPap devices place healthcare workers at very great risk, and I suspect even bathing patients is likely to generate infectious airborne droplets into the air. “Casual contact” or spending hours in the same room with Ebola patients also places medical personnel at significant risk, even with the CDC-recommended protective measures listed above. In retrospect it is clear that Dr. Brantly was not at “low risk”, as the CDC would have us believe. As Dr. Michael V. Callahan observed first-hand, and as the case of Dr. Brantly demonstrates, the current CDC guidelines are inadequate for preventing nosocomial transmission of Ebola from patients to medical workers.

It is not feasible for all medical workers in the United States to use "spacesuits" with a self-contained breathing apparatus air supply, as used in BL4 labs and at hospitals specially equipped for Ebola, but at a minimum, the American healthcare system should immediately upgrade respiratory / eye protection to full face mask respirators with P-100 filters for known or suspected cases of Ebola.

The primary mode of person-to-person Ebola transmission is through direct contact with the body or body fluids of Ebola victims, but it is unwise to ignore the airborne mode. Current evidence supports healthcare workers using a higher level of airway and eye protection than is currently recommended. Although less airborne than Influenza, it is reasonable to conclude that the West African strain of Ebola is at times spread by airborne means since over 170 medical workers have been infected to date, with 81 dead. These victims were using CDC level protective measures against direct contact with the bodies and body fluids of Ebola patients, leaving airborne transmission as the remaining alternative mode. Simple face masks, and N-95 masks as well, are not good enough to filter out Ebola contaminated airborne particles, and they do not have silicon rubber seals against the face to prevent entrainment (leaking) of contaminated room air in clinic and hospital settings. Likewise, goggles and face shields are inferior in eye protection compared to full face respirators with P-100 filters. Since CDC-level respiratory/eye precautions for Ebola are inadequate for healthcare workers in West Africa, I assume they will also be inadequate in the United States.

If Ebola comes here via infected individuals from affected overseas areas, and spreads from these cases to American medical personnel, the damage to our society would be greatly magnified. Not only would we lose doctors, nurses and other medical workers who could no longer provide care to Ebola victims (not to mention loss of care for the normal influx of patients), the medical team would its self become sources of Ebola transmission to others. Considering the deadly virulence of the Ebola virus, with a 50-90% death rate, it be behooves us to err on the side of safety rather than on the side of risk by increasing the level of respiratory and eye protection for our medical teams.

The pressing question is why are we being reassured and reassured again with countless soundbites in the mainstream media and even professional guidance literature that Ebola is not airborne despite well documented research of the possibility of the contrary. We can only wonder.