THOU SHALT NOT
STEAL ( ( ( ( This Includes Oil ) ) ) ) Neither Donald Trump Nor the US MilitaryAre Above GOD'S LAW! All People of Conscience Must Stand Against This
Blatant War Crime
Audio Excerpt: The Last American Vagabond - Video: Baghdadi Deception Exposed, Israel
Bombs Gaza After Phantom Rocket & US Violates Own Syria Sanctions
“In international law, you can’t take civilian goods or seize them. That would amount to a war
crime,” Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh Burke chair in strategy at the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies. “Oil exports were almost the only Iraqi source of money. So you would have to pay
for government salaries, maintain the army, and you have triggered a level of national animosity far worse
than we did. It would be the worst kind of neo-colonialism. Not even Britain did that.”
[bold emphasis added]
Jay Hakes, the author of A Declaration of Energy Independence, about the relationship between US
national security and Middle Eastern oil, was similarly unsparing.“It is hard to overstate the stupidity of
this idea,” he wrote on Real Clear Energy. “Even our allies in the Middle East regard oil in their lands as a
gift from God and the only major source of income to develop their countries. Seizing Iraq’s oil would make our
current allies against Isis our new enemies. We would likely, at the least, have to return to the massive
military expenditures and deployment of American troops at the war’s peak.”
Hakes pointed out that Gen Douglas MacArthur, who Trump professes to admire, did the opposite
when he oversaw the occupation of Japan: MacArthur brought resources in to help fend off starvation of the
population.“By giving up the spoils of war, MacArthur and the United States earned the respect of the Japanese
and the world, helping legitimise America’s status as leader of the free world,” he argued.
While gaining control of key resources for partitioning Syria and destabilizing the government in
Damascus, the U.S.’ main goal in occupying the oil and water rich northeastern Syria is aimed not at Syria but
at Iran.
As U.S.-based intelligence firm Stratfor noted in 2002, taking control of Syria’s northeast would greatly
complicate the land route between Syria and Iran as well as the land route between Iran and Lebanon. In
January, Tillerson made this objective clear. Speaking at Stanford University, Tillerson noted that “diminishing” Iran’s influence in Syria was a key goal
for the U.S. and a major reason for its occupation of the northeast.
By cutting off the route between Tehran and Damascus, the U.S. would greatly destabilize and weaken the
region’s “resistance axis” and the U.S. — along with its regional allies – would be able to greatly increase
its regional influence and control. Given the alliance between Syria and Iran, as well as their mutual defense
accord, the occupation is necessary in order to weaken both nations and a key precursor to
Trump administration plans to isolate and wage war against Iran.
With internal reports warning of the U.S.’ waning position as the “world’s only superpower,” the U.S. has no
intention of leaving Syria, as it is becoming increasingly desperate to maintain its influence in the region
and to maintain as well the influence of the corporations that benefit the most from U.S. empire.
Daniel
Davis, Matthew Hoh, and Danny Sjursen reflect on America’s war in Afghanistan in light of the Washington Post’s
publishing of a trove of formerly confidential documents on the war. The report, which is being hailed as this
generations Pentagon Papers, details the ways officials in the Bush, Obama,
and Trump administrations have lied about the progress being made in Afghanistan and the need to keep troops
there. Even though lots of people like Davis, Hoh, and Sjursen have been speaking out for years
about America’s forever wars, they say that it’s embarrassing for top brass to admit that lower level officers
could see strategic failures that the war planners could not—and so voices like theirs mostly just don’t get
heard. At some point all three guests had moments that convinced them they couldn’t keep contributing to this
lost cause in good conscience, and have since striven to show the world what’s really going on.
We need to bring back a healthy skepticism, they say, of the idea that America’s
military is a wise force for good in the world. (bold emphasis
added)
The most important function of the Afghanistan Papers is to confirm that
government officials have been utterly dishonest with the public about U.S. achievements and
progress in Afghanistan. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General at SIGAR, admitted to the Post
that the documents prove that
“the American people have constantly been lied
to.” ... By comparison, the Afghanistan Papers reveal that officials privately knew they were
fueling corruption, and that “Much of the money … ended up in the pockets of overpriced contractors
or corrupt Afghan officials, while U.S.-financed schools, clinics and roads fell into disrepair, if
they were built at all.”
Loss of Liberty (Israeli False Flag Attack in
1967)
The Unspoken Truth About The USS Liberty
& The Coming False Flag Against Iran
The Last American Vagabond
Published on May 16, 2019
This is an excerpt of The Daily Wrap Up 5/15.
"Evidence" Presented To UN On "Tanker
Attack" Doesn't Mention Iran & Saudis Behind Sudan Killings
The Last American Vagabond
Streamed live June 8, 2019
Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours. Not getting a YouTube notification? Sign up for Wire and
join the TLAV group to get a PING from me before every live show. https://wire.com
USS
Liberty Survivor Ron Kukal Testimonial
USS Liberty Veterans Association
Published on Jan 22, 2018
USS Liberty Survivor Ron Kukal shares his experience during the attack on the USS Liberty and
continuing cover-up of that attack by the US government.
The US has threatened to stage an
attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don't let a war based on false pretenses happen
again. Please share this video.
Soldiers Please Listen
To be confronted with the fact that you are
about to be ordered to commit an atrocity must be extremely uncomfortable. But the consequences of avoiding that
confrontation are unacceptable.
You can access this folder without having a dropbox account, but if you do decide to setup a free account use this
link to set up your account http://db.tt/pqh9sC0Y and my account will be granted more free space to use so that I
can upload more videos and materials.
-------------------
“Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental
faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in
the military service.” ~ Major General Smedley Butler “If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would
remain in the army.” ~ Frederick the Great “I find in existence a . . . dangerous concept that the members of the
armed forces owe their primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the
executive branch of the Government, rather than to the country and its Constitution they are sworn to defend. No
proposition could be more dangerous.” ~ General Douglas MacArthur “There is one thing in the world more wicked than
the desire to command, and that is the will to obey.” ~ W. K. Clifford, mathematician and philosopher After almost
ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, the deadliest day for U.S. forces was just a few weeks ago on Saturday,
August 6. On that day thirty U.S. military personnel were killed when their helicopter was shot down. The majority
of those killed were said to be elite Navy Seals from the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden.
The question that was never asked about this event by any major news media outlet is a question that I (and a
few others) have been asking since the war in Afghanistan began: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan?
The ones who bear the most responsibility for the 9/11 attacks are the pilots who flew the planes, none of whom
were from Afghanistan. No American was ever harmed by anyone in Afghanistan until the U.S. military invaded and
occupied that country. The United States even supported the Muslim insurgents and Afghan militants when they were
freedom-fighting Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of
Afghans are now dead who had never threatened America and had nothing to do with 9/11. Over 1,700 American soldiers
are also dead, and many thousands more have life-altering injuries.
So, what is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan? The purpose of the U.S. military should be limited to
defending the United States, securing its borders, guarding its shores, patrolling its coasts, and enforcing a
no-fly zone over its skies. Period. To do otherwise is to pervert the purpose of the military. This means the
purpose of the U.S. military should never be to defend other countries, secure their borders, guard their shores,
patrol their coasts, and enforce no-fly zones over their skies. This also means that the purpose of the U.S.
military should never be to provide disaster relief, dispense humanitarian aid, supply peacekeepers, enforce UN
resolutions, spread goodwill, rebuild infrastructure, establish democracy, nation build, change regimes, eradicate
drugs, contain communism, open markets, keep oil pipelines flowing, revive public services, build schools, or train
armies in any foreign country. This also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to remedy
oppression, human rights violations, sectarian violence, ill treatment of women, forced labor, child labor,
religious or political persecution, poverty, genocide, famine, or injustice in any foreign country. And it
certainly also means that the purpose of the U.S. military should never be to launch preemptive strikes in foreign
countries, fight wars in foreign countries, drop bombs on foreign countries, assassinate people in foreign
countries, torture people in foreign countries, takes sides in a civil war in foreign countries, station troops in
foreign countries, maintain bases in foreign countries, attack foreign countries, invade foreign countries, occupy
foreign countries, or unleash civil unrest in foreign countries. Clearly, no U.S. soldier, sailor, or marine had
any business stepping foot in Afghanistan in 2001 or flying a helicopter there in 2011. Those who returned in a
coffin (if enough of their body parts could be found) died unnecessarily, duped, in vain, and for a lie. So again I ask: What is the U.S. military doing in
Afghanistan?
The only answer is unconditional obedience. Although some U.S. soldiers, because of misguided zeal, may have
wanted to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, few would choose to go now if it were their decision to make. But soldiers
were told to go and they went, and soldiers are still being told to go. They didn’t consider the history of
Afghanistan. They didn’t consider the purpose of the military. They didn’t consider U.S. foreign policy. They
didn’t consider Chalmers Johnson. They didn’t consider the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t consider the
Constitution. They didn’t consider the Soviet Union’s failed attempt to subdue Afghanistan. They didn’t consider
their families. They didn’t consider the cost to U.S. taxpayers. They didn’t consider their own mental and physical
health. They didn’t consider the thousands of dead or maimed Afghan civilians. Even worse, those that did consider
some or all of these things went to Afghanistan anyway. They may not have even bought in the baloney about fighting
for our freedoms or fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here,” but they went anyway.
Unconditional obedience. If you want to see a perfect example of unconditional obedience on display, then just look
at the recent interview on the Diane Rehm show about “Navy Seals and
U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan.” After announcing that U.S. forces were continuing their investigation into the
shooting down of the helicopter in Afghanistan, Diane introduced her guests in the studio, Thom Shanker, the
Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times and Paul Pillar of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at
Georgetown University, and by phone from Plymouth, Massachusetts, former Navy SEAL lieutenant commander Anthony
O’Brien. Joining the panel later by phone was Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and
former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
The second caller to the show was someone named Don, who made this comment: I just wanted to comment real quick.
Any time you have generals on the air and they’re pressured to give some reasons why we’re in this war in
Afghanistan, they always fall back to a main reason being women’s rights, so girls can go to school, you know, for
all the Taliban oppression. And I was just wondering if your panelists thought that that was really a legitimate
reason, that we should have our military spending billions of dollars a year in this country to fight for women’s
rights. Diane referred the caller to Anthony O’Brien, who gave this reply: I agree with the caller’s premise. The
primary reason why you engage the military at the strategic level is for the national security interest of the
United States of America. And as much as I’m a fighter for the rights of women, it is – it’s not our duty in the
military, primarily, to protect the women or stop drug trades, et cetera. However, the president is the boss, and
he calls the shots. And if – whether it be President Bush or President Obama, when they tell us where to go and
when, we give a snappy salute, and we do what we’re told. Diane then sought a comment from Thom Shanker. Well, I
just want to give Anthony a snappy salute ’cause his answer is perfect. I mean, we hear so often these
conversations among civilians: why are we there, I don’t want us there or the opposite, we should be there. The
military does not assign itself these missions. They follow the orders of the elected civilian leadership who are
representing, Diane, your caller and everybody else. So that is where the responsibility for these decisions
resides at the end of the day. My only comment is simply this: Only God deserves unconditional obedience.
Unconditional obedience is why Nazis killed Jews in concentration camps, Japanese pilots bombed Pearl Harbor, East
German border guards killed their fellow citizens fleeing over the Berlin Wall to the West, and Soviet soldiers
invaded Afghanistan before U.S. soldiers did. Cursed be unconditional obedience.
"The assassination of IRGC General Soleimani ordered by Donald Trump on January 2,
2020 is tantamount to an Act of War
against Iran." The War Hoax Redux. How to Start Another
War https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-hoax-redux/5680814
[!!PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE!!]
False Reports Of Missiles Hitting US Base, As US Gov Says Soleimani
Killing Was "Preemptive" Defense
The Last American Vagabond | First published at 02:01 UTC
on January 3rd, 2020.
Round Two: New US Drone Strikes Kill 6 In Iraq After Targeting Two
Vehicles Carrying PMU Officials
The Last American Vagabond | First published at 04:09 UTC
on January 4th, 2020.
"...We need to come to grips with the fact that it
is our government that's the bad guy today. They are the ones lying, cheating, and stealing. They
are the ones carrying out these evil agendas that are killing people. And it's the perfect use of
that word. To actually pretend like you're saving people but then turn around and take actions that
kill those same people, there is no other better word for that. And I hope that we can all see
that." -Ryan Cristián - The Last American
Vagabond -
...Don't Get The Aggressor
Twisted
IR 655: 22 years later, US will not apologize
RT America
Published on Jul 2, 2010
While Americans are celebrating Independence day this weekend, Iranians all over the world will
be morning the death of nearly 300 hundred Iranian citizens at the hands of the US navy. On July 3, 1988, the USS
Vincennes shot down Iranian airliner 655 en route to Dubai. The incident sparked controversy and it was later
revealed the Navy tried to cover-up the incident. The event also came at the end of the Iran - Iraq war, marking a
dark chapter in US history in the region.
Iranians all over the world will be
morning the death of nearly 300 hundred Iranian citizens at the hands of the US
navy
We Need to Talk About the Iran
Protests
corbettreport
Published on Jan 5, 2018
Are these protests in Iran spontaneous, or are they the result of another regime change operation?
This week on The Corbett Report James explores the past, present and future of US and Israeli
involvement in Iran, and the attempts to foment unrest in the country.
Trump Recruits Zionist Neocon John
Bolton for War with Iran
Blackstone Intelligence Network
Published on Mar 22, 2018
In 2016, I predicted that Trump would bring John Bolton into his administration to
prep for war with Iran. I was right. Trump's administration is completely under the control of the
globalists and you have to be blind to not see it.
USA, Israel & Saudi Arabia Prepping for Zionist War With
Iran
End Times News Report
Published on Dec 9, 2017
War with Iran is inevitable. The Zionist puppet masters have been trying for years to start a war
with Iran and that reality has never been closer than it is today. The USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia
are all making coordinated moves in preparation for a major war.
“This channel [Truthstream Media] has covered multiple times that Iran is so
much in the crosshairs, it’s such a persistent target. It’s such a country that these war generals
and policy wonks in Washington are salivating over, that an actual entire book was written by
theBrookings Institute - yeah satan’s own think tank - raising the question, ’which path to
Persia?’ Not whether there would be a conflict in Iran, not whether they seek regime change, but
how to get there and maintain international credibility. And they ran through everything from a
false flag attack, to a joint air strike with Israel or Saudi
Arabia, to a domino situation with Syria or surrounding countries, to a PT boat confrontation and
much more.”
-- Aaron Dykes, journalist, Truthstream Media, video
: While Everyone Was Busy Being Distracted by Texas… --
Watch: Pompeo admits CIA lies,
cheats, plans Iran attack
RT America
Published on Jun 19, 2019
Is the US government preparing to lie its way into another war? State Sec. Mike Pompeo has
admitted to “lying, cheating and stealing” as CIA director. Rick Sanchez reminds us that as citizens, it’s our
responsibility to be aware of what’s going on in our government and to hold officials to account.
NO MORE
WAR! Jake Morphonios - 2019 Red Pill Expo - Full Speech
Blackstone Intelligence Network
Published on Jun 14, 2019
Jake Morphonios of Blackstone Intelligence Network at the #RedPillExpo on June 9, 2019 - speaking
out against conflict and proclaiming a message of peace and unity. A higher quality version of this speech (with
better audio) will be available online soon at Red Pill University.
Executive
Over-Reach: Pompeo Dismisses Congress In Push for Iran War
RonPaulLibertyReport
Streamed June 19, 2019
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made it clear to Members of Congress that he does not believe
any Congressional authorization is necessary for a US war against Iran. Pompeo claims the post-9/11 authorization
to fight al-Qaeda is sufficient. Will Congress roll over?
The real story (no BS) behind the US attack on
Iran
RT America | Jan 3, 2020
A world-renowned panel of experts joins Rick Sanchez for this special on the act of
war that was the US's assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. University of Tehran
Professor Mohammed Marandi gives us the latest from Iran, while Congressman Ron Paul discusses the
military-industrial complex. Former UN Weapons inspector John Ritter, Grayzone editor Max
Blumenthal, former US diplomat Jim Jatras, NRS Special Correspondent Michele Greenstein, and Boom
Bust host Christy Ai discuss why this attack occurred and what will happen next.
Qassem Soleimani: Martyr Of Iranian Revolution
South Front | Jan 6, 2020
If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the
project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru, http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront, BTC:
3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH:
0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9
This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with guest host
Hesher from ACR, covering the top stories in the US, Europe and
Internationally. This week has seen a startling turn over world events, as the US has attacked an
Iraqi military base, and followed that up by assassinated leaders in both Iranian and Iraqi
military organizaions. Meanwhile, President Trump is unhinged, going wild on Twitter threatening to bomb Iran, its
oil industry and cultural sites next if they dare respond to America’s unprovoked attack
against them. We’ll connected with Patrick Henningsen in London
who has been reporting on this story this week, as well as political commentator Daniel
Spaulding, and more. In the second hour we’ll also speak with the SUNDAY WIRE’s Roving
Correspondent for Culture & Sport, Basil Valentine. All this and much more.
Enjoy the show…
[A MUST SEE]
The Signs Of The Times
- Message by Dr. Chuck Baldwin -
LibertyFellowshipMT
This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, January 5, 2020, during the service at Liberty
Fellowship. To purchase a copy of this message or to support the fellowship, please visit
LibertyFellowshipMT.com.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani
last week because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. I don’t believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an
effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal,
to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a
steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump’s obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring
about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on.
At some point, when we’ve been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a “threat” that we must
“take out” with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock
solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don’t believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to Iran and Iranian
culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no
capacity to attack the United States, Iran’s retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US
government officials stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump
that will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no
reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for
nothing.[bold emphasis added]
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior Iranian military
officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions
against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil.
It may have been a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and
they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let the people of the
Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon
pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable
to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It
engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy.
And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only
bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America’s sake we demand the return
of US troops from the Middle East!
"I don’t believe them. Why not?
Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an
effort to whip up enough support for a US attack."
"Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression - and let the
people of the Middle East solve their own problems."
On Saturday, September 14th, two oil refineries and other oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia were hit and
set ablaze by 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles, dramatically slashing Saudi Arabia’s oil production by
half, from about ten million to five million barrels per day. On September 18, the Trump administration, blaming
Iran, announced it was imposing more sanctions on Iran and voices close to Donald Trump are calling
for military action. But this attack should lead to just the opposite response: urgent calls for an immediate end
to the war in Yemen and an end to US economic warfare against Iran.
The question of the origin of the attack is still under dispute. The
Houthi government in Yemen immediately took responsibility. This is not the first time the Houthis have
brought the conflict directly onto Saudi soil as they resist the constant Saudi bombardment of Yemen. Last year,
Saudi officials said they had intercepted more than 100 missiles fired from Yemen.
This is, however, the most spectacular and sophisticated attack to date. The Houthis claim they
got help from within Saudi Arabia itself, stating that this operation "came after an accurate intelligence
operation and advance monitoring and cooperation of honorable and free men within the Kingdom."
This most likely refers to Shia Saudis in the Eastern Province, where the bulk of Saudi oil facilities are
located. Shia Muslims, who make up an estimated 15-20 percent of the population in this
Sunni-dominated country, have faced discrimination for decades and have a history of uprisings against the regime. So it is plausible
that some members of the Shia community inside the kingdom may have provided intelligence or logistical support for
the Houthi attack, or even helped Houthi forces to launch missiles or drones from inside Saudi Arabia.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, however, immediately blamed Iran, noting that that the air strikes hit the west
and northwest sides of the oil facilities, not the the south side that faces toward Yemen. But Iran is not to the
west or northwest either – it is to the northeast. In any case, which part of the facilities were hit does not
necessarily have any bearing on which direction the missiles or drones were launched from. Iran strongly
denies conducting the attack.
CNN reported that Saudi and
US investigators claim “with very high probability” that the attack was launched from an Iranian base in Iran close
to the border with Iraq, but that neither the US nor Saudi Arabia has produced any evidence to support these
claims.
But in the same report, CNN reported that missile fragments found at the scene appeared to be from Quds-1
missiles, an Iranian model that the Houthis unveiled in July under the slogan, "The Coming Period of Surprises,"
and which they may have used in a strike on Abha Airport in southern Saudi Arabia in June.
A Saudi Defense Ministry press briefing
on Wednesday, September 18th, told the world’s press that the wreckage of missiles based on Iranian designs proves
Iranian involvement in the attack, and that the cruise missiles flew from the north, but the Saudis could not yet
give details of where they were launched from.
Also on Wednesday, President Trump announced that he has ordered the U.S. Treasury Department to "substantially"
increase its sanctions against Iran. But existing US sanctions already place such huge obstacles in the way of
Iranian oil exports and imports of food, medicine and other consumer products that it is hard to imagine what
further pain these new sanctions can possibly inflict on the besieged
people of Iran.
US allies have been slow to accept the US claims that Iran launched the attack. Japan’s Defense Minister
told reporters "we believe the Houthis carried out the attack based on the statement claiming
responsibility." The
United Arab Emirates (UAE) expressed frustration that the US was so quick to point its finger at Iran.
Tragically, this is how US administrations of both parties have responded to such incidents in recent years,
seizing any pretext to demonize and threaten their enemies and keep the American public psychologically prepared
for war.
If Iran provided the Houthis with weapons or logistical support for this attack, this would represent but a tiny
fraction of the bottomless supply of weapons and logistical support that the US and its European allies have
provided to Saudi Arabia. In 2018 alone, the Saudi military budget was $67.6 billion, making it the
world’s third-highest spender on weapons and military forces after the US and China.
Under the laws of war, the Yemenis are perfectly entitled to defend themselves. That would include striking back
at the oil facilities that produce the fuel for Saudi warplanes that have conducted over 17,000 air raids, dropping
at least 50,000 mostly U.S.-made bombs and missiles, throughout more than four long years of war on Yemen. The
resulting humanitarian crisis also kills a Yemeni child
every 10 minutes from preventable diseases, starvation and malnutrition.
The Yemen Data
Project has classified nearly a third of the Saudi air strikes as attacks on non-military sites, which
ensure that a large proportion of at least 90,000 Yemenis reported killed in the war
have been civilians. This makes the Saudi-led air campaign a flagrant and systematic war crime for which Saudi
leaders and senior officials of every country in their "coalition" should be held criminally accountable.
That would include President Obama, who led the US into the war in 2015, and President Trump, who has kept the
US in this coalition even as its systematic atrocities have been exposed and shocked the whole world.
The Houthis’ newfound ability to strike back at the heart of Saudi Arabia could be a catalyst for peace, if the
world can seize this opportunity to convince the Saudis and the Trump administration that their horrific, failed
war is not worth the price they will have to pay to keep fighting it. But if we fail to seize this moment, it could
instead be the prelude to a much wider war.
So, for the sake of the starving and dying people of Yemen and the people of Iran suffering under the "maximum
pressure" of US economic sanctions, as well as the future of our own country and the world, this is a pivotal
moment.
If the US military, or Israel or Saudi Arabia, had a viable plan to attack Iran without triggering a wider war,
they would have done so long ago. We must tell Trump, Congressional leaders and all our elected representatives that we reject another war and that we
understand how easily any US attack on Iran could quickly spiral into an uncontainable and catastrophic regional or
world war.
President Trump has said he is waiting for the Saudis to tell him who they hold responsible for these strikes,
effectively placing the US armed forces at the command of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.
Throughout his presidency, Trump has conducted US foreign policy as a puppet of both Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed
Bin Salman and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, making a mockery of his "America First" political rhetoric. As
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard quipped,
"Having our country act as Saudi Arabia’s bitch is not ‘America First.’"
Senator Bernie Sanders has issued a
statement that Trump has no authorization from Congress for an attack on Iran and at least 14 other Members of
Congress have made similar statements, including his fellow presidential candidates Senator Warren and Congresswoman Gabbard.
Congress already passed a War Powers Resolution to end US complicity in the Saudi-led war on Yemen, but
Trump vetoed it. The House has revived the resolution and
attached it as an amendment to the FY2020 NDAA military budget bill. If the Senate agrees to keep that
provision in the final bill, it will present Trump with a choice between ending the US role in the war in Yemen or
vetoing the entire 2020 US military budget.
If Congress successfully reclaims its constitutional authority over the US role in this conflict, it could be a
critical turning point in ending the state of permanent war that the US has inflicted on itself and the world since
2001.
If Americans fail to speak out now, we may discover too late that our failure to rein in our venal, warmongering
ruling class has led us to the brink of World War III. We hope this crisis will instead awaken the sleeping giant,
the too silent majority of peace-loving Americans, to speak up decisively for peace and force Trump to put the
interests and the will of the American people above those of his unscrupulous allies.
Exposing The Holes In US
Narrative
Of Burning Saudi Oil Fields
MintPressNews
Published on Sep 23, 2019
It is of course “inconceivable” to the United States that a “rag-tag” force like Yemen’s
Houthis might with home-made weapons outdo the hundred-billion-dollar might and sophistication of the
state-of-the-art systems Washington has lavished upon the Saudis.
Just as the U.S. claimed that all their interventions during the Cold War were to defend
against Soviet aggression, now any region in the Middle East the empire wants expand, exploit and occupy is
conveniently labeled an Iranian outpost, justifying more wars.
In this video, Mnar Muhawesh breaks down the US-Saudi narrative of the burning Saudi oil
fields that is being used as a pretext for war with Iran.
9/23/19 Nasser Arrabyee with the Latest on the War in
Yemen
Nasser Arrabyee comes back for an update on the war in Yemen.
Saudi forces continue to bomb Yemeni cities, and American neocons continue to insist that the war is being
justly prosecuted against the Iran-backed Houthis. Arrabyee says these claims of Iranian support are overblown.
As usual, the American media ignores most of the history and nuances of the war altogether.
- “Saudi-led coalition launches 27 airstrikes on Yemen in 24 hours: Houthi
spokesman” (China.org)
- “Saudi Arabia begins new operation against Yemen’s Houthi rebels near
Hodeidah” (
The Defense Post)
Nasser Arrabyee is a Yemeni journalist based in Sana’a, Yemen. He is the owner and director of yemen-now.com. You can follow him on Twitter @narrabyee.
Hook initially resisted this, claiming he’s not a “scholar,” but finally conceded Iran didn’t do 9/11. This was
likely a tough point for him, because Mike Pompeo has tried to link Iran, implausibly, to al-Qaeda, and many see
this as a cynical attempt to manufacture a war authorization where none exists.
Hook insisted ultimately that whatever Trump did, it would be completely legal, which is likely less an assurance
of a plan to seek proper authorization than a continuation of administration arguments that the president can do as
he wishes.
US involvement in other plainly unauthorized wars suggests this remains a concern, and that whether Congress signs
off or not, a war cannot be precluded.
_IMPEACHMENT_
A SAFEGUARD AGAINST AMERICAN
IMPERIALISM
"But right now, I'm certainly prepared to say that Trump's attacks on
Syria are impeachable offenses for sure. It's a slam dunk to use that phrase."
-- Francis Boyle, professor of international law Univ of Illinois College of
Law: Talk Nation Radio: Francis Boyle on How to Impeach
Trump --
Talk Nation Radio: Francis Boyle on How to Impeach Trump
Boyle is professor of international law at the University
of Illinois College of Law. Boyle was legal adviser to Rep. Henry B. González and wrote
the first draft of the
González Impeachment Resolution in 1991. George H. W. Bush would later write in his
memoirs that if the Gulf War “drags out, not only will I take the blame, but I will probably
have impeachment proceedings filed against me.”
Boyle said today: “Hypocrisies and hypocrites abound. Trump should be impeached for his
attacks and threats against Iran. These are far more brazen violations of the War Powers Clause
of the U.S. Constitution than anything regarding Ukraine.
“Some Republicans claim that Trump did nothing wrong regarding the Ukraine. That’s clearly
wrong. Some Democrats are claiming that they are standing up for the rule of law and to prevent
further illegal acts by impeaching Trump for his actions there. But that doesn’t withstand a
moment’s scrutiny. Trump should have been impeached for his
illegal bombings in Syria. He wasn’t, so predictably, he has gone on to target Iran and is
making further threats against it and Iraq.”
Rhodes: “The only country in the world that was prepared to join us [in attacking the Assad
government] was France. And we had no domestic legal basis. We actually had Congress warning us
against taking action without congressional authorization, which we interpreted as the
president could face impeachment.”
Politico: “Really? Was the prospect of impeachment actually a factor in your
conversations?”
Rhodes: “That was a factor. Go back and read the letters from Boehner, letters from the
Republican members of Congress. They laid down markers that this would not be
constitutional.”
House Speaker John Boehner wrote to Obama in 2013: “It is essential you address on what
basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the
exclusive authority of Congressional authorization under Article I of the Constitution.”
The Economic Terrorism of The UK, US & EU
Against Syria Western Piracy:Britain
Seizes Oil TankerBound For Syria At US Request
Syriana
Analysis
Published on Jul 5, 2019
Yesterday Britain seized an Iranian #tanker, carrying oil on its way to the
Mediterranean through #Gibraltar, that was bound for the Syrian people on the grounds that it
violates EU sanctions, which are designed to cripple #Syria economically.
This is pure piracy. This is economic terrorism.
The
Last American Vagabond
Published on Jul 5, 2019
A clear shortage of fuel has forced the reduction of the quantity of gasoline
sold to 20 liters every two days for private cars. In total, the sales would not exceed
200 liters of petrol per car per month and almost double that quantity for
taxis.
Muhammad Khodhr, Lebanese Al-Mayadeen News Channel reporter in
Syria wrote to almayadeen.net commenting on the pressing issue of the shortages in
Syria. Mr. Khdhr’s article is in Arabic and we tried to translate it to our best to
English.
The current crisis started on Saturday, April 6th, which the government
attributes to the impact of US sanctions on the Syrian economy. Oil Minister
Ali Ghanem said during a tour of the gas stations that the material
was available at stations in an effort to reassure consumers who have just got out
of a severe shortage in gas which stretched throughout the winter months and
effectively ended with the start of the spring.
The main oil and gas fields in Syria went out of the government’s control in the
early days of the crisis. Syria used to produce about 385 thousand barrels of oil per
day before 2011, mostly from fields east of the Euphrates in the countryside of
eastern Deir Al-Zour and Hasaka, and about 21 million cubic tons of gas, mostly from
the central region. Production fell sharply to about 24 thousand barrels of oil per
day.
Securing the Central Region and the rehabilitation of gas facilities helped increase
the production of gas to 17 million cubic meters per day.
Overall estimated losses of this sector over the past eight years, according to
official estimates, about 74.8 billion dollars, the most important losses, in the
economic sense of any production sector in Syria due to the war.
The size of the depletion of oil production has exerted a strong pressure on the
Syrian economy in all its details. For the first time, the government allowed the
private sector to import its fuel and diesel oil to secure the work of factories and
craft enterprises. The step that came into force was an attempt to circumvent US
sanctions and access that material, but it is certainly not enough.
This was evident with very high prices for selling the material from its suppliers.
The sale of diesel fuel was estimated at about 475 Liras per liter for industrialists
according to Damascus Chamber of Industry, which decreased by simple margins due to
competition but remained more than double the price at which the government sells
diesel oil estimated at 185 Liras per liter.
In dealing with the issue of gas, efforts to double the production of local fields
appeared to have reasonable results, especially as efforts continue to improve
production according to official statements, while work is being done to import the
difference between production and consumption.
The most important node today is the sanctions on the arrival of oil derivatives to
the Syrian ports.
According to high-level government sources, the Suez Canal Authority prevented the
passage of oil shipments from Iran to Syria in response to American pressure. It added
to the difficulties faced by shipping companies to reach the Syrian ports in light of
the complexities of insurance and fears of Western sanctions that would affect the work
of these shipping companies. All these factors led to the suspension of the arrival of
any shipment of oil to the Syrian ports for months, while the increased consumption,
especially industrial with the return of tens of thousands of industrial and handicraft
facilities in Aleppo, Hama and the countryside of Damascus, to double the features of
the crisis.
No comprehensive solutions are soon coming, as per the given indications, regardless
of government assurances. The current measures are aimed at managing the crisis through the sale of smaller quantities and the use of
the smart card, and even the study related to raising the price of gasoline towards
the liberalization of the price of quantities exceeding 100 liters per month for
each car seems to be deferred now.
To end the current cycle may impose one of two solutions as long as the conditions
of sanctions and restrictions on shipments to the Syrian ports, the first: to transfer
these products by land from Iran through Iraq to Syria, and there is information about
the possibility of adopting this option despite the length of the road and security
risks on the border.
And the second: the restoration of rich oil fields east of the Euphrates to the
Syrian state through a bold solution to the matter of East Euphrates as a whole. A
solution seems more pressing today than ever before with the intensification of the
pressure on the Syrians in their livelihood and economy and reconstruction plans… In
this perspective can be understood the words of Syrian Defense Minister General Ali
Ayoub during the high-level military meeting, which included the Chiefs of Staff of the
Iraqi army, Othman Al-Ghanmi and The Iranian armed forces, Major General Mohammad
Jafari, on March 18, and his assertion that the remaining card for the Americans in
Syria is the “SDF” and “we will deal with it either by reconciliations or by liberating
the land.”
Two solutions seem difficult but there is no substitute for them as long as there is
no possibility in the foreseen future to circumvent the US sanctions which affects
mostly Syria’s main ally Iran.
* Note to
readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The main purpose of the illegal economic sanctions
is to terrorize the Syrian people by depriving them of their basic needs. And by doing so, the US
and the EU are simply telling the Syrian people: “kneel or starve”.
f course, Washington’s logic is riddled with
absurdity.To claim that its
forces are acting in self-defense overlooks the glaring reality thatthe US-led military coalition has no legal mandate whatsoever to be in Syria in the
first place. Its forces are in breach of international law by operating on Syrian territory
without the consent of the government in Damascus and without a mandate from the UN Security
Council."
- Finian Cunningham -
(Article)Syria: US Flagrant Aggression is Absurdly Described
as'Self-Defence' -
Syrian Exposes Media Lies About Syria
Withdrawal
Kentucky is in Syria (and other anomalies of MSM geography) -
#PropagandaWatch
The Corbett Report
First published at 08:30 UTC on October 15th, 2019.
Did you know that Kentucky is in Syria? Or that Tripoli is in India? Or that
Caracas is in Singapore? No? Then you must not be paying enough attention in MSM Geography 101,
class. Better hit the books!
Syrian Exposes Media Lies About Syria
Withdrawal ___________________________________________
partisan Girl
First published at 08:21 UTC on October 15th, 2019
A message to the American people from Syria - your media is lying to you. The truth
about the released ISIS prisoners and why Israel wants the neocons to stay in #Syria.
A message to the American people from
Syria - your media is lying to you.The truth about the released ISIS
prisoners and why
Israel wants the neocons to stay in #Syria.
By Israel Shahak and Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 03, 2019
Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. 3 March 2013
Introduction
The following document pertaining to the formation of “Greater Israel” constitutes the cornerstone
of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the
Israeli military and intelligence establishment. (article first published by Global Research on April 29,
2013).
Greater Israel
WARNING: BRIEF STRONG
LANGUAGE
President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements
(including his opposition to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, pertaining to the illegality of the Israeli
settlements in the occupied West Bank). In recent developments, the Trump administration has expressed its
recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is supportive of the “Greater Israel” project. It consists in the
derogation of Palestinian’s “the right of return” by “naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria,
Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside”.
Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it
is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is extend US hegemony as well as fracture and
balkanize the Middle East.
Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political
instability throughout the region.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the
Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised
Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
"...True, the United States does enjoy the “benefit” of appearing supremely
powerful, but this is only a cruel joke. When the Network is satisfied that all major obstacles to its
unelected rule have been removed, it will be a simple matter to destroy the US dollar, “justifiably” cut off
the flow of money and credit to the United States, and create the political incentive (necessity) for the
United States to fully enter the new global system..."
-- Joe Plummer, Tragedy & Hope 101 Chapter 3 The Network “Recovers”
America--
WHO: 24.4 Million in Yemen Need
Humanitarian Assistance, Jan 18, 2019
"This support to the Saudi-UAE effort to wage this war in
Yemen, though, is not legitimate. It's illegal. It was started by the Obama administration and continued
and emphasized by the Trump administration. It's illegal. It's brutal."
-- Col. Larry Wilkerson --
Most of Congress "Likes War" and Opposes Ending US Support for Saudi War in Yemen.
TheRealNews, Published on Nov 6, 2017
“A lot of people at least the corporate
media, the western media, the establishment media - whatever you want to call it - tend to tell us that this is
a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran...Is that true?” [Rick
Sanchez]
It’s not to the extent that they talk about it at all. MSNBC
ignored this conflict for two years as Fair showed. But, now that they are talking about it; what they need to
point out is that the Houthis have been winning for two reasons: One is that they actually recommandeered
billions of dollars of weapons the US supplied the deposed and dead dictator Saleh. And worked along side the
Yemeni army which was formerly supplied by the US not Iran. Iran is supplying some political and media support
but not the weapons that our government and the Saudis claim. So the idea of a proxy war is false. The Houthis are an endogenous nationalistic resistance force that is fighting against a
puppet government that poses an existential threat to them!” [Max Blumenthal]
--Rick Sanchez & Max Blumenthal--
The ABC’s of the War in Yemen with Max Blumenthal. RT, Nov1, 2018
"The UN embargo/blockade against Yemen and
the Yemenis violates Genocide Convention article II (e): Deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part." --Prof. Francis A
Boyle-- YEMEN: A Genocidal War Against Children
and Civilians Sanctioned by the UN, US, UK & NATO
"Boyle explained that the Saudis and their allies in the Gulf
Arab Emirates wanted to establish full control over the entire Arabian peninsula and also of the choke point
region at the head of the Persian, or Arabian Gulf through which all oil exports, including those of Iran and
Iraq were shipped by sea. 'They want to control the entire Saudi Peninsula,
all its resources, and the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait through which all the oil and gas to Europe must
pass,' he said."
-- Vanessa Beeley, Journalist -- YEMEN: “Saudis, Emiratis and USA are Inflicting a War of Genocide Against the
Houthis" - Prof. Francis Boyle
Whitney Webb Interview The Ignored Yemen
Genocide: "18.4 Million People Are Starving To
Death" The Last American Vagabond Published on Nov 1,
2018
Bruce Fein, Contributor
Constitutional Scholar
01/26/2017 04:32 pm ET Updated Jan 27, 2018
Congress should enact a No Presidential Wars statute that defines “presidential wars;” declares
them contrary to the Constitution’s Declare War Clause; and, makes presidential wars prospectively impeachable
high crimes and misdemeanors justifying removal from office under Article II, section 4.
This will make America great, prosperous, and invincible against aggression faster and surer than any
alternative. The United States is currently engaged in nine presidential wars: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Every soldier involved in these engagements should be
redeployed to the United States with enhanced pay for invincible self-defense. The fully allocated cost of
fighting presidential wars since 9/11 approaches a staggering $10 trillion.
War is the oldest scourge of mankind.
It turns children into orphans, wives into widows, and makes fathers bury sons rather than sons
bury fathers.
It silences the law, crushes liberty, aggrandizes executive power, spirals debt, diverts genius
from production to destruction, promotes secret government, precipitates blowback, and afflicts our own
soldiers with PTSD generated suicides. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, “All those who
seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to
accomplish it.”
Thousands of years of history taught the Constitution’s authors that the executive would be
predisposed towards war to enhance power, to excite patriotic support, to operate secret and unaccountable
government, and to leave a legacy.
In contrast, the legislative branch is a highly risk-averse talking shop which will only take
the nation from peace to war in response to actual aggression against the United States. Gratuitous wars have
nothing in them for Members of Congress. Their powers and stature are eclipsed by an omnipotent president. They
win no fame or remembrance. Congress has declared war in only five conflicts since its birth 227 years ago, and
only when Members were convinced the United States had been attacked.
Everyone who participated in the drafting, debating, and ratifying the Constitution highly
distrusted the presidency in matters of war and peace. They unanimously entrusted to Congress exclusive
responsibility for taking the nation to war in Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. The authors
did not believe the power of the purse would be sufficient to prevent presidential wars. They knew once the
president commits troops, Members of Congress would be forced to provide funding under the banner of
patriotism. The universal sentiment was expressed by James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “The
constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most
interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in
the Legisl.”
Despite the clarity of the constitutional prohibition, presidents have chronically decided to
take the nation from peace to war since at least President Harry Truman’s decision to fight the Korean War in
1950 without a congressional declaration. Fueled by a multi-trillion dollar
military-industrial-counterterrorism complex, presidential wars have come to dominate the nation’s budget and
agenda. The warfare state has given birth to the surveillance state, the bail-out state, and the welfare state.
The federal government has ballooned into a $4.3 trillion Leviathan.
Congress and the American people have generally ignored the lawlessness of presidential wars
and the havoc they have wrought both at home and abroad. We are imitating all previous empires in our
enthusiasm for self-ruination. Presidential wars have become de facto constitutional. This must change.
Through a No Presidential Wars statute, Congress needs to establish rules defining and
sanctioning presidential wars prospectively. The law should warn before it strikes. And nothing good can come
from taking up arms against history.
Presidential wars should be defined as wars in which the President decides to take the United
States from a state of peace to a state of war. It should not include wars in which Congress has decided itself
to take the nation from peace to war. Neither should it include cases in which the President responds with
proportionate military force in national self-defense against actual or imminent aggression or a declaration of
war against the United States by a foreign nation or non-state actor. But presidential wars should include
cases in which the President unilaterally decides to make the United States a co-belligerent in an ongoing war
by systematically or substantially supplying one of the warring parties with war materials, military troops,
trainers or advisors, military intelligence, financial support or its equivalent. Presidential wars should
further be defined to include cases where an incumbent continues an unconstitutional presidential war commenced
by a predecessor.
The “No Presidential Wars” statute should also declare that a violation will be deemed a high
crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4, and will cause the President to be impeached by the House,
convicted by the Senate, and removed from office.
It would mark the Constitution’s finest hour, and save the Republic from destruction.
The Swamp King Bruce Fein on the American
Empire - 8/22/18 -
by Scott - Aug 26, 2018 - Interviews
Bruce Fein joins
Scott to talk about U.S. complicity in war crimes by supporting brutal regimes oversees.
He points out that according to international law, if the United
States supports a country that’s at war, it becomes a co-belligerent and can legitimately be
attacked, just like the original country.Unfortunately, despite some
rhetoric to the contrary, President Trump seems just as willing as his predecessors to engage in
unconstitutional wars and executive overreach.
“Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia” (
The American Conservative)
Bruce Fein is an attorney and former associate deputy attorney general and general counsel for
the FCC. He writes regularly for The American Conservative, and you
can follow him on Twitter @BruceFeinEsq.
Bruce Fein on the American Empire and How It
Increases Executive Power June 27, 2018
Scott Horton
Published on Jul 4, 2018
Bruce Fein is interviewed on his new article for The American
Conservative Magazine, “American Empire Demands a Caesar“. The evolution of the
Republic to the Empire is discussed, and where and when the Republic went wrong
is debated.
Jesse Ventura and Brigida Santos discuss the fate of the global
international order and why some experts predict American hegemony will end by
2030. Constitutional scholar and author Bruce Fein shares insight from his
book, “American Empire Before the Fall.”
Bruce Fein on the American Empire
August 22, 2018
Scott Horton
Published on Sep 23, 2018
Bruce Fein joins Scott to talk about U.S. complicity in war
crimes by supporting brutal regimes oversees. He points out that according to
international law, if the United States supports a country that’s at war, it
becomes a co-belligerent and can legitimately be attacked, just like the
original country. Unfortunately, despite some rhetoric to the contrary,
President Trump seems just as willing as his predecessors to engage in
unconstitutional wars and executive overreach.
Bruce Fein is an attorney and former associate deputy attorney
general and general counsel for the FCC. He writes regularly for The American
Conservative, and you can follow him on Twitter @BruceFeinEsq.
US Army Asked Twitter How Military Service
Has Impacted People
- The Responses Will Break Your Heart -
The Last American Vagabond
Published on May 27, 2019
This is an excerpt of The Daily Wrap Up 5/26.
Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Timeby Carroll Quigley is the ultimate insider
admission of a secret global elite that has impacted nearly every modern historical event.
Learn how the Anglo-American banking elite were able to secretly establish and maintain their
global power. This massive hardcover book of 1348 pages provides a detailed world history
beginning with the industrial revolution and imperialism through two world wars, a global
depression and the rise of communism.Tragedy & Hopeis the definitive work on the world's power
structure and an essential source material for understanding the history, goals and actions of
the New World Order.
Author Carroll Quigley was an esteemed professor of
history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University and also taught at Princeton and at
Harvard. President Bill Clinton was a student of Quigley and named him as an important
influence. As a trusted and well respected insider, Professor Quigley had access to a variety of
secret papers and sources from which he did his research forTragedy & Hope.
One of the key revelations Quigley reveals is a
secret organization created by Englishman Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes was the founder of diamond company
De Beers, ardent supporter of British colonialism and creator of the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship
that has since educated so many global elite leaders. Funded by Rhodes' estate,
the
goal of this organization was to consolidate world control into the hands of the English speaking
elites. This book ties together how this secret organization of global elites has quietly steered
the world towards a goal of global government using collectivism.
As an insider with access to many secret documents,
Quigley was proud of the achievements of this secret organization and wrote this book from that
viewpoint. The book was intended to only be read by fellow academics and other insider
intellectuals that shared a similar world view. The book was quickly taken out of print when it
became more widely circulated and opponents latched onto it as a confession of the global elite.
As pressure mounted, the publishers relented and authorized this identical reissue edition.
This book continues to provide one of the most revealing looks into the goals and methodology of the
global elite. This book is printed in limited quantities and not readily available at most
mainstream bookstores. Infowars is proud to have secured a batch of Tragedy & Hope and to help spread this valuable history and
information.
Quotes from Tragedy &
Hope:
"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing
less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political
system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a
feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at
in frequent private meetings and conferences." -- Carroll Quigley, Chapter 20.
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international
Anglophile network.I know of the operations of this
network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early
1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and
have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in
the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is
that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be
known." --Carroll Quigley, Chapter 65.
"...True, the United States does enjoy the “benefit” of appearing supremely
powerful, but this is only a cruel joke. When the Network is satisfied that all major obstacles to its
unelected rule have been removed, it will be a simple matter to destroy the US dollar, “justifiably” cut off
the flow of money and credit to the United States, and create the political incentive (necessity) for the
United States to fully enter the new global system..."
-- Joe Plummer, Tragedy & Hope 101 Chapter 3 The Network “Recovers”
America--
Dr. Mark Skidmore of Michigan State University joins us to
discuss his research with Catherine Austin Fitts into the $21 trillion in unaccounted transactions on the
books of the US Department of Defence and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. We discuss
what we know and don't know about the subject, the Pentagon's nonsensical and inadequate excuses for the
debacle, the new accounting guideline that legally allows every department of the federal government to
create fake and altered books for public consumption, the recent failed Pentagon audit, the government's
refusal to provide any information about the problem, the failure of congress to pursue the issue, and
the failure of the press to report on it.
This is part of our series on the unaccounted for $21 Trillion
in taxpayer money. As unbelievable and absurd as that sounds, the actual total of unaccounted for money at
the Pentagon is most likely significantly more than $21 trillion. The First ever “full-scope audit” of the
Pentagon is presently underway. Read the first report from this series
here.
*
According to the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
$21 Trillion in Taxpayer Funding Is Unaccounted For.
To help people comprehend the scale of this, $1 Trillion is $1000 Billion. This means that $21,000 Billion
in taxpayer money has gone missing.
How can this be possible?
We outlined the “Unaccountable System of Global War Profiteers” in detail here.
For further understanding, we are featuring another mind-blowing Department of
Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report.
The following are highlights from the DOD IG “Summary of DOD Office of the
Inspector General Audits of Financial Management”:
The financial management systems DOD has put in place to control and
monitor the money flow don’t facilitate but actually “prevent DOD from
collecting and reporting financial information… that is accurate, reliable,
and timely.” (p. 4)
DOD frequently enters “unsupported” (i.e. imaginary) amounts in its
books (p. 13) and uses those figures to make the books balance. (p.
14)
Inventory records are not reviewed and adjusted; unreliable and
inaccurate data are used to report inventories, and purchases are made
based on those distorted inventory reports. (p. 7)
DOD managers do not know how much money is in their accounts at the
Treasury, or when they spend more than Congress appropriates to them. (p.
5)18
Nor does DOD “record, report, collect, and reconcile” funds received
from other agencies or the public (p. 6),
DOD tracks neither buyer nor seller amounts when conducting
transactions with other agencies. (p. 12)
“The cost and depreciation of the DOD general property, plant, and
equipment are not reliably reported….” (p. 8);
“… the value of DOD property and material in the possession of
contractors is not reliably reported.” (p. 9)
DOD does not know who owes it money, nor how much. (p. 10.)
“audit trails” are not kept “in sufficient detail,” which means
no one can track the
money;
DOD’s “Internal Controls,” intended to track the money, are inoperative.
Thus, DOD cost reports and financial statements are inaccurate, and the size,
even the direction (in plus or minus values), of the errors cannot be
identified, and
DOD does not observe many of the laws that govern all this.
It is as if the accountability and appropriations clauses of the U.S.
Constitution were just window dressing, behind which this mind-numbing malfeasance
thrives.
[SHORT v.]
Update on that
missing $21+ Trillion, David DeGraw & Lee
Camp
Changemaker Media
Published on Jun 22, 2018
The fundamental rule when operating in chaos is
to tell the “truth.” It is all you have as a shield & weapon.
That is the guidepost...
Technically, this is a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, a statute
carrying felony sanctions of fines and imprisonment.
Congress and the Pentagon annually report and hold hearings on DOD’s lack of
financial accountability and sometimes enact new laws, but many of the new laws
simply permit the Pentagon to ignore the previous ones; others are eyewash.
If you have a system that does not accurately know what its spending history is,
and does not know what it is now (and does not care to redress the matter), how can
you expect it to make a competent, honest estimate of future costs?
It is self-evident that an operation that tolerates inaccurate, unverifiable
data cannot be soundly managed; it exempts itself from any reasonable standard of
efficiency.
Recall, also that the errors in cost, schedule and performance that result are
not random: actual costs always turn out to be much higher than, sometimes even
multiples of, early estimates; the schedule is always optimistic, and the
performance is always inflated.
The Pentagon, defense industry and their congressional operatives want – need –
to increase the money flow into the system to pretend to improve it.
Supported by a psychology of excessive secrecy, generated fear and the
ideological belief that there is no alternative to high cost, high complexity
weapons, higher budgets are easier to justify, especially if no one can sort out
how the Pentagon actually spends its money.
The key to the DOD spending problem is to initiate financial accountability. No
failed system can be understood or fixed if it cannot be accurately measured.
And yet, there is no sense of urgency in the Pentagon to do anything about
it.
Indeed, in the 1990s, we were promised the accountability problem would be
solved by 1997. In the early 2000s, we were promised it would be solved by 2007;
then by 2016; then by 2017….
[LONG v.]
Truth About $21
Trillion Missing At The Pentagon w/ David
Degraw
Changemaker Media
Published on Jun 22, 2018
How $21 Trillion in U.S. Tax Money Disappeared.
“Full Scope Audit” of the Pentagon
The question must be asked: if nothing has been done by the Pentagon to end
the accountability problem after more than 20 years of promises, is top management
simply incompetent, or is this the intended result of obfuscation to avert
accountability?
A spending system that effectively audits its weapon programs and offices would
also be one that systemically uncovers incompetent and crooked managers, false
promises and those who made them.
It would also necessarily reveal reasons to dramatically alter, if not cease,
funding for some programs, which of course would make lots of people in industry,
Congress, and the executive branch unhappy.
The current system and its out of control finances mortally harm our defenses,
defraud taxpayers, and bloat the Pentagon and federal budgets.
Any reform that fails to address this most fundamental problem is merely another
doomed attempt that will only serve to perpetuate a system that thrives on
falsehoods and deception.
William Hartung, Director of the Arms and
Security Project at the Center for International Policy, summed up the accountability crisis at the Pentagon
by saying:
“Call it irony or call it symptomatic of the department’s way of life, but an analysis by the Project on
Government Oversight notes the Pentagon has so far spent roughly $6 billion on ‘fixing’ the audit problem —
with no solution in sight.
If anything, the Defense Department’s accounting practices have been getting worse.”
The above post was an excerpt from The Pentagon Labyrinth,
10 Short Essays to Help You Through It. It was written by, “10 Pentagon Insiders, Retired Military
Officers and Specialists With Over 400 Years of Defense Experience.” The section we featured is from Essay
#8, Decoding the Defense Budget: The Ultimate in Cooked Numbers, by Winslow T.
Wheeler. * Report Full PDF Here *
A bipartisan group of lawmakers from both the Senate and the House have issued a letter to President Trump
urging him not to veto the SJ Res 7 War Powers Act challenge to the
Yemen War. The resolution passed the Senate last month, and the House on Thursday.
The War Powers Act requires the president to get the approval of Congress for any overseas military conflicts, and
allows Congress to demand a withdrawal form those nations if the operation is unauthorized. The Yemen War was never
authorized by Congress.
President Trump has threatened to veto the resolution, and the letter urges him not to, arguing that he has an
historic opportunity to set a precedent for cooperation with Congress by complying with the law and ending an
unconstitutional war that was launched under President Obama.
Though the constitution gives Congress exclusive war-making powers, Trump’s aides have argued that as commander in
chief Congress shouldn’t question his operations. Since the War Powers Act is meant to codify Congress’ already
constitutional powers, it is somewhat strange to think it can be vetoed anyhow
President Trump is known to change his mind. Let’s help change it: Invest a phone call for peace, call the White
House and tell President Trump to sign SJRes7.
Call 202-456-1111:The comment line is staffed from 9am to 4pm Eastern time Monday
through Friday. Be ready to talk.
202-456-1111 We Must Keep
Calling For An End To
The Yemen Genocide!
Trump Vetoes Yemen Bill,
Pakistan Gives MBS Humanitarian Award & New US Maps Show Golan As
Israel's
The Last American Vagabond
Streamed live April 17, 2019
Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news,
as we see it, from the last 24 hours.
Like What You See? Help Us Stay People Funded: https://www.patreon.com/TheLastAmeric... http://paypal.me/TLAVagabond
Whitney Webb Interview The Ignored Yemen Genocide: "18.4 Million People Are Starving To Death"
The Last American Vagabond Published on Nov 1, 2018
Joining me today is Whitney Webb of Mint Press News, someone I
greatly respect and who has done extensive work exposing the true nature of what has been dubbed "The Forgotten War" and that
is the US-backed invasion of Yemen.
First published at 01:15 UTC on September 6th, 2019.
It doesn't matter if you are a hard-working American. YOU are not
entitled to keep your own income. YOU are a cash cow for the Zionist state of Israel. America's labor force is
Israel's Golden Goose. And I am going
to show you the financial statistics to prove it.
In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course
of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It
flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite
military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one
expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it
had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI
movement against the war in Vietnam.
"By waging wars without a congressional declaration of
war, Trump is knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately violating the Constitution. By doing so he is committing a
“high crime,” one that
clearly warrants impeachment." -- Jacob G. Hornberger
--
Notwithstanding the fact that their Special Counsel Robert Mueller, after a long detailed investigation,
found no evidence that President Trump illegally conspired with Russian officials in the run-up to the 2016
presidential election, Democrats are still hell bent on impeaching Trump. The problem with their position, however,
is that they want to impeach him for invalid reasons, reasons that do not amount to the “high crimes and
misdemeanors” standard set forth in the Constitution.
For one thing, while “conspiring” or “colluding” to establish normal and friendly
relations with Russia is considered a cardinal sin by the U.S. national-security establishment and the
Republican-Democrat political establishment, it does not constitute a “high crime or misdemeanor” under the U.S.
Constitution.
Realizing that, Democrats are falling back on the notion that President Trump
engaged in “obstruction of justice” with respect to Mueller’s investigation. The problem with that charge, however,
is that “obstruction of justice” is the federal government’s counterpart to local governments’ offense of
“disorderly conduct.” It’s a classic example of a nebulous crime that turns on subjective interpretation, one whose
purpose is to enable officials to target anyone they don’t like whenever they want.
And if anything is clear, it’s this: Democrats hate Trump so much that they are
willing to do anything they can to remove him from office before his term is up, including employing the nebulous
crime of “obstruction of justice” to do it.
But no matter how much Democrats and others might dislike Trump, the fact is that he
won the election. He defeated Hillary Clinton by securing more electoral votes than she did. Under our system of
government, he has the right to be president. Using the “crimes” of conspiring to establish normal relations with
Russia or “obstruction of justice” to remove him from office would be akin to Third World coups that oust
democratically elected leaders who are disliked by their military-intelligence establishment or by political elites
within the nation.
This is especially true given the possibility that it was the U.S. deep state that
illegally meddled in the U.S. presidential election in an effort to get Hillary Clinton, who had a vehement
anti-Russia mindset, elected president. Trump is absolutely right to want a full investigation into that
possibility.
Does that mean that Trump should not be impeached? No. Trump should be
impeached, but only for the right reason.
What is that reason? Illegally waging war against foreign regimes without the
congressional declaration of war that is required by the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the law that we the people
have imposed on U.S. officials, including the president. When Congress enacts laws, such as drug laws, we the
people are expected to obey them. By the same token, federal officials are supposed to to obey our law, the law set
forth in the Constitution.
It is undisputed that Trump is waging wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
It is also undisputed that Congress has not issued a declaration of war against any of those nations. Those wars
are killing people. Just last week, U.S. bombers killed 18 Afghan police officers who were engaged in a firefight
with the Taliban. The Pentagon has called it a “tragic accident.” But one thing is for sure: If Trump was not
waging this illegal war, those police officers would not have been killed by U.S. bombs. Trump’s undeclared wars in
Syria and Iraq have also killed people in those two countries.With respect to Yemen,
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof pointed out in his May 18 column:
It is Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that drop the bombs on Yemen,
but Washington supplies weaponry and intelligence that allow this war to drag on indefinitely. American policy
is to support the starvation of Yemeni children because they are ruled by a faction with ties to
Iran.
By waging wars without a congressional declaration of war, Trump is knowingly,
intentionally, and deliberately violating the Constitution. By doing so he is committing a “high crime,” one that
clearly warrants impeachment.
That’s what Trump should be impeached for — illegally waging war without the
constitutionally required declaration of war — not for some trumped-up charges of conspiring to establish normal
relations with Russia or “obstruction of justice.”
It is crystal clear that the federal judiciary isn’t going to enforce that particular provision
of the Constitution. Therefore, it is up to Congress to enforce the declaration-of-war
provision in the Constitution through impeachment.
If Trump were impeached for waging illegal wars under our system of justice, he and
his lawyers would undoubtedly defend by claiming that other presidents, including Democratic presidents like
Truman, Johnson, and Obama, did the same thing. But under well-established principles of criminal justice, the fact
that some people have violated the law with impunity does not serves as a license for other people to also violate
the law.
Also, the fact that previous presidents have violated the law without being
impeached for it does not constitute a de-facto amendment of the Constitution nullifying the declaration-of-war
requirement.
The problem, of course, is that Democrats, no matter how much they hate Trump and
want to see him removed from office, are not about to impeach him for waging illegal wars in foreign lands. That’s
because they simply want a Democrat to take his place as president so that they can be the ones waging these
illegal undeclared wars, just as Truman, Johnson, and Obama did.
Needless to say, on this issue the Republican members of Congress are on the same
page as their Democrat counterparts. The last thing any Republican member of Congress wants to do is impeach Trump
for the right reason — waging illegal wars in foreign lands. That includes those Republicans who claim to revere
the Constitution and those who refer to themselves as “strict constructionists.”
The discomforting fact is that when it comes to enforcing the higher law that we the
people have imposed on the president with respect to waging war without a congressional declaration of war, the
Republican members of Congress are as big a disaster as their Democratic counterparts. All of them — Republicans
and Democrats alike — should be impeaching and convicting Trump but only for the right reason: waging illegal
undeclared wars under our form of constitutional government.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in
Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the
University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the
University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to
become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets
on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows
and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these
interviews at LewRockwell.com and from
Full
Context. Send him email.
IMPEACH FOR THE RIGHT REASONS STOP THE BLOODSHED BY HOLDING MEN
ACCOUNTABLE FOR BREAKING THEIR OATHS TO GOD & COUNTRY
Yesterday, I received an email from an independent candidate for U.S. Senate in
Alaska, Margaret Stock, which pointed out that she is a retired Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a former
professor at West Point. In her email, Stock stated that she had served alongside and mentored soldiers “who have
given their lives for our country.”
It would be difficult for me to find anything more nonsensical than that. Does she really mean what she says? Or
is it just political pabulum?
Show me U.S. one soldier — just one — in the past 65 years who has died for his country or, as others assert, in
the defense of our freedoms here at home. You can’t do it.
Most of those soldiers died because officials within the national-security branch of the federal government
ordered to go to some foreign country thousands of miles away, where they were placed in a position of kill or be
killed. In fact, many of them were first conscripted (i.e., seized) and then ordered to deploy.
Some soldiers volunteered to go and fight in order to improve their chances for promotion. During the Vietnam
War I knew of an Air Force colonel who volunteered to go to Vietnam because he was convinced that that was the only
way he could make general. I also knew of several officers who were trying to get to Vietnam in the waning stages
of the war to pad their combat resumes.
One thing is for certain: Contrary to what Stock asserts, the deployment of U.S. troops in wars for the past 65
years have had nothing to do with defending America or the freedom of the American people for one simple reason:
America and American freedom were never under attack.
Suppose that U.S. troops had not gotten involved in the Korean War in the early 1950s. Ask yourself: How many
Americans would have voluntarily traveled to Korea and helped the South Koreans defeat the North Korean
communists?
Answer: Zero! None! Not one single American would have done that, even if President Truman and his
national-security establishment had pointed out the dangers that international communism posed to America.
Suppose the U.S. national-security establishment had never invaded Vietnam and simply decided to stay out of
that country’s civil war. Suppose President Johnson, the Pentagon, and the CIA told Americans that a victory by
North Vietnam would pose a grave threat to U.S. national security because the dominoes would begin falling to the
communists, with the big domino (the United States) ultimately falling to the Reds.
How many Americans would have traveled to South Vietnam and joined up with South Vietnamese forces to help them
prevent a communist victory?
Answer: Zero! None! Not one single American would have gone to fight the commies in Vietnam.
Suppose George H.W. Bush had refused to involve his army in his war against Iraq in 1991, but had exhorted
Americans to travel to the Middle East and join up with forces that were attempting to reverse Iraq’s (i.e., Saddam
Hussein’s) invasion of Kuwait. Suppose that Bush had told Americans that while the U.S. government had partnered
with Saddam during the 1980s in his war on Iran, Saddam had since become a “new Hitler” who threatened the
world.
How many Americans would have traveled to the Middle East to join up with forces attempting to liberate Kuwait
from Saddam?
Answer: None! Zip!
Suppose George W. Bush had declined to invade Afghanistan and Iraq after the 9/11 attacks but instead simply put
out an arrest warrant and bounty for Osama bin Laden.
How many Americans would have traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq to oust the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from
power?
Answer: None. The only ones who would have gone over there would have been the ones looking for bin Laden in the
hopes of collecting a large bounty.
If the U.S. government evacuated the Middle East and Afghanistan today, how many Americans would travel to Iraq,
Yemen, Libya, Syria or the rest of the Middle East to fight ISIS and prevent it from taking over those
countries?
Answer: Not one single one, including the infamous neocons who continue to tell us that “national security” is
at stake. In fact, if all U.S. troops were ordered to withdraw from that part of the world today, not one single
U.S. soldier, including officers and enlisted men, would seek to resign from the U.S. military and travel to Iraq
and Afghanistan to prevent ISIS and the Taliban from winning and taking control in that part of the world.
So, does all that mean that the American people are cowards? That they are only courageous when it comes to
sending the troops to do the fighting for them? That they’re not willing to put their lives on the line in the
defense of their country? That they’re not willing to defend their own freedom and the freedom and security of
their family members and countrymen?
No, it doesn’t mean any of those things. It simply means that the American people are not stupid. The reason
they wouldn’t have traveled to South Korea or South Vietnam and helped them to defeat the communists is simply
because giving their lives in a civil war thousands of miles away wasn’t worth it to them. If someone had told them
that a communist victory in Korea or Vietnam could mean that the Reds would ultimately take over the federal
government and run the IRS, they would have summarily rejected that notion as ridiculous.
The same holds true for the Middle East and Afghanistan today. Deep down, every American knows that it’s not
going to make one whit of difference, insofar as the United States is concerned, if ISIS wins or if the Taliban
wins. If they really believed that America’s existence and freedom were at stake, you’d see Americans traveling
over there and volunteering to help the Iraqi and Afghan armies.
Oh, for sure, most (but certainly not all) Americans would have sympathized with the South Koreans and the South
Vietnamese but they never would have gone over there to commit their lives fighting a communist unification of both
countries.
Now, imagine that the United States were suddenly invaded by the troops of some foreign nation-state. How many
Americans would come to the defense of their country, their families, and their freedom?
Answer: 98 percent.
Everything changes, however, when it comes to the U.S. national-security establishment, the totalitarian
apparatus that came into existence with the Cold War. When the national-security establishment says that it’s
imperative that U.S. military forces defeat North Korea or North Vietnam or Saddam Hussein or the Taliban or Iran
or whoever, everyone hops to, clicks his heels, salutes, and automatically accepts it as gospel. People have
converted the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA into their god — their idol — and heaven help anyone who dares to
criticize what their warrior angels — the troops — do with respect to all those foreign interventions.
Suddenly, everyone’s mindset changes. “The troops in Korea are dying for our freedom!” “The troops are dying in
Vietnam for their country.” “The troops are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq for their country and our freedom.”
It’s all a crock. They’re dying because the national-security state deemed it necessary to involve the United
States in overseas conflicts whose participants never invaded the United States or threatened our nation or our
freedom in any way.
It’s been a racket since the day the national-security establishment was grafted onto our original governmental
system. It’s the national-security state that has gotten America into all these unnecessary wars and conflicts. And
they’re not stopping. They’re now provoking two other major nuclear powers, Russia and China. If anyone thinks that
nuclear war isn’t possible, he is naïve to the extreme.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that suicides among soldiers who have experienced repeated
deployments to the Middle East and Afghanistan are suffering record suicide rates. We all know about the family
violence, the alcoholism, the drug addiction, and the depression that U.S. troops who have fought in that part of
the world are experiencing.
And of course there are the dead — the soldiers who, we are told, made the ultimate sacrifice for our country
and our freedom. It’s all one great big lie, one that people feel is necessary to keep intact at all costs, just
like everyone was expected to admire the emperor’s new clothes. The naked truth is that U.S. soldiers who died in
all those overseas military adventures died for nothing — that is, they died for something that no American would
have been willing to die for if the U.S. national-security establishment had not gotten America embroiled in those
(illegal and unconstitutional) wars.
As our ancestors understood so well, there will always be monsters in the world in the form of such things as
tyrannical dictatorships, civil wars, and famines. (See John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address to Congress
entitled “In Search of
Monsters to Destroy.”) America, Adams said, would not send soldiers abroad to slay any of those dragons but
instead would serve as a sanctuary for people fleeing those monsters. He also pointed out that if America ever
abandoned this non-interventionist philosophy, it would inevitably change America in drastic ways, for the worse.
Who can argue that he was wrong?
The Cold War national-security state apparatus overturned that non-interventionist philosophy, committing
America to a perpetual crusade to slay monsters overseas. That’s what every U.S. soldier has died for and
sacrificed for during the past 65 years — not for freedom, not for our country but instead for such things as
regime-change operations, coups, partnerships with dictators, and other vital interests of the national-security
establishment, all with the aim of keeping that old Cold War dinosaur, the national security state, in perpetual
existence.
The sooner Americans, including the troops, acknowledge this truth, as discomforting as it might be, the better
off America and the troops will be, because then we can restore a constitutional republic to our land and make
America, once again, a peaceful, harmonious, prosperous, and free country.
In this message, Pastor Baldwin explains the Biblical
and Natural Law principles of both just and unjust war. Several Biblical passages are used to
demonstrate the principles of Just War, including examples from the lives of Abram, Gideon, Barak,
Samson, Jephthah, and David. Unjust wars of the Bible are also referenced and discussed.
Pastor Baldwin also cites important principles of
Natural Law as written in Emer de Vattel's monumental work "The Law Of Nations" (published in
1758). This book along with John Locke's "Two Treatises Of Government" (published in 1689) were the
two works that most influenced the writing of America's Declaration of Independence and federal
constitution.
Nations that recklessly ignore God's immutable laws
regarding Just War are destined to incur the judgment of God. America will NOT be the exception to
this rule. America's evolution into a global empire since the end of World War II has only
augmented the propensity of America to entangle itself more and more frequently and more and more
deeply into the political affairs of foreign countries--which leads America to fight more and more
unjust wars in the name of protecting its global empire. (Cont. Nxt Column)
(Cont.) Sadder still is the way that a majority of America's pastors and preachers seem to
have no cognizance of God's Natural and Scriptural laws regarding Just War and, therefore, are
often the country's biggest cheerleaders for unjust wars.
This message has to be among the rarest messages in
21st century America. But, without a doubt, it is one of the most important messages that
Christians--and the civil magistrates they elect to public office--should hear.
The Crime Of Aggression: Condemned By The Law Of Nature And Nature’s
God
The Crime of Aggression is the most serious crime a
nation can commit. The condemnation of this crime is rooted in both Natural and Biblical Law. The
preparation for committing this crime almost cost David his kingdom. In judgment upon David for
planning this crime, God destroyed seventy thousand men, and had David not repented, the nation of
Israel itself would have been destroyed.
Sadly, almost no preacher even deals with this subject, and almost no
Christian has ever heard it explained. Yet it is one of the most important laws dealing with
nations in the entire Bible. From the murderous act of aggression via government-sanctioned
abortion to murderous acts of aggression via government-sanctioned perpetual, preemptive war, the
U.S. continues to violate this greatest-of-all national sins. God will NOT withhold His judgment on
such a nation forever.
In this DVD, Dr. Baldwin explains this almost
forgotten and extremely important Biblical and Natural Law doctrine. This is a message you will
likely hear nowhere else.
Calm And Courage In A 9/11 World
LibertyFellowshipMT
Published on Sep 10, 2018
400 Prophets of Ahab;1 Prophet of
GOD
This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, September 2, 2018 during the service at Liberty
Fellowship. To purchase a copy of this message or to support the fellowship please visit
LibertyFellowshipMT.com
More
False Flag Attacks Are Coming In Prelude To War With Syria And Iran
Chuck Baldwin - August 30, 2018
While Democrats and Republicans are acting out their ongoing left-right charade
for the distraction of the American people, the real agenda of the gamemakers in charge of both parties in
Washington, D.C., progresses without notice. That agenda, of course, is WAR.
Perpetual war is what drives both
America’s economic and political interests. And Donald Trump has already proven himself to be a fully controlled
toady of the military-industrial complex by carrying out two military attacks on Syria (not to mention ongoing
missile attacks, drone attacks, bombings, etc., all over the Middle East), both of which were clearly predicated on
phony false flag chemical attacks blamed on the Syrian government but were actually launched by U.S./Israel/Saudi
Arabia/Great Britain-backed terrorists, such as ISIS, al-Nusra, White Helmets, etc. Well, the signs are ubiquitous
that more false flag chemical attacks are on the way.
Many foreign news sources have
investigated and reported on the phony evidence justifying America’s constant use of military force, but the
American people are never told any of this by our own national media, as it is nothing more than a propagandist
mouthpiece for the Washington War Machine. Right now, the foreign media is abuzz with the signs of another false
flag chemical attack on the horizon, giving Donald Trump the “justification” in launching new attacks against
Syria.
In a move that was entirely
predictable, the US administration is once again threatening to bomb Syria if there is a “chemical weapons
attack.”
This was entirely predictable
because that chemical attack script has been read out, with salty crocodile tears, fake concern, and mocked
indignation by US talking heads over the years - since 2012, in fact, when former US President Obama himself
drew his red line on Syria.
The latest script-reader to toe the
chemical hoax line is President Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, who on August
22,stated: “...if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons we will respond very
strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time.”
Beyond the tattered veil of moral
superiority that is US war propaganda, Bolton's words were clearly a very publiccommand to Al-Qaeda and co-extremists to stage yet another fake chemical attack.
Bolton's statement was preceded by
an August 21 France-UK-US (FUKUS)joint statement, likewise threatening further illegal bombing of Syria if a chemical attack
in Syria occurred (based on evidence the US never has nor needs to reveal).
Recall that the last time they
acted on such a threat, in April 2018, the US and its interventionist alliesdidn't even wait for the Douma lie to be exposed, let alone for any mythical evidence
to materialize, before they illegally bombed Syria with 103 missiles. The bombings occurred before the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had a chance to visit the Douma sites in
question.
It seems that FUKUS' appetite for
destroying Syria wasn't satiated in April 2018, nor in the April 2017 bombings of Syria following
unsubstantiated allegations around Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib.
Bolton's assertions are backed by
the usual suspects of the corporate media, fake human rights groups, “media activists”,
and individuals linked to NATO's Atlantic Council war propaganda think tank.
Chemical weapons accusations are
among the most overused war propaganda tactics during the war on Syria. From late 2012 to April 2018, NATO's
mouthpieces have screamed bloody chlorine or sarin. But time and again, they've been revealed as
intellectually-challenged, supremely-unoriginal liars, to put it politely. Less shrill voices have pointed out
the many occasions where so-called “rebels” had access to sarin, control over a
chlorine factory, and motives for an attack to occur, among other prudent points.
Some of the more loudly blasted
claims were: March 2013, in Khan al-Assal, Aleppo; August 2013, in eastern Ghouta areas; April 2017, in Khan
Sheikhoun, Idlib; and April 2018, in Douma, eastern Ghouta.
ADAM VS THE MAN is back with videos M-F.
Live on Facebook Mondays at 6pmPT.
facebook.com/adamcharleskokesh http://patreon.com/adamvstheman
Conscientious
Objection Don't Be A Pawn In Their NWO
Game
Definition of Conscientious Objection
Current military policy has defined conscientious objection as
the following: “A firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any
form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or belief.” (DOD
1300.6)
Want to help me finally free America from the federal government? http://KokeshForPresident.com
Get the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER for FREE in every format including audiobook
athttp://thefreedomline.com/freedom Please support FREEDOM! by liking and sharing this
video, subscribing, and sharing! Then for everything else:http://TheFreedomLine.com
Help end government by getting away from government money with BITCOIN! This video
is brought to you in part byhttp://bitcoin.com
Why This Marine Is Leaving
The Military!
AdamKokesh Published on May 4, 2018
Adam
talks with friend and consciousness objector Andrew.
Want to help me finally free America from the federal government? http://KokeshForPresident.com
Get the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER for FREE in every format including audiobook
athttp://thefreedomline.com/freedom Please support FREEDOM! by liking and sharing this
video, subscribing, and sharing! Then for everything else:http://TheFreedomLine.com
Help end government by getting away from government money with BITCOIN! This video
is brought to you in part byhttp://bitcoin.com
The Morality of Conscientious Objection
RonPaulLibertyReport Streamed live on Nov 23, 2015
Do soldiers have an obligation to
fight even illegal wars? In the era of an all-volunteer military the question is
not often asked. Nevertheless, what happens when the government breaks its end of
the contract and goes to war in an unconstitutional manner? Former US Air Force
Captain Justin Pavoni joins the Liberty Report with his experiences as a
conscientious objector.
Two Conscientious Objectors from the Air Force Tell Their
Story
Justin Pavoni Published on Nov 28, 2015
Justin and Jessica Pavoni join Tom
Woods on his podcast to discuss conscientious objection.
Tom Woods is a libertarian thought-leader.
Read more from Tom atwww.TomWoods.com
Jessica and Justin Pavoni are former Air Force pilots that left the military as
conscientious objectors. They are contributors to the Ron Paul Institute for Peace
& Prosperity and AntiWar.com. They also run their own blog
atwww.libertybug.org
May 8, 2014 – Justin and Jessica Pavoni – The Scott
Horton Show
Scott Horton Published on Jan 21, 2018
Justin and Jessica Pavoni, both Air
Force pilots and conscientious objectors, discuss their intellectual awakening that
motivated them to apply for CO status; their desire to protect the country after
9/11; and their service experiences and disillusionment with the War in
Afghanistan.
Libertarian policy scholars and
bloggers talked about various aspects of their push for less government. They
discussed fiscal policy, conscientious objection to compulsory military service,
and the financing of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speakers:
Paul-Martin Foss Jessica
Pavoni John
Sharpe Brian McGlinchey
Ali Won His Greatest Fight
RonPaulLibertyReport Streamed live on Jun 6, 2016
Muhammad Ali's refusal to be drafted
for the Vietnam War was said by some to be his greatest, self-imposed, defeat. With
the passage of time -- and so many more wars -- history may tell a very different
story. What was the impact of Ali's stance on the war?
The Center on Conscience & War is a non-profit organization that advocates for
the rights of conscience, opposes military conscription, and serves all
conscientious objectors to war.
Boyle is professor of international law at the University
of Illinois College of Law. Boyle was legal adviser to Rep. Henry B. González and wrote
the first draft of the
González Impeachment Resolution in 1991. George H. W. Bush would later write in his
memoirs that if the Gulf War “drags out, not only will I take the blame, but I will probably
have impeachment proceedings filed against me.”
This is part of our series on the unaccounted for $21 Trillion
in taxpayer money. As unbelievable and absurd as that sounds, the actual total of unaccounted for money at
the Pentagon is most likely significantly more than $21 trillion. The First ever “full-scope audit” of the
Pentagon is presently underway. Read the first report from 
