WHAT DOES COWARDICE + MONEY BREED IN CONGRESS?

February 16, 2012
By CMAC

The Rising Fever of Despotism

By Lee DeCovnickAndrew McCarthy commands a well-deserved respect for his insightful and thought provoking discourse on American conservatism. And Saturday’s’ NRO column clearly delineates what many conservatives think about the despotic nature of this Administration. The sharply focused conclusion, that tyranny’s deadly embrace has ensnared our nation, should set painfully on the shoulders of all Americans.

Here are the opening and ending paragraphs:

The thing to understand about the Department of Health and Human Services’ birth-control mandate, and the last, is that it is an assault on both faithful Christians and the Constitution by leftists who consider themselves at “war” — their word — with bourgeois America. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing access to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients. [...]


Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard Address

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life’s complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

WRITTEN VERSION OF SPEECH BELOW:

 

 

There would not be a United States without the Bill of Rights — absent the understanding that a Bill of Rights would soon be added, the states would not have ratified the Constitution. There would not be a Bill of Rights without the guarantees of free speech and religious liberty enshrined in the very first amendment. This is the irreducible core of the social contract: Government may not compel an American to parrot the policy preferences of the executive branch, nor may it force an American to engage in or directly abet practices that are repellent to Christian doctrine.

The Obama Left is well aware of these things, for these things are basic. The president does not care. His doctrine, hard-Left doctrine, is government promotion of contraception and abortion on demand. On these tenets, he brooks no dissent. Regardless of what the Constitution says, you are commanded to obey. He has started the war against our liberties not because of any crisis, but because he can. That is tyranny. It is a rupturing of the American conception of sovereignty, in which the president is our servant, not our ruler. It cannot stand.

“That is tyranny.” For a rational intelligent citizen who loves this country and who appreciates the founding principles enshrined in the Declaration of the Independence, that phrase invokes a profound detestation of the moral and authoritarian schisms, purposefully rendered by this Administration, dividing our nation.

Two hundred and thirty-six years after it’s signing, the Declaration of Independence shines forth as one of mankind’s greatest intellectual achievements. Radical then as now, the Declaration upended the relationship between a monarchial government and the people. So profound are the principles and moral beliefs laid out by Jefferson in 1776, that they still continue to enrage our 21st century’s dictators and despots.

How radical is the Declaration of Independence?  Here are the epochal ideas that Jefferson postulated. The Creator endows men, not governments, with certain unalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. These rights exist independent of government. So even when a government fails to uphold these rights, the rights endure because they are preexistent to the government.

From the fff.org website, by Jacob G. Homberger:

Where then do government’s powers come from? The powers come from the people because it is the people who bring government into existence. Government does not preexist the citizenry (and their rights); instead, the government exists by favor of the citizenry. Thus, whenever the people wish to dismantle or abolish government, it is their right to do so, since the existence of government depends on the will of those who bring it into existence — that is, the people.

As a tyrant becomes increasingly and unceasingly abusive of our rights, at what point should the people abolish the government anew?  The Declaration of Independence answers this question with exquisite eloquence.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Certainly political theory does not get any more radical, or rational, than that.

The United States now suffers the fever of despotism, in great part, because Congress has relentlessly abrogated its sworn Constitutional duty. Article One, Section One of the Constitution informs us:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Nowhere in the Constitution do we find that Executive branch appointees, such as those comfortably ensconced at HHS, EPA, or Treasury may write laws that the people are expected to obey. Congress and her law-writing committees were once responsible for actually writing all the Federal laws and regulations, down to the smallest detail. Now Congress passes two thousand pages of overview legislation that specifically permits the unelected, unappointed, and unconfirmed bureaucrats to add cauldrons full of the devil brew to the details of new legislation. The Founders of this country would be aghast at the powers so easily forfeited by Congress and hoarded by the Executive branch.

Congress has also allowed a non-Constitutional plague of mutant appointees: Obama’s czars. These goose-stepping Marxist termites gnaw at our Constitutional foundation of checks and balances.  Here is an excerpt from a Judicial Watch report on the forty-five czars deeply imbedded in the Executive agencies. Read the entire report here, a terrifying piece of investigative reporting.

President Barack Obama has installed personal advisors in czar positions in the White House and has created new czar positions elsewhere in the Executive Branch. As of the date of this report, the number of czars that have been appointed by the President, or by others in his administration, appears to total 45. In addition, there are as many as 18 other unfilled or planned czar positions.

“Many of these ‘czars’ are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress. Further, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.

Czars appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs.

In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.

A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.

Barack Obama’s unconstitutional use of czars to help run his administration is at odds with republican, limited, and accountable government. Obama has simply installed his radical leftist allies in various positions of power while thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people. As we document in this report, too many of these czars have proven to be corrupt or radicals (or sometimes both). No wonder the Obama administration fights tooth and nail to allow these czars to operate in secret.

Thomas Jefferson reaches out over the centuries to counsel us that,  “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” The requirement for such forceful change will results from a cascade of bitter failures within our social and governmental institutions. We are not at that fork of history. However, thoughtful conservatives must look toward some uncomfortable duties, a start of redress, to stem our current slide into tyranny.

That initial redress starts today when each one of us begins to reach out, one on one, to our liberal neighbors, co-workers, friends and family. We must patiently discuss today’s headlines within the context of the Declaration of Independence. By educating and reminding them of America’s self-evident truths, unalienable rights, and that our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, we open minds and give substance to the looming icebergs of tyranny, dead ahead.

Redress also means that Congress must start doing its job. Congress should follow the Constitution by actually writing the laws in public view, rather than fob them off on the Executive agencies. And Congress must de-fund and forever decertify the existence of the czars. Or else we must vote these damn Congressional monarchists out of power. These ideas are less radical then those written in the Declaration. To believe otherwise renders us all silent passengers on that “long train of abuses and usurpations.”

Americans, Lincoln and Jefferson’s people, may have but a single Constitutionally mandated opportunity to avoid a further “rupturing of the American conception of sovereignty, in which the president is our servant, not our ruler.” November 6th, 2012 will become a crucial day of national reckoning, not unlike that warm July day in Philadelphia, two hundred and thirty-six years ago.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” -Thomas Jefferson

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_rising_fever_of_despotism.html#ixzz1mXqXw3w0

Issa’s Bravado on Fast and Furious Falls Flat

M Catharine Evans

Did Representative Darrell Issa really ask Attorney General Eric Holder to “specify a date” when the DOJ would turn over subpoenaed documents relating to Fast and Furious?

From a February 14, 2012 letter sent by Issa to Holder:

We cannot wait any longer for the Department’s cooperation.

As such, please specify a date by which you expect the Department to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena. In addition please specify a Department representative who will interface with the Committee for production purposes.

The Committee has been more than patient in dealing with Department representatives to obtain the information it needs. Nearly four months have passed since I authorized your subpoena.

It is impossible to end our investigation with the current level of cooperation we are receiving from the Department.

What cooperation?

For over a year now, the Committee Chairman’s weapon of choice against the lying, smirking “my people” Holder has been letters — lots of tough-sounding, whiny letters.

Issa’s beginning to remind me of the Rolex-wearing, cocky dupe Harry Ellis in the 1988 blockbuster movie Die Hard.

The reality of the situation seems completely lost on Issa, as it was on the business-as-usual Ellis. The true nature of the masterminds behind the murders of federal agents and Mexican civilians appears to elude the congressman from California.

Remember the doomed would-be hero Ellis as he tries to thwart Hans’ plan to kill the hostages held up at Nakatomi Plaza? Before he sits across from the so-called terrorist with the vapid optimism often seen in the rich and the stupid, he tells Holly:

“Hey babe, I negotiate million dollar deals for breakfast, I think I can handle this Eurotrash.”

But justice didn’t prevail when Ellis foolishly attempted to mediate between the law and the terrorists; as anyone who has watched the movie knows.


Republicans demand apology for Obama campaign manager's 'chimichanga' HA, HA ,HA

 

IS THIS SIMPLY A MATTER OF WHITE MEN FAILING TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE OF COLOR, AS A BLACK PRESIDENT LEADS US INTO GHETTO AMERICA?

DID THE FEMINISTS OF THE 70′S, 80′S, AND 90′S PERMANENTLY CRIPPLE THE WHITE MALE GENE POOL.

ARE THEY NOW INCAPABLE OF EVEN THE CONCEPT OF DEFENDING THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR RELIGION, AND THEIR COUNTRY?

DID THE REBELS OF THE 60′S SPREAD REBELLION AS FREEDOM TO THE EXTENT TODAY’S AMERICANS DON’T KNOW WHAT OBEDIENCE TO THE GOD OF THEIR FATHERS IS.

WITH FEMALE ENROLLMENT INTO THE CLERGY AT PRESBYTERIAN SEMINARIES AT 68%, THE SPREAD OF A FALSELY EFFEMINATE LOVING HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE GOD WHO HAS NO OPINIONS ON POLITICAL ISSUES IS PATENTLY FALSE.

EVERYONE KNOWS AMERICA IS BASED ON PRINCIPLES, NOT PERSONALITIES OR COLOR OF SKIN, OR SEXUAL IDENTITY;  BUT, ABOVE DEMOCRACY, ABOVE THE REPUBLIC WE ACKNOWLEDGED A SLAVERY TO THE GOD OF ISRAEL.   WE ACCEPTED THAT SLAVERY AS THE TRUEST SINCE OF FREEDOM IN THIS LIFE AND THE LIFE HEREAFTER.

THE OBEDIENCE PART OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ONLY TRUE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY IS GONE.  CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA HAS NO FIGHT LEFT.  AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA USED TO BE A WINNING RELIGION.  NOW IT IS A LOOSING RELIGION.  AND, NO ONE IS ASKING WHY CHRISTIANITY LOOSING TODAY.

WHAT IF I TOLD YOU CHRISTIANITY HAPPENS AS MUCH WITH THE LEGS AS IT DOES WITH THE MOUTH.  WHAT IF I TOLD YOU ANY GOOD ARMY WINS AS MUCH WITH THEIR LEGS AS THEY DO WITH INDIVIDUAL BATLLES.

IT IS ABOUT HOW YOU REPOSITION YOUR TROOPS AFTER EACH INDIVIDUAL BATTLE AND THE SPEED WITH WHICH YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT MOVEMENT.

 

 

 

Text of Address by

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,

Thursday, June 8, 1978

I am sincerely happy to be here with you on this occasion and to become personally acquainted with this old and most prestigious University. My congratulations and very best wishes to all of today’s graduates.

Harvard’s motto is “Veritas.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend.

Three years ago in the United States I said certain things which at that time appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I then said…

A World Split Apart

by Alexander SolzhenitsynThe split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of entirely destroying the other. However, understanding of the split often is limited to this political conception, to the illusion that danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is a much profounder and a more alienating one, that the rifts are more than one can see at first glance. This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a Kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.

Contemporary Worlds

There is the concept of the Third World: thus, we already have three worlds. Undoubtedly, however, the number is even greater; we are just too far away to see. Any ancient deeply rooted autonomous culture, especially if it is spread on a wide part of the earth’s surface, constitutes an autonomous world, full of riddles and surprises to Western thinking. As a minimum, we must include in this category China, India, the Muslim world and Africa, if indeed we accept the approximation of viewing the latter two as compact units. For one thousand years Russia has belonged to such a category, although Western thinking systematically committed the mistake of denying its autonomous character and therefore never understood it, just as today the West does not understand Russia in communist captivity. It may be that in the past years Japan has increasingly become a distant part of the West, I am no judge here; but as to Israel, for instance, it seems to me that it stands apart from the Western world in that its state system is fundamentally linked to religion.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small new European world was easily seizing colonies everywhere, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but also usually despising any possible values in the conquered peoples’ approach to life. On the face of it, it was an overwhelming success, there were no geographic frontiers to it. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the twentieth century came the discovery of its fragility and friability. We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious, and this in turn points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests. Relations with the former colonial world now have turned into their opposite and the Western world often goes to extremes of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the total size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West, and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns will be sufficient for the West to foot the bill.

Convergence

But the blindness of superiority continues in spite of all and upholds the belief that vast regions everywhere on our planet should develop and mature to the level of present day Western systems which in theory are the best and in practice the most attractive. There is this belief that all those other worlds are only being temporarily prevented by wicked governments or by heavy crises or by their own barbarity or incomprehension from taking the way of Western pluralistic democracy and from adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in this direction. However, it is a conception which developed out of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, out of the mistake of measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development is quite different.

Anguish about our divided world gave birth to the theory of convergence between leading Western countries and the Soviet Union. It is a soothing theory which overlooks the fact that these worlds are not at all developing into similarity; neither one can be transformed into the other without the use of violence. Besides, convergence inevitably means acceptance of the other side’s defects, too, and this is hardly desirable.

If I were today addressing an audience in my country, examining the overall pattern of the world’s rifts I would have concentrated on the East’s calamities. But since my forced exile in the West has now lasted four years and since my audience is a Western one, I think it may be of greater interest to concentrate on certain aspects of the West in our days, such as I see them.

A Decline in Courage [. . .]

may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

Well-Being

When the modern Western States were created, the following principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration). Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one’s nation must be defended in a distant country?

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.

Legalistic Life

Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.

The Direction of Freedom

In today’s Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.

It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists’ civil rights. There are many such cases.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework).

The Direction of the Press

The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom. (I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of use does it make of this freedom?

Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance.

Because instant and credible information has to be given, it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay on in the readers’ memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification. The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one’s nation’s defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the privacy of well-known people under the slogan: “everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan, characteristic of a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information.

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press. It stops at sensational formulas.

Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?

There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.

A Fashion in Thinking

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

I have mentioned a few trends of Western life which surprise and shock a new arrival to this world. The purpose and scope of this speech will not allow me to continue such a review, to look into the influence of these Western characteristics on important aspects on [the] nation’s life, such as elementary education, advanced education in [?...]

Socialism

It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current.

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.

Not a Model

But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just mentioned are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. Life’s complexity and mortal weight have produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores. It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

Shortsightedness

Very well known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism’s well planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis; it prevents one from seeing the size and meaning of events.

In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is. There have been naive predictions by some American experts who believed that Angola would become the Soviet Union’s Vietnam or that Cuban expeditions in Africa would best be stopped by special U.S. courtesy to Cuba. Kennan’s advice to his own country — to begin unilateral disarmament — belongs to the same category. If you only knew how the youngest of the Moscow Old Square [1] officials laugh at your political wizards! As to Fidel Castro, he frankly scorns the United States, sending his troops to distant adventures from his country right next to yours.

However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation’s courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?

I have had occasion already to say that in the 20th century democracy has not won any major war without help and protection from a powerful continental ally whose philosophy and ideology it did not question. In World War II against Hitler, instead of winning that war with its own forces, which would certainly have been sufficient, Western democracy grew and cultivated another enemy who would prove worse and more powerful yet, as Hitler never had so many resources and so many people, nor did he offer any attractive ideas, or have such a large number of supporters in the West — a potential fifth column — as the Soviet Union. At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.

Loss of Willpower

And yet — no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing their lives.

Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western civilization forever.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?

Humanism and Its Consequences

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present sickness? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing socially in accordance with its proclaimed intentions, with the help of brilliant technological progress. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.

However, in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the Twentieth century’s moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the Nineteenth Century.

An Unexpected Kinship

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism’s meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism’s crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

Before the Turn

I am not examining here the case of a world war disaster and the changes which it would produce in society. As long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we have to lead an everyday life. There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.

To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.

If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most out of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President’s performance be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or of unlimited availability of gasoline. Only voluntary, inspired self-restraint can raise man above the world stream of materialism.

It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward.

The Advancement of the Toxic Totalitarian Nanny State

by Rand Simberg

A 4-year old girl’s home-brought lunch is confiscated for being “unhealthy.”

Obama’s Budget Bleeds Red Ink

by Roger Morse

The budget is a written testament to the broken promises and failure of leadership of Barack Obama.

Secrecy Surrounds Conference to Train Cops on ‘Political Violence’

by Patrick Poole

The government won’t speak about the mysterious American Muslim Advisory Council.

Senate Push to Help Syria Brings Rubio, Boxer Together

by Bridget Johnson

A new bipartisan resolution calls on the president to give material and technical assistance to the Syrian opposition.

Can Republicans Avoid a Debacle?

by Roger L Simon

What seemed even weeks ago as a banner year for Republicans currently looms as a potential debacle.

Millions of Dead Voters, Brought to You By Eric Holder

by J. Christian Adams

Two million dead voters are on the rolls, and nearly three million voters are registered in more than one state.

 

‘Under God’ at issue again

 

Another lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. But a different approach is being taken this time, as a clause in the Massachusetts Constitution – not the federal Establishment Clause – is being cited.

Analyst: Nat’l security takes back seat at WH

 

A retired Army officer and national defense expert thinks President Obama’s proposal to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent is driven by political ideology — not sound defense needs.

NYC church defenders ‘not going away’

 

Even though Mayor Michael Bloomberg things the Constitution calls for the churches to be evicted from New York City schools, which happened last Sunday, efforts continue in the New York Assembly to pass legislation to once again make public schools available to city congregations.

Public prayer under attack in U.K.

 

Town hall prayers have been banned in Britain, according to a report from a Christian organization that considers the court ruling an assault on the country’s heritage.

Health insurance isn’t for birth control

 

Many people are wondering why the Obama administration is requiring insurance companies to provide birth control, when birth control is already available through schools, health departments — and places like Planned Parenthood.

Illegals’ ‘rights’ costing taxpayers

 

An immigration enforcement advocacy organization says a Connecticut immigration case illustrates that the Obama administration cares more about the rights of illegal aliens than it does the American citizens who are suffering because of rampant illegal immigration.

O’Reilly’s logic fails him

 

Dr. Michael Brown smallDoes Bill O’Reilly really grasp the reason for a pro-family group’s opposition to Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson for JC Penney? Surprisingly, he doesn’t.

CPAC observer: Romney pulls a Paul

 

poll vote button 2Political and social conservatives met in Washington, DC, this past weekend for the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee. But one participant questions the outcome of the group’s mock election.

Assault = free speech?

 

A Christian activist says an incident of anti-Semitism at a California university was actually an act of assault that should not be protected as free speech.

Next move up to assaulted pro-lifer

 

Since a judge has sided with a Massachusetts pro-lifer, the activist is considering pursuing a civil lawsuit in conjunction with his violent arrest.

 

GOP’s rocky election-year start

Russell Berman - 02/15/12 08:30 PM ET

Speaker John Boehner delayed his signature highway bill and rank-and-file members grumbled about a tentative payroll tax deal.…

Related: Boehner delays highway bill vote

Ryan urges GOP candidates to ‘prepare the country’ for tax, entitlement reform

Erik Wasson - 02/16/12 09:41 AM ET

“We just can’t have an ordinary election where it is a personality contest,” the House Budget Committee chairman said.…
Deal on extending payroll tax cut raises Obama’s chances for reelection

Ian Swanson - 02/16/12 05:15 AM ET

Congressional Republicans hope to regain political momentum by putting the payroll-tax fight behind them.…
Lawmakers reach deal to extend payroll tax cut

Bernie Becker and Mike Lillis

02/16/12 02:05 AM ET

Negotiators finalized a deal to extend the payroll tax cut, emergency unemployment benefits and the Medicare reimbursement rate for doctors.…
Poll: Obama leads GOP field in key swing states

Jonathan Easley

02/16/12 07:44 AM ET

Romney fares the best against the president in the swing states, but still trails by eight points.…
 

 

Yahoo’s Prediction Engine Calls Presidential Race In Favor Of Obama (Sorry, Mitt)

BY E.B. BoydToday

Using smarty-pants economists and computer scientists, Yahoo analyzed historical data and says the math points to the prez taking the White House this fall.READ»

 

 

NATO’s “Secret War” on Syria: Replicating the Libya Model
British Special Forces Supporting Rebels
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, February 11, 2012

In January, Michel Chossudovsky reported British media confirming UK/CIA/MI6 operatives in Syria training anti-Assad Western-backed insurgents. They’re also supplying them with arms, ammunition, and equipment.

“These reports confirm unequivocally [they're illegally] interfer[ing] in the affairs of a sovereign state. This is not a popular uprising. The insurrection as well as the killings of civilians were sponsored by the Western powers from the outset.”

More on this below. Events replicate the Libya model a year earlier.

In February 2011, US/UK/French special forces and intelligence operatives actively began helping anti-Gaddafi NATO-backed militants. An armed insurgency followed, including bombing weeks later.

A year later, BBC confirmed it, saying:

“….British special forces were deployed on the ground in order to help the UK’S allies – the Libyan ‘revolutionaries’ often called the National Transitional Council or NTC.”

Knowledgeable sources said “they did a tremendous job” conquering Libya. “The existence of E Squadron is well known within the special forces community but has not hitherto been discussed publicly. It was formed five years ago to work closely with the intelligence service MI6, and is mainly involved in missions where maximum discretion is required, say Whitehall insiders.”

Composed of SAS, SBS, and Special Reconnaissance Regiment forces, it “often operates in plain clothes and with the full range of national support, such as false identities, at its disposal.”

Last March, other British media provided similar accounts. The London Daily Mail, said “hundreds of British special forces troops have been deployed deep inside Libya targeting Colonel Gaddafi’s forces – and more are on standby.”

“It is understood that just under 250 UK special forces soldiers have been in Libya since before the launch of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone against Gaddafi’s forces.”

Another hundred or more were on standby. They were comprised of Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) paratroupers drawn from the SAS (Special Air Service) and SBS (Special Boat Service). They were resupplied from Cyprus. Moreover, 800 Royal Marines were “on five days notice” to deploy to the Mediterranean.

Last March, six squadron members were caught red-handed. Dropped in by helicopter, they were dressed in black, well-armed with weapons, explosives, maps and false passports. Britain claimed they arrived to protect diplomats and monitor events in Benghazi, not military operations.

An official Ministry of Defense statement said, “We neither confirm nor deny the story and we do not comment on the special forces.”

The Libyan model’s being replicated in Syria, so far short of bombing. Expect it if current tactics don’t achieve regime change.

On February 9, Russia Today (RT.com) reported:

“British and Qatari troops are directing rebel ammunition deliveries and tactics in the bloody battle for Homs,” according to the Mossad-connected DEBKAfile.

On February 8, it reported:

UK and Qatari “special operations units are operating with rebel forces under cover in (Homs), according to DEBKAfile’s exclusive military and intelligence sources.”

Allegedly not engaged in fighting, they’re tactically aiding and abetting foreign insurgents illegally against a sovereign government.

DEBKAfile reported an Ankara plan to send Turkish/Arab forces to Homs and other “flashpoint cities.” Earlier, Assad said full-scale war would confront Turkish or other forces if they invade.

On February 8, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Washington for help. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s enlisting support from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Anti-Assad pressure’s building.

Qatar’s ruling Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, openly admitted supporting insurgents with cash, weapons and munitions. In mid-January, he said he’s ready to send troops.

On February 8, London Daily Mail writer Tim Shipman headlined, “Britain will help Syrian rebels says (PM) Cameron as Assad army bombs continue to rain down on Homs,” saying:

Details of “a three point plan to force” out Assad “were signed off yesterday” at a National Security Council meeting.

According to a Whitehall security source:

“The training is taking place on a one to one basis with opposition leaders outside Syria.” No further information about direct intervention was supplied.

On February 10, Daily Mail writer Lee Moran quoted a US State Department source saying the Pentagon’s considering arming insurgents. Earlier, Obama said no “option(s are) off the table.”

On February 8, London Telegraph writer Alex Spillius headlined, “International ‘militarisation’ in Syria growing closer, warns US official,” saying:

Washington debate shifted from diplomacy “towards more robust action since Russia and China blocked” Security Council action. “Any plan to supply aid or set up a buffer zone would involve a military dimension to protect aid convoys or vulnerable civilians.”

“The Pentagon Central Command has begun a preliminary internal review of US military capabilities in the region” to provide options if ordered. An unnamed senior US official said “increasingly it looks like (military intervention) may not be avoidable.”

If initiated, regional allies will be involved, including Turkey, Gulf states, and perhaps Israel. Last August, Ria Novosti headlined, “NATO plans campaign in Syria, tightens noose around Iran – Rogozin,” saying:

Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin said NATO’s planning to oust Assad and establish a beachhead for attacking Iran. Izvestia quoted him saying:

Planning for a military campaign “is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa.”

Rogozin added that NATO plans intervening only against those regimes “whose views do not coincide with those of the West.” As a result, he envisioned a possible “large-scale war in this huge region.”

Military intervention now seems likely. Expect regional proxies to be used. Air power support may follow. UK, Qatari, and perhaps other Western elements inside Syria represent initial steps toward what appears planned.

A Final Comment

The business of America is permanent wars for unchallengeable wealth, power, and dominance, while homeland needs go begging.

Obama’s a war profiteer front man. He plans them while talking peace. Ravaging Afghanistan continues. Thousands of US troops remain in Iraq. Others were repositioned nearby. Increased numbers were added to establish a larger regional footprint, combining air, ground, and naval units for future combat operations.

Syria’s target one, then Iran. Whether full-scale war’s planned isn’t clear.

However, proxy operations may develop that way whether or not intended.

Washington wants total regional dominance. Nothing’s off the table to achieve it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.


  • Share/Bookmark

Leave a Reply

Ads Plugin created by Jake Ruston - Sponsored by Broyhill Furniture.