FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war." - - Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia - Popularized by Bob Marley in the song War

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Vigilantes with a Badge: Warrior Cops Endanger Our Lives and Freedoms

Not a day goes by without reports of police officers overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and brutalizing, terrorizing and killing the citizenry. Indeed, the list of incidents in which unaccountable police abuse their power, betray their oath of office and leave taxpayers bruised, broken and/or killed grows longer and more tragic by the day. Indeed, as John W. Whitehead reports in this episode of On Target, it is increasingly evident that militarized police—who are armed with weapons of war and who are allowed to operate above the law—have not made America any safer or freer.


Not a day goes by without reports of police officers overstepping the bounds of the Constitution and brutalizing, terrorizing and killing the citizenry. Indeed, the list of incidents in which unaccountable police abuse their power, betray their oath of office and leave taxpayers bruised, broken and/or killed grows longer and more tragic by the day. Indeed, as John W. Whitehead reports in this episode of On Target, it is increasingly evident that militarized police—who are armed with weapons of war and who are allowed to operate above the law—have not made America any safer or freer.




Friday, March 15, 2019

A Soldiers Voice

A Soldiers Voice

I am Joseph F Barber free individual,I am the author of a blog called Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of Conscience,
I am a syndicated freelance writer an activist for peace although I am a pacifist, yet it must be understood I am a militant pacifists and I will fight for peace and the freedoms of my countrymen and women and that of the future generations to come for the individual rights set down by the founders of our Homeland.

Have no illusion of my resolve, I am a Veteran a self employed tax payer and the founder of veteransproject I am a father ,a brother ,a son and a friend to We the people, and last I am a Sovereign a free man or individual if you will.

I come to this forum today to speak on behalf of every veteran, for the inslaved and every individual who as became a captives of government.
And those who are choosing to stand free and there ground dispite being marginalized and set aside for doing so
As I speak out here for those who's voice is silenced
I ask you,
to do something for me do this and do it proudly and let the world see you doing it , stand and be counted when you do so you give the person next to you the courage to do the same,

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth,

And never forget this the whole and soul reason I became a soldier it was not to become a killer, it was because a wanted to be a peace maker, a teacher of sorts, because it's my belief that You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed.

When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.

I am Joseph Barber & the author of  Freedom or Anarchy campaign of conscience, yet I am as guilty as the next veteran standing next to me

“The brave men and women, who serve their country and as a result, live constantly with the war inside them, exist in a world of chaos. But the turmoil they experience isn’t who they are; the PTSD invades their minds and bodies.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living—including veterans.”


But let us not forget what war and violence do's to the heart and soul; the mind

“For soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, coming home is more lethal than being in combat. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the summer of 2009, the US military lost 761 soldiers in combat in that country. Compare that to the 817 who took their own lives over the same period, and this number does account for deaths related to violence, high-risk behaviors, and addiction.

lets us not forget that and let us place the blame were it belongs on the cooperation of America.

So many today have forgotten the rights and the truths that have to kept us free and we have became captives of government the largest cooperation on the planet and born into slavery legalized by our birth into this nation
And yet if we are to believe in a true democracy by it's very meaning

The Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

What many do not understand nor do they see is the truth of the emotional conflict within the soul

when we send our countrymen and women to war or to other nations to act as the world's police force assa true patriot and soldier you must come to the understanding of this truth

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath—a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.

I give you a short video of the voice of one of our countrymen

Warning!!!!--this video will most likely offend the majority of the population.!



Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq AND Afghanistan. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy “savages.” There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.

People ask me all the time, “How many people have you killed?”

My standard response is, “Does the answer make me less, or more, of a man?”
The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.
Everyone I shot was trying to harm Americans.


Americans who lack the vision and fortitude, and fail to understand that you're either with us or against us. That includes fellow US troops who lack the skill, or who dare to question the wars.

Iraqis,afghans, by contrast, are not sheep:they're either wolves themselves, or nameless collateral damage.
Mostly wolves, though.

“I am a strong Christian. Not a perfect one—not close.

But I strongly believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible. When I die, God is going to hold me accountable for everything I've done on earth. He may hold me back until last and run everybody else through the line, because it will take so long to go over all my sins.”

Honestly, I don’t know what will really happen on Judgment Day. But what I lean toward is that you know all of your sins, and God knows them all, and shame comes over you at the reality that He knows.

I believe the fact that I’ve accepted Jesus as my savior will be my salvation. But in that backroom or whatever it is when God confronts me with my sins, I do not believe any of the kills I had during the war will be among them.

Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every shot. They all deserved to die.” “anyone who has a problem with what guys do over there is incapable of empathy.

People want America to have a certain image when we fight.

Yet I would guess if someone were shooting at them and they had to hold their family members while they bled out against an enemy who hid behind their children, played dead only to throw a grenade as they got closer, and who had no qualms about sending their toddler to die from a grenade from which they personally pulled the pin—they would be less concerned with playing nicely.”


I end this speech to my countrymen and women with these  final words believe in God and in his truths come to see that love is your greatest power you hold with in you
stand as atrue patriots stand for the weak those who cancnot stand for themselves that is a asign of a true patriot and be brave enough to be the change you wish to see in our world do it for yourselves do it for the future generations to come it is your human right let us the free call it lawful Rebellion standing for what's right and true

To meet the challenges of our times 
"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to."I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace

Thanks for listening
Always your friend

Joseph F Barber

A Soldiers Voice

I am Joseph F Barber free individual,I am the author of a blog called Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of Conscience,
I am a syndicated freelance writer an activist for peace although I am a pacifist, yet it must be understood I am a militant pacifists and I will fight for peace and the freedoms of my countrymen and women and that of the future generations to come for the individual rights set down by the founders of our Homeland.

Have no illusion of my resolve, I am a Veteran a self employed tax payer and the founder of veteransproject I am a father ,a brother ,a son and a friend to We the people, and last I am a Sovereign a free man or individual if you will.

I come to this forum today to speak on behalf of every veteran, for the inslaved and every individual who as became a captives of government.
And those who are choosing to stand free and there ground dispite being marginalized and set aside for doing so
As I speak out here for those who's voice is silenced
I ask you,
to do something for me do this and do it proudly and let the world see you doing it , stand and be counted when you do so you give the person next to you the courage to do the same,

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth,

And never forget this the whole and soul reason I became a soldier it was not to become a killer, it was because a wanted to be a peace maker, a teacher of sorts, because it's my belief that You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed.

When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.

I am Joseph Barber & the author of  Freedom or Anarchy campaign of conscience, yet I am as guilty as the next veteran standing next to me

“The brave men and women, who serve their country and as a result, live constantly with the war inside them, exist in a world of chaos. But the turmoil they experience isn’t who they are; the PTSD invades their minds and bodies.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living—including veterans.”


But let us not forget what war and violence do's to the heart and soul; the mind

“For soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, coming home is more lethal than being in combat. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the summer of 2009, the US military lost 761 soldiers in combat in that country. Compare that to the 817 who took their own lives over the same period, and this number does account for deaths related to violence, high-risk behaviors, and addiction.

lets us not forget that and let us place the blame were it belongs on the cooperation of America.

So many today have forgotten the rights and the truths that have to kept us free and we have became captives of government the largest cooperation on the planet and born into slavery legalized by our birth into this nation
And yet if we are to believe in a true democracy by it's very meaning

The Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

What many do not understand nor do they see is the truth of the emotional conflict within the soul

when we send our countrymen and women to war or to other nations to act as the world's police force assa true patriot and soldier you must come to the understanding of this truth

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath—a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.

I give you a short video of the voice of one of our countrymen

Warning!!!!--this video will most likely offend the majority of the population.!



Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq AND Afghanistan. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy “savages.” There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.

People ask me all the time, “How many people have you killed?”

My standard response is, “Does the answer make me less, or more, of a man?”
The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.
Everyone I shot was trying to harm Americans.


Americans who lack the vision and fortitude, and fail to understand that you're either with us or against us. That includes fellow US troops who lack the skill, or who dare to question the wars.

Iraqis,afghans, by contrast, are not sheep:they're either wolves themselves, or nameless collateral damage.
Mostly wolves, though.

“I am a strong Christian. Not a perfect one—not close.

But I strongly believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible. When I die, God is going to hold me accountable for everything I've done on earth. He may hold me back until last and run everybody else through the line, because it will take so long to go over all my sins.”

Honestly, I don’t know what will really happen on Judgment Day. But what I lean toward is that you know all of your sins, and God knows them all, and shame comes over you at the reality that He knows.

I believe the fact that I’ve accepted Jesus as my savior will be my salvation. But in that backroom or whatever it is when God confronts me with my sins, I do not believe any of the kills I had during the war will be among them.

Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every shot. They all deserved to die.” “anyone who has a problem with what guys do over there is incapable of empathy.

People want America to have a certain image when we fight.

Yet I would guess if someone were shooting at them and they had to hold their family members while they bled out against an enemy who hid behind their children, played dead only to throw a grenade as they got closer, and who had no qualms about sending their toddler to die from a grenade from which they personally pulled the pin—they would be less concerned with playing nicely.”


I end this speech to my countrymen and women with these  final words believe in God and in his truths come to see that love is your greatest power you hold with in you
stand as atrue patriots stand for the weak those who cancnot stand for themselves that is a asign of a true patriot and be brave enough to be the change you wish to see in our world do it for yourselves do it for the future generations to come it is your human right let us the free call it lawful Rebellion standing for what's right and true

To meet the challenges of our times 
"I don't know how to save the world. I don't have the answers or The Answer. I hold no secret knowledge as to how to fix the mistakes of generations past and present. I only know that without compassion and respect for all Earth's inhabitants, none of us will survive - nor will we deserve to."I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace

Thanks for listening
Always your friend

Joseph F Barber



Thursday, March 14, 2019

Susan Lynn Jimenez aka: Susan L. Jimenez, Susan L. Murguia, Susan L. Tellez, Susan L. Tilton, Susan Limias 54 years old Cornelius, ORVancouver, WAEl Paso, TXHillsboro, ORCampo, CAPotrero, CATecate, CAEverett, WABeaverton, ORRiverside, CABaytown, TXClute, TX Susan Lynn Jimenez aka: Susan L. Jimenez, Susan L. Murguia, Susan L. Tellez, Susan L. Tilton, Susan Limias 54 years old Cornelius, ORVancouver, WAEl Paso, TXHillsboro, ORCampo, CAPotrero, CATecate, CAEverett, WABeaverton, ORRiverside, CABaytown, TXClute, TX

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Can U.S. Soldiers Be Heroes?

Can U.S. Soldiers Be Heroes?

I am Joseph Barber & the author of  Freedom or Anarchy campaign of conscience,yet I am as guilty as the next veteran standing next to me “The brave men and women, who serve their country and as a result, live constantly with the war inside them, exist in a world of chaos. But the turmoil they experience isn’t who they are; the PTSD invades their minds and bodies.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living—including veterans.”

but let us not forget what war and violence dos to the heart and soul; the mind “For soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, coming home is more lethal than being in combat. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the summer of 2009, the US military lost 761 soldiers in combat in that country. Compare that to the 817 who took their own lives over the same period, and this number does account for deaths related to violence, high-risk behaviors, and addiction.lets us not forget that and let us place the blame were it belongs on the cooperation of America 
Do we call a member of the Mafia or other criminal gang a hero if he gives his life in the course of saving his fellow gang members from an attack by rival gang members? No, we call him a dupe, a fool, or an idiot.

I was reminded of this truth when I received an e-mail promotion from Outback Steakhouse on Sunday, February 17. Why was the e-mail sent on the 17th? Because Presidents’ Day was the next day: Monday, February 18. Here is the text of what I received:

HERE’S WHAT’S GRILLIN’ AT OUTBACK THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 18, 2019

HONORING HEROES WITH 20% OFF

PROUD TO SERVE THOSE WHO SERVE

We are partnering with Operation Homefront to help make life a little easier for our military, veterans and families in their communities. We are honoring all HEROES February 18-21 with 20% off.* (with valid state or federal ID).

The * refers to the fine print at the bottom of the e-mail stating that the offer is valid from February 18-21, and is open to servicemen and women, police officers and firefighters, with corresponding state or federal service ID, plus Military Personnel and their immediate family members who have a proper form of identification.
I have pointed out many times over the years how that the holidays of Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Veterans Day should just be called Military Appreciation Day 1, Military Appreciation Day 2, and Military Appreciation Day 3.

Now it seems as though every holiday has been turned into a military appreciation day.

But it gets worse. When you look at the Outback Steakhouse website, you will see a box containing text that reads: “Serving Those Who Serve.” Clicking inside the box brings you to a page that reads:

Help Us Serve Those Who Serve

At Outback Steakhouse, we are partnering with Operation Homefront to help make life a little easier for our military, veterans and families in their communities.

On this page you can read about the “Heroes Discount.” Outback Steakhouse celebrates “all servicemen and women, police officers, firefighters, and all first responders with 10% off* their entire check all day, every day (with valid state or federal service ID).”

Once again, the * refers to the fine print at the bottom of the page stating that the offer is valid through March 26, and is open to servicemen and women, police officers and firefighters, with corresponding state or federal service ID, plus Military Personnel and their immediate family members who have a proper form of identification.


The Outback Steakhouse e-mail and website that call military personnel heroes raises two important questions that I don’t hear anyone asking.

First of all, why is it that all U.S. soldiers (and police, firemen, and first responders) are heroes? It doesn’t matter where soldiers go, why they go, how long they stay, whether they should go, or what they do when they are there—the soldiers are all heroes. It doesn’t matter how many widows and orphans soldiers make, how many bombs they drop, how many civilians they kill, how much infrastructure they destroy, how many bullets they fire, how many missiles they launch, or how many of “the enemy” they injure, maim, or kill—the soldiers are all heroes.

What is so heroic about just joining the military? What is so heroic about wearing a military uniform? What is so heroic about getting up in the morning when you are told to? What is so heroic about making widows and orphans? What is so heroic about fighting “over there” when there was no chance that you would have to fight “over here”? What is so heroic about dropping bombs from 40,000 feet? What is so heroic about dying for a mistake?

Second, and most importantly: Can U.S. soldiers be heroes? If soldiers go where they have no business going, engage in offensive military actions, fight unnecessary foreign wars, bomb, maim, and kill for the U.S. government, fight unjust wars, obey immoral orders, make war against people that were no threat to Americans, and then die for their country or lay down their life for one of their fellow soldiers—how could they possibly be considered heroes? Some other words do come to mind: mercenaries, pawns, dupes, myrmidons, killers, murderers, destroyers, invaders, occupiers.

U.S. soldiers are not all heroes. U.S. soldiers are not heroes at all.

Enjoy your meal at Outback Steakhouse. I always do. If you are in the military or are a veteran, get your heroes discount. Just don’t think for a minute that anyone is a hero because he is, or was, in the U.S. military.

Can U.S. Soldiers Be Heroes?

I am Joseph Barber & the author of  Freedom or Anarchy campaign of conscience,yet I am as guilty as the next veteran standing next to me “The brave men and women, who serve their country and as a result, live constantly with the war inside them, exist in a world of chaos. But the turmoil they experience isn’t who they are; the PTSD invades their minds and bodies.
The world doesn't owe anyone a living—including veterans.”

but let us not forget what war and violence dos to the heart and soul; the mind “For soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, coming home is more lethal than being in combat. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the summer of 2009, the US military lost 761 soldiers in combat in that country. Compare that to the 817 who took their own lives over the same period, and this number does account for deaths related to violence, high-risk behaviors, and addiction.lets us not forget that and let us place the blame were it belongs on the cooperation of America 
Do we call a member of the Mafia or other criminal gang a hero if he gives his life in the course of saving his fellow gang members from an attack by rival gang members? No, we call him a dupe, a fool, or an idiot.

I was reminded of this truth when I received an e-mail promotion from Outback Steakhouse on Sunday, February 17. Why was the e-mail sent on the 17th? Because Presidents’ Day was the next day: Monday, February 18. Here is the text of what I received:

HERE’S WHAT’S GRILLIN’ AT OUTBACK THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 18, 2019

HONORING HEROES WITH 20% OFF

PROUD TO SERVE THOSE WHO SERVE

We are partnering with Operation Homefront to help make life a little easier for our military, veterans and families in their communities. We are honoring all HEROES February 18-21 with 20% off.* (with valid state or federal ID).

The * refers to the fine print at the bottom of the e-mail stating that the offer is valid from February 18-21, and is open to servicemen and women, police officers and firefighters, with corresponding state or federal service ID, plus Military Personnel and their immediate family members who have a proper form of identification.
I have pointed out many times over the years how that the holidays of Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Veterans Day should just be called Military Appreciation Day 1, Military Appreciation Day 2, and Military Appreciation Day 3.

Now it seems as though every holiday has been turned into a military appreciation day.

But it gets worse. When you look at the Outback Steakhouse website, you will see a box containing text that reads: “Serving Those Who Serve.” Clicking inside the box brings you to a page that reads:

Help Us Serve Those Who Serve

At Outback Steakhouse, we are partnering with Operation Homefront to help make life a little easier for our military, veterans and families in their communities.

On this page you can read about the “Heroes Discount.” Outback Steakhouse celebrates “all servicemen and women, police officers, firefighters, and all first responders with 10% off* their entire check all day, every day (with valid state or federal service ID).”

Once again, the * refers to the fine print at the bottom of the page stating that the offer is valid through March 26, and is open to servicemen and women, police officers and firefighters, with corresponding state or federal service ID, plus Military Personnel and their immediate family members who have a proper form of identification.


The Outback Steakhouse e-mail and website that call military personnel heroes raises two important questions that I don’t hear anyone asking.

First of all, why is it that all U.S. soldiers (and police, firemen, and first responders) are heroes? It doesn’t matter where soldiers go, why they go, how long they stay, whether they should go, or what they do when they are there—the soldiers are all heroes. It doesn’t matter how many widows and orphans soldiers make, how many bombs they drop, how many civilians they kill, how much infrastructure they destroy, how many bullets they fire, how many missiles they launch, or how many of “the enemy” they injure, maim, or kill—the soldiers are all heroes.

What is so heroic about just joining the military? What is so heroic about wearing a military uniform? What is so heroic about getting up in the morning when you are told to? What is so heroic about making widows and orphans? What is so heroic about fighting “over there” when there was no chance that you would have to fight “over here”? What is so heroic about dropping bombs from 40,000 feet? What is so heroic about dying for a mistake?

Second, and most importantly: Can U.S. soldiers be heroes? If soldiers go where they have no business going, engage in offensive military actions, fight unnecessary foreign wars, bomb, maim, and kill for the U.S. government, fight unjust wars, obey immoral orders, make war against people that were no threat to Americans, and then die for their country or lay down their life for one of their fellow soldiers—how could they possibly be considered heroes? Some other words do come to mind: mercenaries, pawns, dupes, myrmidons, killers, murderers, destroyers, invaders, occupiers.

U.S. soldiers are not all heroes. U.S. soldiers are not heroes at all.

Enjoy your meal at Outback Steakhouse. I always do. If you are in the military or are a veteran, get your heroes discount. Just don’t think for a minute that anyone is a hero because he is, or was, in the U.S. military.


Let the Murdering Government Prevent Abortions?

Let the Murdering Government Prevent Abortions?

It’s so good at such things,


Let the Government Do It

Following the lead of other states, my state of Florida now has a “heartbeat bill” in the legislature that, if passed and signed into law by the governor, would effectively ban abortions in Florida once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Abortions up to 24th week of pregnancy are currently allowed in the state of Florida.

HB 235 requires:

a physician to perform an examination for, and inform a woman obtaining an abortion of the presence of, a detectable fetal heartbeat;
the physician to review the results of such examination with the patient before the woman gives informed consent for the abortion procedure;
that a woman who declines to review the results certify in writing that she did so of her own free will and without undue influence.
The bill was introduced by Representative Mike Hill, a Republican from Pensacola. It would make it a third-degree felony to perform abortions “when a fetal heartbeat is detected.” The bill also redefines a fetus as an “unborn human being” categorized as such “from fertilization until live birth.”

“I feel it is my obligation, it is my duty, to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including those who are unborn,” said Representative Hill. Another legislator, Representative Anna V. Eskamani, a Democrat from Pensacola, who is the former senior director of public affairs at Planned Parenthood Southwest Central Florida, responded that “decisions about a woman’s pregnancy should be ‘left between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her faith—not politicians.’”
A similar bill, SB 792, has been introduced in the Florida Senate.

“Heartbeat bills” have been proposed for the last few years, although every time one is enacted it is struck down by the federal courts. The plan seems to be to get a case involving a “heartbeat” bill before the Supreme Court so that the infamous case of Roe v. Wade (1973) can be overturned by the Court’s conservative majority. In Roe, the Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. States may not ban abortions before the fetus is determined to be “viable.” The case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe, and further prohibited states from imposing an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion.

The problem with these “heartbeat bills,” aside from the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that some states have spent defending them, is that the person least likely to want to discover a baby’s heartbeat—the abortionist—is the one responsible to check for a heartbeat.

The recent flood of “heartbeat bills” in state legislatures is a response to laws like that recently passed in New York that effectively allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy (kill her baby) up to the point of birth.

How sad that “heartbeat bills” are challenged in courts, but abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy are not. How tragic that there is waiting period to buy a gun, but not to have an abortion.

Conservative Christians, of which I am one, are cheering these “heartbeat bills,” and I am cheering, in principle, with them. However, there is an unintended consequence of these bills that I should point out. They serve to reinforce the attitude that is all to prevalent among conservative Christians: let the government do it.

No need to persuade women to not get an abortion—let the government do it by imposing restrictions on abortion.

And it’s not just abortion where many conservative Christians have abdicated their responsibility.

No need to persuade people not to gamble—let the government do it by prohibiting gambling or imposing restrictions on it.

No need to persuade people not to abuse drugs—let the government do it by declaring war on drugs.

No need to persuade women not to sell their bodies—let the government do it by outlawing prostitution.

No need to persuade teenagers not to listen to music with raunchy lyrics—let the government do it by mandating warning labels on records.

No need to have prayer and Bible reading in the home—let the government do it by requiring these things in public schools.

No need to persuade people to spend time in church or with their families—let the government do it by forbidding car dealers from opening on Sunday.

No need to persuade teenagers not to smoke—let the government do it by raising the tobacco purchase age to 21.
No need to feed the hungry—let the government do it with food stamps.

No need to care for the aged, widows, orphans, and disabled—let the government do it with Social Security.

No need to persuade people not to abuse alcohol—let the government do it by instituting Prohibition, raising the drinking age to 21, or preventing businesses from selling alcohol on Sunday.

No need to persuade unmarried people not to commit fornication—let the government do it by criminalizing fornication.

On this last point I note that the Utah legislature recently passed a bill to decriminalize fornication.

In Title 76, Chapter 7, Part 1, Section 104 of the Utah Criminal Code it says this about fornication:

76-7-104.  Fornication.

(1) Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication.

(2) Fornication is a class B misdemeanor.

Violation of this law, which is no longer enforced, can result in up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

The Utah state legislature recently passed legislation to repeal this law. Yet, some conservatives in the Utah House disapproved of the repeal.

Conservative Christians, of all people, should not look to the government to do anything.






 Laurence M. Vance.

Let the Murdering Government Prevent Abortions?

It’s so good at such things,


Let the Government Do It

Following the lead of other states, my state of Florida now has a “heartbeat bill” in the legislature that, if passed and signed into law by the governor, would effectively ban abortions in Florida once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Abortions up to 24th week of pregnancy are currently allowed in the state of Florida.

HB 235 requires:

a physician to perform an examination for, and inform a woman obtaining an abortion of the presence of, a detectable fetal heartbeat;
the physician to review the results of such examination with the patient before the woman gives informed consent for the abortion procedure;
that a woman who declines to review the results certify in writing that she did so of her own free will and without undue influence.
The bill was introduced by Representative Mike Hill, a Republican from Pensacola. It would make it a third-degree felony to perform abortions “when a fetal heartbeat is detected.” The bill also redefines a fetus as an “unborn human being” categorized as such “from fertilization until live birth.”

“I feel it is my obligation, it is my duty, to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including those who are unborn,” said Representative Hill. Another legislator, Representative Anna V. Eskamani, a Democrat from Pensacola, who is the former senior director of public affairs at Planned Parenthood Southwest Central Florida, responded that “decisions about a woman’s pregnancy should be ‘left between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her faith—not politicians.’”
A similar bill, SB 792, has been introduced in the Florida Senate.

“Heartbeat bills” have been proposed for the last few years, although every time one is enacted it is struck down by the federal courts. The plan seems to be to get a case involving a “heartbeat” bill before the Supreme Court so that the infamous case of Roe v. Wade (1973) can be overturned by the Court’s conservative majority. In Roe, the Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. States may not ban abortions before the fetus is determined to be “viable.” The case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe, and further prohibited states from imposing an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion.

The problem with these “heartbeat bills,” aside from the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees that some states have spent defending them, is that the person least likely to want to discover a baby’s heartbeat—the abortionist—is the one responsible to check for a heartbeat.

The recent flood of “heartbeat bills” in state legislatures is a response to laws like that recently passed in New York that effectively allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy (kill her baby) up to the point of birth.

How sad that “heartbeat bills” are challenged in courts, but abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy are not. How tragic that there is waiting period to buy a gun, but not to have an abortion.

Conservative Christians, of which I am one, are cheering these “heartbeat bills,” and I am cheering, in principle, with them. However, there is an unintended consequence of these bills that I should point out. They serve to reinforce the attitude that is all to prevalent among conservative Christians: let the government do it.

No need to persuade women to not get an abortion—let the government do it by imposing restrictions on abortion.

And it’s not just abortion where many conservative Christians have abdicated their responsibility.

No need to persuade people not to gamble—let the government do it by prohibiting gambling or imposing restrictions on it.

No need to persuade people not to abuse drugs—let the government do it by declaring war on drugs.

No need to persuade women not to sell their bodies—let the government do it by outlawing prostitution.

No need to persuade teenagers not to listen to music with raunchy lyrics—let the government do it by mandating warning labels on records.

No need to have prayer and Bible reading in the home—let the government do it by requiring these things in public schools.

No need to persuade people to spend time in church or with their families—let the government do it by forbidding car dealers from opening on Sunday.

No need to persuade teenagers not to smoke—let the government do it by raising the tobacco purchase age to 21.
No need to feed the hungry—let the government do it with food stamps.

No need to care for the aged, widows, orphans, and disabled—let the government do it with Social Security.

No need to persuade people not to abuse alcohol—let the government do it by instituting Prohibition, raising the drinking age to 21, or preventing businesses from selling alcohol on Sunday.

No need to persuade unmarried people not to commit fornication—let the government do it by criminalizing fornication.

On this last point I note that the Utah legislature recently passed a bill to decriminalize fornication.

In Title 76, Chapter 7, Part 1, Section 104 of the Utah Criminal Code it says this about fornication:

76-7-104.  Fornication.

(1) Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication.

(2) Fornication is a class B misdemeanor.

Violation of this law, which is no longer enforced, can result in up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

The Utah state legislature recently passed legislation to repeal this law. Yet, some conservatives in the Utah House disapproved of the repeal.

Conservative Christians, of all people, should not look to the government to do anything.






 Laurence M. Vance.


How Middle America Is To Be Dispossessed

How Middle America Is To Be Dispossessed

Let us count the ways. 

In all but one of the last seven presidential elections, Republicans lost the popular vote. George W. Bush and Donald Trump won only by capturing narrow majorities in the Electoral College.

Hence the grand strategy of the left: to enlarge and alter the U.S. electorate so as to put victory as far out of reach for national Republicans as it is today for California Republicans, and to convert the GOP into America’s permanent minority party.

In the Golden State, Democrats control the governors’ chair, every elective state office, both U.S. Senate seats, 46 of 53 U.S. House seats and three-fourths of each house of the state legislature in Sacramento.

How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America?

Let us count the ways.

In 2018, over 60 percent of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder.

Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely.

Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.”

In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism.

Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed — this time.

Some House Democrats apparently feel that with “Medicare-for-all” and the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez on the table, they have enough progressive legislation to satisfy the socialist base.

Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown, every adult citizen in California who gets or renews a driver’s license, gets a state ID card, or fills out a change of address form with the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote. Purpose: expand voter rolls to include those who have shown no interest in politics, so they can be located on Election Day and bused to the polls.
Ari Berman of Mother Jones writes that Nancy Pelosi’s 700-page For the People Act that did pass the House contains “a slew of measures designed to expand voting rights, which … include nationwide automatic voter registration, Election Day registration, two weeks of early voting in every state … restoration of voting rights for ex-felons, and declaring Election Day a federal holiday.”

House Republicans offered an amendment to the bill with language that said, “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

All but six Democrats voted against the GOP proposal.

The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.

If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters — 16- and 17-year-olds; illegal migrants; ex-cons; new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America who vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined.

California, here we come.

As a Democratic insurance policy, Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Some Republicans support statehood for Puerto Rico, which would add six electoral votes that would go Democratic in presidential elections about as often as Washington, D.C.’s three have, which is always.

Ben Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia, “We have a republic, if you can keep it.” Our elites today, however, ceaselessly celebrate “our democracy.”

Yet John Adams was not optimistic about such a political system: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong believer in a “natural aristocracy” among men, was contemptuous: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “democracies … have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

If one day not far off, as seems probable, tax consumers achieve a permanent hegemony over the nation’s taxpayers, and begin to impose an equality of result that freedom rarely delivers, the question of who should choose the nation’s rulers will be tabled anew.

We do not select NFL coaches or corporate executives or college professors or generals or admirals by plebiscite. What is the empirical evidence that this is the best way to choose a president or commander in chief?

Peoples are wondering that the world over, as our democracy does not appear to be an especially attractive stock.






 Patrick J. Buchanan.



I am Joseph F Barber, a freelance writer and editor of the blog FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.& Is the founder of the Veterans Project along with The Family Assistance Campaign.Listen to how we speak about freedom and you'll gain tremendous insight into our true attitudes about freedom and, therefore, our relationship to one another, it is my message to we the people and the citizens of our world to stand free and your ground feed another if you can 

How Middle America Is To Be Dispossessed

Let us count the ways. 

In all but one of the last seven presidential elections, Republicans lost the popular vote. George W. Bush and Donald Trump won only by capturing narrow majorities in the Electoral College.

Hence the grand strategy of the left: to enlarge and alter the U.S. electorate so as to put victory as far out of reach for national Republicans as it is today for California Republicans, and to convert the GOP into America’s permanent minority party.

In the Golden State, Democrats control the governors’ chair, every elective state office, both U.S. Senate seats, 46 of 53 U.S. House seats and three-fourths of each house of the state legislature in Sacramento.

How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America?

Let us count the ways.

In 2018, over 60 percent of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder.

Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely.

Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.”

In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism.

Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed — this time.

Some House Democrats apparently feel that with “Medicare-for-all” and the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez on the table, they have enough progressive legislation to satisfy the socialist base.

Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown, every adult citizen in California who gets or renews a driver’s license, gets a state ID card, or fills out a change of address form with the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote. Purpose: expand voter rolls to include those who have shown no interest in politics, so they can be located on Election Day and bused to the polls.
Ari Berman of Mother Jones writes that Nancy Pelosi’s 700-page For the People Act that did pass the House contains “a slew of measures designed to expand voting rights, which … include nationwide automatic voter registration, Election Day registration, two weeks of early voting in every state … restoration of voting rights for ex-felons, and declaring Election Day a federal holiday.”

House Republicans offered an amendment to the bill with language that said, “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

All but six Democrats voted against the GOP proposal.

The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.

If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters — 16- and 17-year-olds; illegal migrants; ex-cons; new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America who vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined.

California, here we come.

As a Democratic insurance policy, Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Some Republicans support statehood for Puerto Rico, which would add six electoral votes that would go Democratic in presidential elections about as often as Washington, D.C.’s three have, which is always.

Ben Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia, “We have a republic, if you can keep it.” Our elites today, however, ceaselessly celebrate “our democracy.”

Yet John Adams was not optimistic about such a political system: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong believer in a “natural aristocracy” among men, was contemptuous: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “democracies … have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

If one day not far off, as seems probable, tax consumers achieve a permanent hegemony over the nation’s taxpayers, and begin to impose an equality of result that freedom rarely delivers, the question of who should choose the nation’s rulers will be tabled anew.

We do not select NFL coaches or corporate executives or college professors or generals or admirals by plebiscite. What is the empirical evidence that this is the best way to choose a president or commander in chief?

Peoples are wondering that the world over, as our democracy does not appear to be an especially attractive stock.






 Patrick J. Buchanan.



I am Joseph F Barber, a freelance writer and editor of the blog FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.& Is the founder of the Veterans Project along with The Family Assistance Campaign.Listen to how we speak about freedom and you'll gain tremendous insight into our true attitudes about freedom and, therefore, our relationship to one another, it is my message to we the people and the citizens of our world to stand free and your ground feed another if you can 


Monday, March 11, 2019

Freedom begins

Freedom begins the moment you realize someone else has been writing your story and it's time you took the pen from his hand and started writing it yourself

https://www.facebook.com/1835402667/posts/10211024335404401/?sfnsn=mo

Freedom begins the moment you realize someone else has been writing your story and it's time you took the pen from his hand and started writing it yourself

https://www.facebook.com/1835402667/posts/10211024335404401/?sfnsn=mo



Saturday, March 9, 2019

The US Empire Has Up to 1,000 Military Bases in 80 Countries

The US Empire Has Up to 1,000 Military Bases in 80 Countries


This article was originally published on January 30, 2018.

On the weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Baltimore University hosted more than 200 activists in the peace, environment, and social justice movements to launch a new initiative known as the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases, the Nation reported.

In a series of panels that lasted over two days, the conference attendees highlighted the horrors of American foreign policy despite the fact Martin Luther King warned against these horrors over 50 years ago, a fitting reminder to heed the warnings of Dr. King.

According to the panel, the U.S. has over 800 formal military bases in 80 countries, “a number that could exceed 1,000 if you count troops stationed at embassies and missions and so-called ‘lily-pond’ bases, with some 138,000 soldiers stationed around the globe,” the Nation notes.

According to David Vine, author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Overseas Harm America and the World, maintaining bases and troops overseas cost $85 to $100 billion in 2014, while the total for bases and troops in war zones was between $160 billion and $200 billion.

The Nation also highlighted Vine’s claim that only some 11 other countries have bases in foreign countries, around 70 altogether. Russia is believed to have at least 26 bases in nine countries. They are mainly in former Soviet states, as well as Syria and Vietnam. The U.K., France, and Turkey have around four to ten bases each, and a handful of global bases are occupied by India, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. This might all change in the years to come, however, as China may be looking to build bases of its own in the Middle East.

Once the U.S. establishes itself militarily in a nation, it rarely leaves. Consider that after the defeat of Germany in World War II, the U.S. never left the country. It has maintained its bases there ever since. Germany’s Ramstein base is now the “hub” for America’s global drone assassination program throughout the Middle East.

No U.S. Foreign Bases — A Call for Peace from a New Coalition
The British spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), has been using a base in North Yorkshire called Menwith Hill to assist with America’s targeted killings in the Middle East, using an unknown number of employees.

This is but one example of how American bases overseas can be used to commit mass suffering in the Middle East, and the effects of these bases on the local populations are far too many to document.

For example, in Okinawa, Japan, the U.S. was suspected of housing and burying Agent Orange at its unpopular base in Futenma. Protests are not uncommon, with a specific sit-in protest lasting more than 5,000 consecutive days, as reported by the Japan Times at the end of last year. Rapes, theft, assaults, and murders committed by U.S. personnel there are all rather common.

The most famous incident involved the rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. servicemen in 1995. The Okinawans have been protesting the U.S. military presence ever since, but the U.S. refuses to budge (with the exception of its proposal to relocate the base to a separate location, which is yet to appease the locals’ concerns).

“U.S. bases in Korea and Japan are vehicles of the Cold-War threat of China. Bases are not the spoils of the past war as some believe; they are the purpose of the war,” Satoko Oka Norimatsu, editor of the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus and author of Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States,told Anti-Media. Norimatsu also said resisting the U.S. base presence and its plans to relocate is important for Okinawa because “U.S. bases concentrated in Okinawa are a form of colonial oppression by Japan that’s continuing for over four centuries.”

“Some people in Okinawa believe that if Japan as a whole wants to maintain the U.S.-Japan military alliance, it should be Japan who carries these bases and not Okinawa,” she added.

Okinawa is just one instance of anti-U.S. sentiment brought on by its unwelcome military presence. In Okinawa, the U.S. reportedly takes up about one-fifth of Okinawan land. In 2004, Gangnam Style singer Psy released a song that was heavily critical of the U.S. military after an incident caused by a military vehicle that killed two young Korean girls. According to CNN:

“CNN was able to translate the lyrics as saying, ‘Kill those f–ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives and those who ordered them to torture,’ and going on to say, ‘Kill them all slowly and painfully,’ as well as ‘daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers.’”

It may be for this reason that the Nation, one of the few outlets to document this issue over the past few years, is highlighting the movement to bring an end to this disastrous and unnecessary foreign policy, which at its heart turns local populations against the U.S. across the globe.

*

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 US Empire Has Up to 1,000 Military Bases in 80 Countries


This article was originally published on January 30, 2018.

On the weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Baltimore University hosted more than 200 activists in the peace, environment, and social justice movements to launch a new initiative known as the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases, the Nation reported.

In a series of panels that lasted over two days, the conference attendees highlighted the horrors of American foreign policy despite the fact Martin Luther King warned against these horrors over 50 years ago, a fitting reminder to heed the warnings of Dr. King.

According to the panel, the U.S. has over 800 formal military bases in 80 countries, “a number that could exceed 1,000 if you count troops stationed at embassies and missions and so-called ‘lily-pond’ bases, with some 138,000 soldiers stationed around the globe,” the Nation notes.

According to David Vine, author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Overseas Harm America and the World, maintaining bases and troops overseas cost $85 to $100 billion in 2014, while the total for bases and troops in war zones was between $160 billion and $200 billion.

The Nation also highlighted Vine’s claim that only some 11 other countries have bases in foreign countries, around 70 altogether. Russia is believed to have at least 26 bases in nine countries. They are mainly in former Soviet states, as well as Syria and Vietnam. The U.K., France, and Turkey have around four to ten bases each, and a handful of global bases are occupied by India, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. This might all change in the years to come, however, as China may be looking to build bases of its own in the Middle East.

Once the U.S. establishes itself militarily in a nation, it rarely leaves. Consider that after the defeat of Germany in World War II, the U.S. never left the country. It has maintained its bases there ever since. Germany’s Ramstein base is now the “hub” for America’s global drone assassination program throughout the Middle East.

No U.S. Foreign Bases — A Call for Peace from a New Coalition
The British spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), has been using a base in North Yorkshire called Menwith Hill to assist with America’s targeted killings in the Middle East, using an unknown number of employees.

This is but one example of how American bases overseas can be used to commit mass suffering in the Middle East, and the effects of these bases on the local populations are far too many to document.

For example, in Okinawa, Japan, the U.S. was suspected of housing and burying Agent Orange at its unpopular base in Futenma. Protests are not uncommon, with a specific sit-in protest lasting more than 5,000 consecutive days, as reported by the Japan Times at the end of last year. Rapes, theft, assaults, and murders committed by U.S. personnel there are all rather common.

The most famous incident involved the rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. servicemen in 1995. The Okinawans have been protesting the U.S. military presence ever since, but the U.S. refuses to budge (with the exception of its proposal to relocate the base to a separate location, which is yet to appease the locals’ concerns).

“U.S. bases in Korea and Japan are vehicles of the Cold-War threat of China. Bases are not the spoils of the past war as some believe; they are the purpose of the war,” Satoko Oka Norimatsu, editor of the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus and author of Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States,told Anti-Media. Norimatsu also said resisting the U.S. base presence and its plans to relocate is important for Okinawa because “U.S. bases concentrated in Okinawa are a form of colonial oppression by Japan that’s continuing for over four centuries.”

“Some people in Okinawa believe that if Japan as a whole wants to maintain the U.S.-Japan military alliance, it should be Japan who carries these bases and not Okinawa,” she added.

Okinawa is just one instance of anti-U.S. sentiment brought on by its unwelcome military presence. In Okinawa, the U.S. reportedly takes up about one-fifth of Okinawan land. In 2004, Gangnam Style singer Psy released a song that was heavily critical of the U.S. military after an incident caused by a military vehicle that killed two young Korean girls. According to CNN:

“CNN was able to translate the lyrics as saying, ‘Kill those f–ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives and those who ordered them to torture,’ and going on to say, ‘Kill them all slowly and painfully,’ as well as ‘daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers.’”

It may be for this reason that the Nation, one of the few outlets to document this issue over the past few years, is highlighting the movement to bring an end to this disastrous and unnecessary foreign policy, which at its heart turns local populations against the U.S. across the globe.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


Forced Blood Draws & Implied Consent Laws Make a Mockery of the Fourth Amendment

Forced Blood Draws & Implied Consent Laws Make a Mockery of the Fourth Amendment


“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation
You think you’ve got rights? Think again.
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.
Our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.
Consider a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell vs. Wisconsin) in which Wisconsin police officers read an unconscious man his rights and then proceeded to forcibly and warrantlessly draw his blood while he was still unconscious in order to determine if he could be charged with a DUI.
To sanction this forced blood draw, the cops and the courts have hitched their wagon to state “implied consent” laws (all of the states have them), which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws.
Seven state appeals courts have declared these warrantless blood draws when carried out on unconscious suspects are unconstitutional. Courts in seven other states have found that implied consent laws run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. And yet seven other states (including Wisconsin) have ruled that implied consent laws provide police with a free pass when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and forced blood draws.
With this much division among the state courts, a lot is riding on which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Mitchell and whether it allows state legislatures to use implied consent laws as a means of allowing police to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in relation to forced blood draws and unconscious suspects.
Mind you, this is the third time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of warrantless blood draws.
In 2016, the Court ruled 7-1 in Birchfield v. North Dakota that states may not prosecute suspected drunken drivers for refusing warrantless blood draws when they are arrested. However, the Court also tossed the cops a bone by giving them a green light to require a warrantless breath test incident to arrest. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rightly recognized the danger of allowing the government to warrantlessly take possession of—and preserve indefinitely—one’s biological and genetic material.
In 2013, a divided Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that people suspected of drunken driving can’t automatically be subjected to blood tests without a warrant and without their consent.
The differences between McNeely, Birchfeld and Mitchell are nuanced, but it is in these nuances that the struggle to preserve the Fourth Amendment can best be seen.
The Fourth Amendment has been on life support for a long time.
Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be strangulated by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.
Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.
Remember what happened to Utah nurse Alex Wubbels after a police detective demanded to take blood from a badly injured, unconscious patient without a warrant?
Wubbels refused to go along with the cop’s order, citing hospital policy that requires police to either have a warrant or permission from the patient in order to draw blood.
The detective had neither.
Irate, the detective threatened to have Wubbels arrested if she didn’t comply. Backed up by her supervisors, Wubbels respectfully stood her ground only to be roughly grabbed, shoved out of the hospital, handcuffed and forced into an unmarked car while hospital police looked on and failed to intervene (take a look at the police body camera footage, which went viral, and see for yourself).
Michael Chorosky didn’t have an advocate like Wubbels to stand guard over his Fourth Amendment rights. Chorosky was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw.
What country is this indeed?
Unfortunately, forced blood draws are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the indignities and abuses being heaped on Americans in the so-called name of “national security.”
For example, 21-year-old Charnesia Corley was allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. No drugs were found in the car.
As the Houston Chronicle reported:
Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.
The cavity search lasted 11 minutes. This practice is referred to as “rape by cop.”
Corley was eventually charged with resisting arrest and with possession of 0.2 grams of marijuana. Those charges were subsequently dropped.
David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.
During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. No contraband or anything illegal was found.
Thirty-eight-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, the trooper proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.
Sixty-nine-year-old Gerald Dickson was handcuffed and taken into custody (although not arrested or charged with any crime) after giving a ride to a neighbor’s son, whom police suspected of being a drug dealer. Despite Dickson’s insistence that the bulge under his shirt was the result of a botched hernia surgery, police ordered Dickson to “strip off his clothes, bend over and expose all of his private parts. No drugs or contraband were found.”
Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums.
It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.
A North Carolina public school allegedly strip-searched a 10-year-old boy in search of a $20 bill lost by another student, despite the fact that the boy, J.C., twice told school officials he did not have the missing money. The assistant principal reportedly ordered the fifth grader to disrobe down to his underwear and subjected him to an aggressive strip-search that included rimming the edge of his underwear. The missing money was later found in the school cafeteria.
Suspecting that Georgia Tech alum Mary Clayton might have been attempting to smuggle a Chik-Fil-A sandwich into the football stadium, a Georgia Tech police officer allegedly subjected the season ticket-holder to a strip search that included a close examination of her underwear and bra. No contraband chicken was found.
What these incidents show is that while forced searches may span a broad spectrum of methods and scenarios, the common denominator remains the same: a complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the citizenry.
In fact, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.
Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years).
Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.
As technology advances, these searches are becoming more invasive on a cellular level, as well.
For instance, close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath.
These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. (Those who refuse to knowingly submit to a breathalyzer test are being subjected to forced blood draws. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.
Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone.)
The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns.
In at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime.
All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government.
Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.
Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.
As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”
While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy, including on a cellular level.
Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking and what we so desperately need.
Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—are just a foretaste of what is to come.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to tie you to a gurney and forcibly take your blood or strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods—less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering—of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.
With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.

Forced Blood Draws & Implied Consent Laws Make a Mockery of the Fourth Amendment


“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation
You think you’ve got rights? Think again.
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.
Our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.
Consider a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell vs. Wisconsin) in which Wisconsin police officers read an unconscious man his rights and then proceeded to forcibly and warrantlessly draw his blood while he was still unconscious in order to determine if he could be charged with a DUI.
To sanction this forced blood draw, the cops and the courts have hitched their wagon to state “implied consent” laws (all of the states have them), which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws.
Seven state appeals courts have declared these warrantless blood draws when carried out on unconscious suspects are unconstitutional. Courts in seven other states have found that implied consent laws run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. And yet seven other states (including Wisconsin) have ruled that implied consent laws provide police with a free pass when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and forced blood draws.
With this much division among the state courts, a lot is riding on which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Mitchell and whether it allows state legislatures to use implied consent laws as a means of allowing police to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in relation to forced blood draws and unconscious suspects.
Mind you, this is the third time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of warrantless blood draws.
In 2016, the Court ruled 7-1 in Birchfield v. North Dakota that states may not prosecute suspected drunken drivers for refusing warrantless blood draws when they are arrested. However, the Court also tossed the cops a bone by giving them a green light to require a warrantless breath test incident to arrest. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rightly recognized the danger of allowing the government to warrantlessly take possession of—and preserve indefinitely—one’s biological and genetic material.
In 2013, a divided Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that people suspected of drunken driving can’t automatically be subjected to blood tests without a warrant and without their consent.
The differences between McNeely, Birchfeld and Mitchell are nuanced, but it is in these nuances that the struggle to preserve the Fourth Amendment can best be seen.
The Fourth Amendment has been on life support for a long time.
Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be strangulated by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.
Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.
Remember what happened to Utah nurse Alex Wubbels after a police detective demanded to take blood from a badly injured, unconscious patient without a warrant?
Wubbels refused to go along with the cop’s order, citing hospital policy that requires police to either have a warrant or permission from the patient in order to draw blood.
The detective had neither.
Irate, the detective threatened to have Wubbels arrested if she didn’t comply. Backed up by her supervisors, Wubbels respectfully stood her ground only to be roughly grabbed, shoved out of the hospital, handcuffed and forced into an unmarked car while hospital police looked on and failed to intervene (take a look at the police body camera footage, which went viral, and see for yourself).
Michael Chorosky didn’t have an advocate like Wubbels to stand guard over his Fourth Amendment rights. Chorosky was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw.
What country is this indeed?
Unfortunately, forced blood draws are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the indignities and abuses being heaped on Americans in the so-called name of “national security.”
For example, 21-year-old Charnesia Corley was allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. No drugs were found in the car.
As the Houston Chronicle reported:
Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.
The cavity search lasted 11 minutes. This practice is referred to as “rape by cop.”
Corley was eventually charged with resisting arrest and with possession of 0.2 grams of marijuana. Those charges were subsequently dropped.
David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.
During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. No contraband or anything illegal was found.
Thirty-eight-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, the trooper proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.
Sixty-nine-year-old Gerald Dickson was handcuffed and taken into custody (although not arrested or charged with any crime) after giving a ride to a neighbor’s son, whom police suspected of being a drug dealer. Despite Dickson’s insistence that the bulge under his shirt was the result of a botched hernia surgery, police ordered Dickson to “strip off his clothes, bend over and expose all of his private parts. No drugs or contraband were found.”
Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums.
It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.
A North Carolina public school allegedly strip-searched a 10-year-old boy in search of a $20 bill lost by another student, despite the fact that the boy, J.C., twice told school officials he did not have the missing money. The assistant principal reportedly ordered the fifth grader to disrobe down to his underwear and subjected him to an aggressive strip-search that included rimming the edge of his underwear. The missing money was later found in the school cafeteria.
Suspecting that Georgia Tech alum Mary Clayton might have been attempting to smuggle a Chik-Fil-A sandwich into the football stadium, a Georgia Tech police officer allegedly subjected the season ticket-holder to a strip search that included a close examination of her underwear and bra. No contraband chicken was found.
What these incidents show is that while forced searches may span a broad spectrum of methods and scenarios, the common denominator remains the same: a complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the citizenry.
In fact, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.
Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years).
Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.
As technology advances, these searches are becoming more invasive on a cellular level, as well.
For instance, close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath.
These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. (Those who refuse to knowingly submit to a breathalyzer test are being subjected to forced blood draws. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.
Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone.)
The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns.
In at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime.
All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government.
Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.
Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.
As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”
While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy, including on a cellular level.
Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking and what we so desperately need.
Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—are just a foretaste of what is to come.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to tie you to a gurney and forcibly take your blood or strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods—less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering—of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.
With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.


‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine


The previous articles (first, second) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.

South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).

We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.

Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.

Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.

Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.

As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.

Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.

Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.

In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.

America’s Pursuit of Empire. Washington’s Post-Cold War Hegemonic Project
Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.

China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.

Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.

The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.

As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.

The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).

Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.

It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.

Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.

In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.

South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.

But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.

Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.

Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.

Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.

The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.

The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.

Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine


The previous articles (first, second) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.

South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).

We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.

Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.

Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.

Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.

As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.

Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.

Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.

In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.

America’s Pursuit of Empire. Washington’s Post-Cold War Hegemonic Project
Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.

China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.

Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.

The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.

As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.

The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).

Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.

It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.

Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.

In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.

South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.

But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.

Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.

Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.

Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.

The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.

The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.

Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.