Hillary Clinton and her top aide, Huma Abedin, are at the very least, security risks. It could become the biggest spy scandal since Alger Hiss

Spy Scandals, Globalism and the Betrayal of America

---

By any objective measure, it can be argued that the stench of globalism is starting to affect everything, even perceptions of our founding documents. It may also invite foreign penetration into the highest levels of our government.

Visitors to Independence Hall in Philadelphia are surprised to learn that the site of the adoption of our Declaration of Independence is now a World Heritage Site designated by the United Nations. A big plaque with the designation faces you after you get a lecture from the U.S. Park Service and prepare to enter the historic building. Referring to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the United Nations declares, “The universal principles of freedom and democracy set forth in these documents are of fundamental importance to American history and have also had a profound impact on law-makers around the world.” These are nice thoughts. But the U.N. is hardly a tribute to freedom and democracy. Ordinary patriotic Americans don’t like the idea of the corrupt United Nations claiming some form of jurisdiction over Independence Hall.

What’s more, visitors to the Liberty Bell see a big picture of Nelson Mandela raising a clenched fist salute. The Mandela quotation that the Liberty Bell is “a very significant symbol for the entire democratic world” is featured next to the photograph. These, too, are nice thoughts. But while Mandela presided over a democratic transition that turned the whites out of power in South Africa, revelations after his death proved that he was a secret member of the South African Communist Party. He had concealed his true motives and allegiances from those who elected him. South Africa is a member of the Russian orbit of nations, known as BRICS, and some of the remaining whites are fleeing.

The “Citizenship in the World” merit badge is now required for the highest rank in Scouting, Eagle Scout, with one of the requirements being, “Explain what citizenship in the world means to you and what you think it takes to be a good world citizen.”

What Hillary Clinton is trying to carry forward is something that her husband talked openly about in 2003. In his “Global Challenges” speech, former President Clinton outlined a form of world government. “We cannot continue to live in a world where we grow more and more and more interdependence, and we have no over-arching system to have the positive elements of interdependence outweigh the negative ones,” he said. He went on to say, “…I think the great mission of 21st Century world is to make it a genuine global community. To move from mere interdependence to integration, to a community that has three characteristics: shared responsibilities, shared benefits, and shared values.”

That “over-arching system” includes strengthening the United Nations, a process still underway, and currently using the alleged threat of “climate change” to build up the power of this world body and move toward a “genuine global community.”

As president, Clinton had sent a June 22, 1993 letter congratulating the members of the World Federalist Association for meeting to give Strobe Talbott the annual Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. “Norman Cousins worked for world peace and world government,” Clinton said. Talbott, a former Time magazine columnist and U.S. diplomat who served in Clinton’s administration, was a “voice for global harmony,” Clinton said. As a Time magazine writer, Talbott had written a column openly calling for world government. Now the head of the Brookings Institution, Talbott had direct but confidential contacts with Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, according to recent WikiLeaks disclosures. The book, Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia’s Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War, documents questionable contacts between Talbott and the Russian intelligence service. Mrs. Clinton spoke to the same World Federalist group in 1999, congratulating former CBS Evening News anchorman Walter Cronkite upon his receipt of the Norman Cousins award.

Yet, Talbott’s continuing relationship with Hillary Clinton is not a subject that alarms the major media.

However, the disclosure that the FBI discovered some of Hillary Clinton’s emails on the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner computer could also have national security implications. Were these emails shared with or hacked by our foreign adversaries? Tragically, the American people may not have the answer to this question by Election Day, November 8. But the carelessness of the arrangement is such that we have to suspect the worst, and that Hillary Clinton and her top aide, Huma Abedin, are at the very least, security risks. It could become the biggest spy scandal since Alger Hiss, the former State Department official who was exposed as a Soviet spy. He happened to be a founder of the United Nations.

Cliff Kincaid —

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Joseph F Barber

It's a Mad, Mad War

It's a Mad, Mad War

by Daniel Greenfield 

Russia and the West are fighting to decide whether Syria will be run by Sunni Islamists backed by Saudi Arabia or Shiite Islamists backed by Iran. This insane civil war has burned up countless lives, not to mention plenty of dollars, rubles, euros and pounds. The only certain winners of this war, once the dust has settled, will chant “Allahu Akbar” and call for the death of the infidels.
Sadly this is nothing new. Russia got the PLO started before Bill Clinton decided to become its sugar daddy. Smuggling weapons to the Mujahedeen to fight the Russians got us into Afghanistan. Except these days it’s the Russians who, through the Iranians, are funneling weapons to the locals to fight us. Between us and the Russians, we’ve put wagonloads of weapons into the hands of Jihadis in Iraq and Syria. The consequences will be felt in Moscow, New York, London and Paris.

The West and the Warsaw Pact countries used to fuel foreign wars. These days the war is at home.

Russia and the NATO countries suffer from low birth rates and rising Muslim demographics, but are in a senseless competition to determine which emergent Caliphate will be able to draw its borders in territories it can’t populate. It’s a battle over a pittance taking place in a burning building.

Moscow has around 2 million Muslims. London has over 1 million. Both sides are at risk of losing their own capital cities to real invasions. The EU and Putin’s Eurasian dreams are both built on the Roman notion that the barbarians can be integrated and will make good foot soldiers and laborers.

France’s President Hollande has called for the creation of an “Islam of France”. Putin suggests that the Russian Orthodox Church has more in common with Islam than Catholicism. Obama preaches that, “Islam has always been part of America”. But such efforts at integration will always fail.

The popular European excuse is that Islamic terrorism represents a failure to integrate the terrorist. Islamic terrorism is indeed caused by a failure to integrate. The mistake is assuming that integration on a civilizational scale is possible. It’s not. You can integrate a few people. You can’t integrate a civilization.

There is a long history of Europeans using Islamic raiders and invaders as weapons against each other. Most of us know that our first international conflict was the First Barbary War against Muslim slavers and pirates. But it was the British who found it useful to use the Barbary pirates to clear rivals from the water. Louis XIV of France played a similar role in the Battle of Vienna. For that matter the Muslim conquest of the Middle East heavily depended on their exploitation of Christian rivalries.

Our modern malaise is simply a failure to learn anything useful from history.

The Cold War has become reborn as a strange farce in which two failing power blocs are fighting an old war that no longer has any purpose or meaning. Russia has reinvented its brand, but not its ambitions. Its clumsy alliance with Iran will fall apart once the Shiite terror state has gotten what it wanted and boots the Russians out of its backyard. America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia may one day be described by historians as the cause of our downfall.

The West and Russia are reliant on Muslim demographics to power faltering empires whose ideological ends stand in sharp contrast to their Islamic means. Putin claims to want to protect Christendom with an army that is increasingly Muslim. The EU asserts that it is defending secular democracy, but it’s betting its future on a citizenry whose Islamic religion mandates theocratic Sharia jurisprudence.

A Muslim citizenry will not maintain secular democracy. A Muslim army will not protect Christians. The West used to be dependent on Muslim oil. It has since become addicted to the much more dangerous supply of Muslim demographics. Societies with low birth rates are relying on Muslims to make up the gap in manpower and maintain nations that are not expanding or even replacing their own numbers.

Oil dependency was dangerous. Demographic dependency is lethal.

Russia and the West can make jets that casually break the sound barrier. What they aren’t doing is making people. European welfare states and Russian expansionism are built on Muslim populations.

As imperial strategies go, that’s a suicide pact.

But instead of addressing this core civilizational threat, the West and Russia are squandering blood and treasure to decide whether Sunnis or Shiites should dominate Syria. Billions of dollars are being spent to lend an air force, weapons and some measure of ground troops to Iran and the Saudis in their spat.

Russian S-300 missiles now protect Iran’s Fordow nuclear fuel plant. Fordow is located near the Shiite holy city of Qom because Iran’s nuclear plans are inextricably tied to its theology. Last year, Putin offered Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Khamenei a copy of the Koran that had been gifted by Lenin to Uzbekistan. Putin might have done better to keep it and read it before looking at a map of Greater Iran.

The United States has been dragged into several wars by Saudi Arabia. We have spent trillions of dollars defending the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qataris and their assorted brethren from their enemies while fighting Sunni terror spread by them. The tentacles of Sunni terror now regularly reach deep inside our homeland while we continue defending the homelands of the financiers of Sunni Islamic terror.

Syria is an imperialist war. But it’s not our imperialism. It’s barely even Russia’s imperialism.

Russia and the West are there as pawns of their Islamic allies. Putin and NATO aren’t protecting their influence because the influence goes entirely the other way. The West does not dictate anything to the Saudis nor does Russia get to tell Iran what to do. Instead the old empires are called in when the wannabe caliphates want a power with a big military machine to do their dirty work for them.

Russia and the West are obsessed with a factional struggle in the face of a civilizational struggle. Their failure to recognize the civilizational threat of the caliphate is the greatest threat to their future.

Familiar wars and familiar enemies are easier to fight. It is easier to recreate the Cold War as farce than to recognize that a far older war has come around again. Russia and the West are replaying the tragic history of the Byzantine–Sassanid wars whose ultimate victors were the Mohammedan invaders.

The only thing that the wars between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire accomplished was to weaken them enough to allow Islam to conquer both of the proud empires. Both sides courted the Arab tribes and made use of them in their conflict with each other. They did not consider the possibility that the prolonged conflict would not end with either a Persian or Byzantine victory, but that the barbarians they had been using as pawns would end up claiming everything. It’s a familiar story replaying today.

Civilizations that fail to learn from history become the object lessons of history. It would be a tragedy if Europe went the way of the Byzantine Empire and a shame if Russia went the way of Persia.

It might be time to rethink what there is to be gained in Syria and lost in the besieged cities of the West.

The Little Jewish Village That Makes Obama Boil

Monday, October 31, 2016

The Little Jewish Village That Makes Obama Boil

by Daniel Greenfield 

Halfway to the sky sits a tiny village of little white houses that has attracted the ire of the White House.
The village of Amona with its small white houses and red roofs could easily be mistaken for some lost Italian village or a dusty California town. But the White House would not have “boiled in anger”, as one anonymous official claimed, over the doings of some Italian village.

There’s only one place on earth that makes Obama’s blood boil. It isn’t Iran or North Korea. It’s Israel.

Amona’s small scattering of houses have a fraction of the square footage of the White House. The 40 families living there in defiance of Islamic terrorists and left-wing lawfarers would hardly be noticeable if they all crowded into the White House foyer. And yet they've been condemned by the State Department in more virulent tones than most Muslim dictators.

What is it about this handful of Jews caught between heaven and earth that outrages so many?

That may be the great question of history. It will not be solved among the sheep pens and orchards, the little white houses of Amona and their inhabitants, who despite the rage of the big White House, continue to go to work each day, to raise their children and to worship in the way of their ancestors.

In the official parlance of the media, Amona is a “settlement”. That is to say it dates back a mere 3,300 years to the time when Joshua, born a slave in Egypt, commanded the Jews, “'Go and walk through the land, and describe it, and come back to me, and I will cast lots for you here before the Lord in Shilo.”

Today Shilo is a city of some 3,500. Like Jerusalem, it is also deemed a settlement. But on the list of places described by Joshua’s men, the mere speck of Amona appears before Jerusalem.

But then Amona, unlike Jerusalem, vanished from history. For thousands of years the name would have only meant something to the most dedicated biblical scholars. And then the left went to war against Amona. And out of that hatred the forgotten town was raised up from its forgotten place in history.

The handful of families living in Amona have been the subject of more legal proceedings, international debates, threats and international outrage than most genocides. 3,000 feet above sea level, its residents look up at a kind blue sky and down at an angry world that is unwilling to let them live in peace.

They meet the challenges of gravity and rage with simple faith. Asked about the threat of Islamic terror, a 5-year old girl answered, "As God helped Joshua, so he will also help us."

Amona and its residents need all the help they can get. They have been under siege for decades. What the Islamic terrorists couldn’t do to the residents, lawyers and activists who receive funding from the Soros network and assorted international left-wing billion dollar organizations, strive to accomplish.

Demolition and eviction orders have been issued. Police have converged on the handful of buildings with clubs and yells. In one such battle a 15-year-old girl, whom we only know as Nili, stood in their way. The image of the teenage girl blocking the path of dozens of riot police in black became a Pulitzer Prize winning photo. “Anyone who looks today at the ruins of the houses in Amona - understands that in this operation there was no sense whatever, except destruction,” she said in an interview.

There is still no sense whatsoever to the war against Amona except destruction. It isn’t about the land.

Amona’s main antagonist is the extremist left-wing group Peace Now. There is nothing peaceful about Peace Now which seeks peace only with Islamic terrorists. One co-founder, Uri Avnery, declared, “The time has come to bury them.” Another Peace Now co-founder, Yigal Tumarkin weighed in, “My true contribution would be if I grabbed a sub-machine-gun, instead of a pen and pencil, and killed them.”

The children of Israel’s small towns and villages excite such unnatural fury from left-wing notables.

Under pressure from a radical left-wing judiciary, Israel’s government decided to relocate the families of Amona by building houses for them in Shilo. It is this which reportedly made Obama boil like a little teapot. The Jews of Amona are not to be permitted to live in their town. Or in any other.

According to some anonymous official, the plan to build houses for the evacuees in Shiloh is “of great concern” to the White House. Anyone wondering why Obama isn’t concerned about ISIS or the economy had better realize that his eye is firmly fixed on a small town in Israel up against the bulldozer.

And he’s determined to see to it that the bulldozer wins.

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner claimed that building 98 homes would endanger peace. Peace in Israel is as dead as the dodo. But somehow it never seems to be endangered by any amount of Muslim suicide bombings, stabbings or rockets. The Palestinian Authority funds Islamic terrorism by paying salaries to terrorists using taxpayer money dispensed to them by Obama.

And this butchery of Jewish families and massacres of Rabbis in no way endangers peace.

It is only the very real risk that the families of Amona might find some shelter that renders the glorious infrastructure of “a viable Palestinian state more remote”. Like Haman, the Islamic terrorist state cannot stand to see a Binyaminite, no matter how alone, standing tall in defiance of its hunger and malice. These handfuls of homes represent, according to the State Department, “perpetual occupation.”

State has a point. 3,300 years isn’t quite perpetual, but it’s a lot longer than Toner has been hanging around D.C. It’s a long longer than appeasers who know not to eat with their left hand and to curse Israel when visiting Muslim countries have been sliming their way around Foggy Bottom.

Can a few dozen families really “block” the rise of an Islamic terrorist state in Israel? During Israel’s War of Independence the small village of Kfar Darom held out against sustained assaults from the Muslim Brotherhood. Among the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists was an Egyptian Jihadist named Yasser Arafat.

Moral courage enables a handful of people to do what the massive array of government cannot.

Nili explained her actions by saying, "You see me in the photograph, one against many, but that is only an illusion. Behind the many stands one man... but behind me stands the Lord.” Today that man is Barack Hussein Obama. The residents of Amona stand in the way of his dream of an Islamic Palestine.
Who are the people of Amona? For the most part, they are children. Amona has nearly 200 of them. 5 children are on the small side for a local family. Today Amona could pass for a village, tomorrow it’s a town and the day after it’s a city. That has been Israel’s history. In a world where the great cities of civilization are overrun by the terrible tide of Muslim demographics, it is a place whose people still believe in the future. Such little villages full of white houses with red roofs are fortresses of hope.

In Amona, you will find deer meandering through the street. The Nizri family, with eight children, sees to the casks of French oak in the winery. There are raspberries to pick, tools to mend and a life to build.

It is not mere height above sea level that enables the people of Amona to tower above their enemies. It is their determination to live lives of ordinary courage. They have attracted the ire and enmity of some of the most powerful people in their country, their region and the world. And yet they go on.

Obama boils in his anger like a lobster in a pot. The UN Security Council has scheduled a special meeting where Israel will be denounced by the likes of Venezuela and Angola. And in Amona, the children play.

Quick, Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964!

Quick, Repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964!

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one of the most pernicious in American history. It destroys freedom of association, subjects our private relationships to bureaucratic judgment and meddling, and substitutes the totalitarian credo of “civil rights” for the freedom from government Americans previously espoused.

No wonder the left loves it. This legislation is Progressives’ Bible and Psalter in one convenient package, the inspiration for much of their mischief.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

So I was staggered to read that the radical left—not your average Marxist on Medicaid but the sexual deviants, feminists, “social activists” and “advocates,” Congressional Dimocrats, and other misfits with too much time on their hands—has excoriated the Civil Rights Act. Damned it, in fact.

What inspired this astounding about-face? The “Russell Amendment” to the NDAA.

The National Defense Authorization Act is as monstrous as the civil-rights one, which doubtless explains its gliding through Congress the last 54 years. This baby annually finances “our” troops—you know, the gullible, unemployed and unemployable, barely literate cannon fodder the government’s schools spew that the government’s “armed forces” then prey on—sorry, “recruit.” I haven’t surveyed all 54 Congresses that have overwhelmingly passed the NDAA, but I bet few criminals there ever dare vote “Nay” lest the parents, friends and neighbors of said cannon-fodder accuse them of not “supporting” “our” hired killers.

Since politicians consider the NDAA a “must-pass” bit of chicanery, they are fond of attaching amendments to it, just as drivers stuck in traffic fall in line behind an ambulance with screaming sirens. Often, said amendments merely pertain to the usual corruption, i.e., pork. But lately they’ve also codified terror. For example, the NDAA of 2012 legalized the “indefinite mlitary detention” of American citizens. And yes, 2016’s NDAA still includes that Stalinesque decree.

This year, Rep. Steve Russell [R-OK] sponsored an amendment that’s benign, relatively speaking. To wit, “Any branch or agency of the Federal Government shall, with respect to any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution, or religious society that is a recipient of or offeror [sic; don’t you love it when existing jargon doesn’t adequately cover politicians’ sins, so they invent more?] for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent with sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(e)(2)) and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC 12113(d)).”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Ol’ Steve simply upholding the Civil Rights Act and its wretched daughter, the ADA?

Which infuriates the aforementioned crackpots and deviants. “If passed, the Russell Amendment could put the livelihood of millions of Americans at risk, according to Sejal Singh, of the Center for American Progress.”

Huh? But—but, Sejal, the Civil Rights Act forced employers to hire millions of Americans, even if they lacked skills and qualifications—

“‘This would jeopardize protections for over 28 million people — or one in five employees — who are under federal contract,’ Singh [said]… She believes the amendment was introduced as a way to counteract President Obama’s executive orders prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender expression.”

Wha—? But—but Sejal, the Civil Rights Act, you can’t be serious—

“’We believe that this is part of a wave of backlash against progress in LGBT and women’s rights,’ Singh added.”

Yep, this nutjob actually insists that the Civil Rights Act inhibits rather than promotes“progress in LGBT and women’s rights.” As if we would even talk with, let alone take orders, from her and her fellow deviants without the Act’s aiming federal guns at us.

Nor is Sejal alone in her hysteria: whole battalions of Marxists have joined her in bewailing the Civil Rights Act. There’s “David Stacy, the government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign,” who “pointed out the explicit danger this amendment could pose for LGBTQ employees.” And good that he did, because anyone normal certainly won’t see it: “’This amendment would give legal grounds for an employer to prevent a gay man from having their [sic] husband [sic] added to their [sic] health insurance. Trans people could be fired from their job [sic] upon announcing their intent to transition,’ Stacy explained.”

Either Dave didn’t read Russell’s amendment or he’s as deranged as he is effeminate and ungrammatical. (And let us here lament the degeneration of the language these degenerates favor, the nonsense and irrationality. Men do not have “husbands”; singular nouns require singular pronouns; and unless all “trans people” malinger in a single job, they would be fired from their jobs, plural. What absurd gyrations, and all to avoid those helpful terms, “his” and “hers”!)

But for manic hyperbole, it’s hard to beat the ACLU, tireless cheerleader for tyranny in general and civil rights in particular: “’The Russell Amendment is one of the most significant threats to LGBT people and women we have seen in Congress in years. It must be removed from the defense bill — freedom, equality and fairness are at stake,’ said ACLU deputy legal director Louise Melling.” Good gracious, who ever suspected the Civil Rights Act of such wickedness?

Naturally, “Senate Democrats and the White House are … signaling strong opposition to a provision they say would allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” I shan’t ask whether these dimwits are insane: we all know they are. Still, do any of them realize the amendment reinforces their hallowed Civil Rights Act? Have any of them read Russell’s wording?

No surprise if they haven’t. First, Congressional goldbrickers vote on legislation without even glancing at the text. Second, Russell’s amendment is suspiciously absent from all the reports but one that I’ve seen on this silliness. Could it be that the agitators know the amendment’s innocuous, and their cronies in the corporate media have agreed not to reprint it? And third, this confirms that Progressives can’t think for themselves (or at all, truth be told). If they could, surely someone would protest, “Hey, what are we doing, trashing the Civil Rights Act?”

At any rate, the Dimocrats have vented their dudgeon “in a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.” The whole screed is risible, but my nominee for “Most Absurd Claim” is this line: “This discrimination erodes the freedoms that our military has fought for generations to protect.”

What the Dimocrats actually mean by “discrimination” is “failing to roll over and play dead for all varieties of pervert in all situations at all times.” And “our military” most certainly has not “fought for generations” for such “freedoms.” If you’d told the guys starving at Valley Forge that they were dying so Daniel and Stephan can sodomize one another, they’d have deserted to the Redcoats. Indeed, I’m reminded of John Adams’ cry: “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” I doubt John would define men sashaying into the women’s loo as “making good use of your Freedom.”

Meanwhile, recall what fomented this outsized fury against the Civil Rights Act: the fear that a Christian might contract with the Feds to supply overpriced toilet seats and—horrors!—refuse to hire Bruce/Caitlyn as s/he convalesces from castration. For that, the LGPMNOQZ-whatever—in short, the Debauched Community throws the Civil Rights Act under the bus.

If the DC—hmmm. What a happy coincidence that this abbreviation once again connotes a dictatorial sewer!—if the DC succeeds in stripping this amendment from the NDAA, so what? Christians ought never deal with the satanic State in any way, except to undermine and overthrow it while comforting its victims. Let’s hope believers so dead to conscience that they connive with Uncle Sam’s evil reconsider when they hear that the DC will once again force them to hire deviants.

“Religious freedom is essential to America,” opines one of the DC, “but it is not a right to discriminate, and not with taxpayer dollars. You should never be disqualified for a job because you think or believe differently from your employer.” Get it? “Religious freedom” is all right in its place, but Caesar’s deviant demands are far more legitimate than any serf’s convictions.

In their letter, the Dimocrats allege that Russell’s emphasis on the Civil Rights Act will “harm hardworking Americans who deserve to be protected from workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religious identity, or reproductive and other health care decisions.” Hey, if that’s the case, repeal the Civil Rights Act, and quick!

In November We Choose Between War or Peace with Russia

In November We Choose Between War or Peace with Russia

Election 2016 in Seven Short Quotes

Every presidential vote, like every other vote, demands that one set priorities, for it is a rare voter indeed who will agree 100% with a given candidate.  And surely in the coming presidential election survival must top the list of priorities.  What can be more important than the survival of human civilization and perhaps humanity itself?

Here is a brief primer on the subject – suitable for printing out for liberal friends.

No Fly Zone over Syria

“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone (inside Syria)….”

Hillary Clinton interview, October 1, 2015, the day after Russia began air operations over Syria.  Clinton has held this position since 2013 at least when she admitted it would “kill a lot of Syrians.”  She has maintained it right up to the final presidential debate when she went “all-in on Syria no-fly zone” as the pro-Clinton Huffington Post headlined it.

“Right now, Senator, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war – against Syria and Russia.  That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford in Congressional testimony on September 22, 2016.  Dunford’s alarm is shared by other “national security” experts and those previously involved in implementing such zones.

“What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. …You’re not fighting Syria anymore, you’re fighting Syria, Russia, and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk.”  (Emphasis, JW.)

Donald Trump in Reuters interview on October 25, 2016, headlined “Exclusive – Trump says Clinton policy on Syria would lead to World War Three.”

So there you are.  It is not complicated.  We have seen Clinton’s actions over 26 and more years.  She has not hesitated to kill hundreds of thousands and destroy entire countries.  Libya and now Syria are but the latest examples.  There is no doubt what she will do once in office.  As Ralph Nader has said, she has never seen a war she did not love.  Or as Trump has said, she is “trigger happy.”

Broader U.S. Russia Relations

“Now if this sounds familiar (Putin’s actions in Crimea, jw), it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s…..All the Germans that were … the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people….”

Hillary Clinton comments comparing Putin’s actions to Hitler’s at a private gathering, March, 2014

“Mrs. Clinton has chosen to take up a very aggressive stance against our country, against Russia.

“Mr. Trump, on the other hand, calls for cooperation – at least when it comes to the international fight against terrorism.

“Naturally we welcome those who would like to cooperate with us. And we consider it wrong, that we always have to be in conflict with one another, creating existential threats for each other and for the whole world.

“If somebody out there wants confrontation, this is not our choice but this means that there will be problems.”

President Vladimir Putin addressing a group of journalists in Russia, October, 2016.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries? Wouldn’t it be nice?”

Donald Trump at a rally in Clinton, Iowa, January, 2016, stating a position that he has often voiced.

My progressive friends dismiss this and many other statements of Trump’s with the easy rejoinder that Trump is inconsistent and opportunistic, that one cannot believe what he says.  But his statements on Russia are quite consistent. And they are quite the opposite of opportunistic; they do not gain him votes, they have cost him votes.  He stated his Russia-friendly position from the beginning in the Republican primaries, as for example in the statement above which was made in Iowa before the caucuses.  That was no advantage to him.  The Republican Party at that time was dominated by the neocons, and its Establishment remains hawkish to the present as John McCain, Mitt Romney, and many others demonstrate on a near daily basis. Trump has stuck with his position right up through the final presidential debate, even though his own vice presidential candidate has tried to pull him away from it and even though Hillary has used it as a club with which to beat him.  There has been no inconsistency and it has been costly for him.  That means you can take it to the bank as a matter of principle for him.

In fact, Trump has been as determined and consistent in seeking peace with Russia and Syria as Clinton has been in demonizing Putin and seeking a no-fly zone in Syria.  That is a clear and striking difference between them.

A testimony of great value to progressives

“On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump (sic) who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.”

Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, interview on October 12, 2016.

If, dear reader, you do not believe that Hillary will put us in a war situation with Russia to advance the power of the Indispensable Nation and the Exceptionals, then please read again the first three quotes at the beginning of this essay.  In the absence of Hillary from his Cabinet, Obama has been wary about plunging into a misadventure in Syria.  But Hillary does not hesitate when it comes to such bloody undertakings; she revels in them.

And if you have priorities that outstrip the question of survival, then this essay will mean little to you.  But I submit that most other questions pale into insignificance next to this one – if not for you, then for your loved ones and for your fellow human beings.

In November We Choose Between War or Peace with Russia

In November We Choose Between War or Peace with Russia

Election 2016 in Seven Short Quotes

Every presidential vote, like every other vote, demands that one set priorities, for it is a rare voter indeed who will agree 100% with a given candidate.  And surely in the coming presidential election survival must top the list of priorities.  What can be more important than the survival of human civilization and perhaps humanity itself?

Here is a brief primer on the subject – suitable for printing out for liberal friends.

No Fly Zone over Syria

“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone (inside Syria)….”

Hillary Clinton interview, October 1, 2015, the day after Russia began air operations over Syria.  Clinton has held this position since 2013 at least when she admitted it would “kill a lot of Syrians.”  She has maintained it right up to the final presidential debate when she went “all-in on Syria no-fly zone” as the pro-Clinton Huffington Post headlined it.

“Right now, Senator, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war – against Syria and Russia.  That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford in Congressional testimony on September 22, 2016.  Dunford’s alarm is shared by other “national security” experts and those previously involved in implementing such zones.

“What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. …You’re not fighting Syria anymore, you’re fighting Syria, Russia, and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk.”  (Emphasis, JW.)

Donald Trump in Reuters interview on October 25, 2016, headlined “Exclusive – Trump says Clinton policy on Syria would lead to World War Three.”

So there you are.  It is not complicated.  We have seen Clinton’s actions over 26 and more years.  She has not hesitated to kill hundreds of thousands and destroy entire countries.  Libya and now Syria are but the latest examples.  There is no doubt what she will do once in office.  As Ralph Nader has said, she has never seen a war she did not love.  Or as Trump has said, she is “trigger happy.”

Broader U.S. Russia Relations

“Now if this sounds familiar (Putin’s actions in Crimea, jw), it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s…..All the Germans that were … the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people….”

Hillary Clinton comments comparing Putin’s actions to Hitler’s at a private gathering, March, 2014

“Mrs. Clinton has chosen to take up a very aggressive stance against our country, against Russia.

“Mr. Trump, on the other hand, calls for cooperation – at least when it comes to the international fight against terrorism.

“Naturally we welcome those who would like to cooperate with us. And we consider it wrong, that we always have to be in conflict with one another, creating existential threats for each other and for the whole world.

“If somebody out there wants confrontation, this is not our choice but this means that there will be problems.”

President Vladimir Putin addressing a group of journalists in Russia, October, 2016.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries? Wouldn’t it be nice?”

Donald Trump at a rally in Clinton, Iowa, January, 2016, stating a position that he has often voiced.

My progressive friends dismiss this and many other statements of Trump’s with the easy rejoinder that Trump is inconsistent and opportunistic, that one cannot believe what he says.  But his statements on Russia are quite consistent. And they are quite the opposite of opportunistic; they do not gain him votes, they have cost him votes.  He stated his Russia-friendly position from the beginning in the Republican primaries, as for example in the statement above which was made in Iowa before the caucuses.  That was no advantage to him.  The Republican Party at that time was dominated by the neocons, and its Establishment remains hawkish to the present as John McCain, Mitt Romney, and many others demonstrate on a near daily basis. Trump has stuck with his position right up through the final presidential debate, even though his own vice presidential candidate has tried to pull him away from it and even though Hillary has used it as a club with which to beat him.  There has been no inconsistency and it has been costly for him.  That means you can take it to the bank as a matter of principle for him.

In fact, Trump has been as determined and consistent in seeking peace with Russia and Syria as Clinton has been in demonizing Putin and seeking a no-fly zone in Syria.  That is a clear and striking difference between them.

A testimony of great value to progressives

“On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump (sic) who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.”

Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, interview on October 12, 2016.

If, dear reader, you do not believe that Hillary will put us in a war situation with Russia to advance the power of the Indispensable Nation and the Exceptionals, then please read again the first three quotes at the beginning of this essay.  In the absence of Hillary from his Cabinet, Obama has been wary about plunging into a misadventure in Syria.  But Hillary does not hesitate when it comes to such bloody undertakings; she revels in them.

And if you have priorities that outstrip the question of survival, then this essay will mean little to you.  But I submit that most other questions pale into insignificance next to this one – if not for you, then for your loved ones and for your fellow human beings.