Book Cover

Hit by allegations of antisemitism, a major British publisher has stopped publishing a book because it reveals much about one of the world’s most famous Jewish dynasties, the Rothschilds.

Penguin Random House UK, one of the world’s leading publishers, will no longer print “How They Rule the World: The 22 Strategies of Global Power” by Pedro Baños after an external review found that the English translation omitted a chapter in the Spanish language edition that contains “echoes of Jewish conspiracy theories”.

The level of censorship of the realities of Jewish activities that might prove disconcerting is now being systematically suppressed by all forms of media, from television, to the archaic realm of book publishing. It seems that so much as posting a picture of a member of the “elite” with uncombed hair is now considered to be antisemitism and is immediately suppressed.

The major British publisher initially brushed off allegations of antisemitism in the book, which was published by its imprint Ebury Press in April.

However, things changed after a number of organizations, including the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a UK-based NGO, pressed for the book’s withdrawal from sale, which made Penguin commission an external review, led by Baroness Julia Neuberger, a member of the British House of Lords. (Could she be the one member of the “elite” that would really perform an objective analysis?)

She teamed up with two Spanish anti-Semitism experts, Martina Weisz and Stefanie Schüeler-Springorum, to examine the contents of both editions of the book, and while the panel did not consider either of the versions to be anti-Semitic, it said that Ebury Press should have “asked more questions and conducted deeper due diligence to determine whether it was appropriate to publish”. (Please, note the surnames of those “experts” or should I say “sensors?”)

“Penguin Random House UK publishes for readers of all backgrounds, faiths and nationalities, and the review and our resulting actions underline our commitment to that mission. But it also demonstrates that, in this particular case, our publishing judgment fell short; we must learn from that and improve”, chief executive Tom Weldon said, calling the issue “highly sensitive and nuanced” while accepting the review’s results. So, now it is an expectation that publishers will sensor anything that could in any way be considered critical of a member of the “elite,” their organizations, their behaviors, or their endeavors.

It seems concerns were raised about references to the famous the Rothschild banking dynasty, which often appear in the context of ”conspiracy theories,” and their “capacity to intervene in key global decisions” in the original version. It seems that anything that is the truth is now a “conspiracy theory” and must be completely censored. Today it seems only the deceptions and lies fabricated and distributed by the “Ministry of Propaganda” are freely distributed across the Western World.

If you want to be free, you are going to have to fight for that freedom rather than just sit complacently watching the world go by until the elite oligarchs decide it is time for you to go….





We are witnessing the shocking depths of criminality and evil being carried out by Google and its censorship agenda, it’s crucial to remember that every Google employee is complicit in carrying out these crimes against humanity and it’s attempt to annihilate human knowledge.

These people are not just “following orders” like the East German soldiers manning the Berlin Wall. They are actively complicit in Google’s massive criminal schemes to interfere in U.S. elections and silence many of the most important independent voices and journalists of our time.

Google’s employees actively participate in these schemes, promoting them, engineering them and advocating for them. When caught on camera speaking their “truth” in what they believe to be private conversations, they casually brag about how they are controlling people’s minds and altering elections through devious interventions in search results and search suggestions. These people are fascists through and through. It is their philosophy to suppress others so that their own malicious agendas may be fulfilled by hook or by crook.

These complicit Google employees cannot stand back and say, “We didn’t know what we were doing.” They know full well what they are doing… and they knowingly pursue the stated goal of destroying human knowledge, silencing independent speech and altering election outcomes to fit their own twisted political persuasions (which are more often than not rooted in self-delusion and self-aggrandizement).

Google’s employees are actively participating in Google’s massive criminal enterprise, in other words. They do not apologize for it, either. They brag about what they are doing. They knowingly pursue fascist policies of speech suppression, online “book burning” and the destruction of human knowledge. This is who they are. And they will do anything to stay in power and suppress anyone who attempts to expose their crimes against humanity.

It is now obvious why the people of Germany “tolerated” the Holocaust. They told themselves they were superior and that their inhumane actions were required to “make the world a better place.” They celebrated their own intelligence and academic achievements in private parties while dispatching their foot soldiers to carry out the silencing of the Jews. The German elite are reflected in today’s techno-elite who also tell themselves they are smarter, more educated and completely justified in eliminating the basic human rights of their political enemies. This is exactly what the German people told themselves as they wined and dined just miles from the concentration camps where human lives were annihilated in the interests of the fascist party.

Today, Google’s policies are weaponized to achieve economic annihilation against millions who built their businesses on honest content, hard work and playing by the rules to achieve legitimate search engine rankings for compelling content. But none of that matters to Google’s techno-fascists who might as well be the ones pulling the gold teeth out of the mouths of Jewish prisoners with rusty pliers. They tell themselves it is their right to suppress others, and as we’ve seen from Jen Gennai, a Google executive exposed by Project Veritas, Google’s leaders actually tell themselves they are doing all this out of “fairness” to humanity.

Jen Gennai is a twisted, devious, psychopathic cartel of online ethnic cleansing advocates who can justify absolutely anything as long as they are the ones who stay in power. Gennai is just a small example of the horrors of elitism and arrogance that Google nurtures into tomorrow’s online fascists. She is not an anomaly; she is a product of Google’s philosophy of evil criminality, collusion and destruction. Google has become a breeding ground for fascists and tyrants.

If we do not stop Google and the other tech giants now, they will expand their power far beyond that of the Third Reich, and they will abuse and exploit their power to crush humanity and enslave every human mind that interacts with the internet. Google’s deliberate destruction of knowledge and decimation of human dignity also puts Hitler’s book burnings to shame in terms of the sheer volume of knowledge being obliterated. Google is a threat to all humanity and a clear and present danger to our constitutional republic.

It is time for the federal government to conduct raids on Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other tech giants. Their executives must be arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and all employees who were complicit in their crimes must be brought to justice. They are not innocent. They are evil and they are aware of what they are doing. They are the Fourth Reich, and they are the same type of dangerous fascists that the history of the world has long sought to eliminate from this planet in order to protect the innocent.

If Google continues to exist, humanity can never be free, and the innocent will suffer beyond anything history has ever shown us.

Learn More At:



Liar Trump

Remember a habitual liar cannot be believed even when telling the truth. (It that ever happens.)

As of June 10, by Washington Post’s estimates, “President Trump has made 10,796 false or misleading claims over 869 days.” That is probably the dictionary’s definition of a habitual liar. The newspaper further states: “The president crossed the 10,000 thresholds on April 26, and he has been averaging about 16 fishy claims a day since then. From the start of his presidency, he has averaged about 12 such claims a day.”

In this context, it would be a mistake to judge the particulars of politics with the proverbial “Sunday School” sense of morality that is farthest removed from the abiding concerns of those who habitually lie. States, particularly the most powerful states, lie and these lies are for the best interests of the ruling elites in charge of those states.

Of course it is not only the stump Trump. From Vietnam to Iraq, the US has systematically and consistently lied to advance its own warmongering objectives. But the US is not the only state that lies habitually.

Right now, the interests of the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel all coalesce around targeting Iran and dismantling its share of regional power. Each one of these forces has its own internal reasons to wish Iran harm.

They, therefore, manufacture lies, exaggerate facts, take a smidgeon of truth and weave a long tale around it, all to turn Iran into a demon, the way they did with Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.

The US media is totally complicit in this charade. The Washington Post and the New York Times have stopped counting the lies Trump tells when it comes to the war with Iran. Why bother? They distribute them on demand.

The first casualty of war they say is the truth. That means all wars begin with a lie. Is the explosion of this Japanese tanker in the Gulf of Oman the lie that will result in yet another calamitous war in the region?

Today the fragile being of more than 80 million people is at the mercy of that piece of news for which John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have been gunning most of their political careers.

The regime of deception now code-named “post-truth” or “alternative facts” is predicated on what the French philosopher Guy Debord called “the society of the spectacle”, where an image has assumed a reality of its own and it no longer matters what it actually means.

We see a ship burning and we read the story that the US imperial narrative ascribes to it and its media regurgitates. What actually caused that fire and what proof there is for the claim are all entirely irrelevant questions to the media members of the propaganda machine.

Three sources tell us Iran did it: the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. They all might be what we think them to be – habitual liars – but they might still be telling the truth that Iran did actually blow a hole in that ship. The problem is, as wise Aesop points out, “there is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.”

Let us take them one at a time. The US launched a massive military attack against Iraq and wreaked havoc in the region, all based on a blatant lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction – a lie that the Bush administration staged and the New York Times consistently collaborated. Under the current administration that habitual tendency of states to lie has been exacerbated by a man who has a very casual relationship with the truth.

What about the UK? They also say the Iranians did it. They may very well be telling the truth. But we know for a fact that the British have a long colonial proclivity to tell lies to suit their interests. One such sustained course of lies was directed against democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh during the CIA-MI6 military coup of 1953 staged against him. The BBC was integral in spreading fake news at the time.

Well, that is the past, you might say, today the UK is certainly the paragon of truth and justice. Indeed it might be, except that it recently chose to turn its back on the truth: “The UK refuses to back UN inquiry into Saudi ‘war crimes’ amid fears it will damage trade Britain’s Middle East and North Africa minister Alistair Burt argued that the Saudi-led coalition itself should investigate any atrocities it committed in its conflict against rebel forces in Yemen.”

Can we really trust a treacherous regime that has an equally causal relationship with truth and can turn a blind eye to facts when it suits its purposes?

What about Saudi Arabia, which too has claimed Iranians did it. Certainly, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) could be a trustworthy source – except, he and his backers have repeatedly lied to the public in the face of facts about the tragic fate of slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The same Saudi prince – a favourite of New York Times columnists and President Trump’s Zionist son-in-law – is chiefly responsible for a genocide in Yemen in which “85,000 children have died from starvation”.

The issue we face is not the guilt or innocence of any party involved, but, instead, the complete collapse of any moral authority standing on the side of truth.

Could anyone support a war when there it is almost absolutely guaranteed that the pretexts used to justify it are totally unbelievable?



The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border,” US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) pointed out in an Instagram video on June 18.

Republicans quickly ducked into phone booths and emerged wearing sackcloth, ashes, yarmulkes and Star of David armbands to wail in unison that AOC was disrespecting victims of the Holocaust by comparing the concentration camps where the US government holds immigrants to the concentration camps where Hitler killed millions of Jews.

There’s really only one place to begin analyzing this kerfuffle: Yes, the detention facilities in which the US government forcibly holds large numbers of immigrants are concentration camps.

Yes, most Americans in this day and age associate the term with the Holocaust — and AOC certainly encouraged the comparison.

But words mean things and inflammatory comparisons from either side don’t change the meaning of the term “concentration camp.” It dates from 1897 (for camps operated by the British during the Boer War in South Africa), and the practice it describes is far older than that. In America, concentration camps date to at least as early as the 1830s, when US troops rounded up Cherokee natives and confined them in such camps before forcing them west along the Trail of Tears.

If you’re rounding up large numbers of people and concentrating them in camps, you’re operating concentration camps. Period.

They’re concentration camps whether the involuntary residents are Cherokee, Boers, Jews, or immigrants.

They’re concentration camps whether the policy leading to their use is good policy, or bad policy, or even wholly wicked policy.

They’re concentration camps if you support their use, and they’re concentration camps if you oppose their use.

“If that makes you uncomfortable,” AOC suggests, “fight the camps — not the nomenclature.”

To which I must add: If accurate nomenclature makes you so uncomfortable that you feel compelled to protest its use, there’s probably a reason.

I wasn’t surprised to see US Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) leading the “using an accurate term is an insult” pack. After all, it was her father, former vice-president Dick Cheney, who insisted that accurately referring to torture practices which the US hanged Japanese generals for authorizing combat during World War II as what they really are — torture techniques — rather than as “enhanced interrogation” when Americans use them “is to libel the professionals who have saved American lives.” There’s one apple who didn’t fall far from the tree.

Is it really too much to ask of those who support the use of torture and concentration camps that they own their positions and openly argue their side instead of expecting the rest of us to use softer, more cuddly words, so they can avoid the discussion? In modern American politics, the answer seems to be a resounding “yes.”

Wake up people! Don’t follow the politically correct agenda – speak out for peace and justice at every opportunity!

Learn More At:


Tulsi Bolton

“For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end.” – Tulsi Gabbard

That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during the Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage.

Gabbard proceeded to rip both the “president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran.”

In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage from Afghanistan: “When we weren’t in there they started flying planes into our buildings.”

“The Taliban didn’t attack us on 9/11,” Gabbard replied, “Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That’s why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban.”

Of course, the real truth is that the Saudis, Israelis and CIA attacked the US on 9/11 in a false flag operation in order to justify the Evil Empire’s wars of aggression and carnage throughout the Middle East.

When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:

“Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? ‘Well, we just have to be engaged.’ As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. … We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began.”

By debate’s end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google.

Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.

If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates.

If she is, moderators will should go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions in the Democratic Party.

Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be — not only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner’s “Deal of the Century,” and Trump’s seeming rejection of the two-state solution

If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump’s victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.

However, the polls will likely be rigged to keep a someone who advocates peace our of the debates and effectively the Democratic race.

The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.

Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver after being blackmailed with the Russiagate fiasco in order get him to follow the Ziofascist agenda.

We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.

Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.

John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the “troika of tyranny” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Rather than engaging Russia as the stump Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War.

U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.

This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall of the People to warn that in this time of “growing global instability and uncertainty,” Russia and China will “deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues.”

Xi presented Putin with China’s new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: “Cooperation with China is one of Russia’s top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level.”

At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II?

Can you say the word? We can not save the world from Armageddon if we are afraid the address the root cause of the problems that are driving us there…..

Learn More At:



After 4 years of chaos, Obama’s “war of choice” has devolved into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. As you might know, civilians in Yemen are paying the highest price for ongoing violence.

Remember the “Arab Spring,” that misleading, Euro-centric term used to characterize a period of dramatic political change in the Middle East? It began in late 2010 in Tunisia when an impoverished fruit and vegetable vendor set himself on fire in front of a government building. The young man— Mohamed Bouazizi—was the sole provider for his widowed mother and six siblings. The local police wanted to see his vendor’s permit; he didn’t have one. So they attempted to confiscate his cart. Mr. Bouazizi resisted; the cart was his sole means of earning a living. His refusal supposedly prompted a policewoman to slap him. This act of public humiliation was possibly the last straw for Mr. Bouazizi. Desperately poor and with no other means of support than his cart, the young man took his own life as a form of resistance to an otherwise hopeless situation in which the government and its various servants blocked all the exits to a life lived with dignity.

His death sparked a wave of protests across the country. Pro-democratic voices demanded that Tunisia’s iron-fisted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his regime relinquish power. He got the message and one month later closed shop and scurried out of town. And so it began—a wildfire that rapidly spread across Middle Eastern and North African countries in which the people rose up against their despotic overlords. There was nothing spring-like in these uprisings. Nor did they represent the sudden awakening of the Arab masses to the splendors of democracy and capitalism. Rather, the protests and demonstrations shared a unifying call for revolution, dignity, and the restoration of basic human rights—what generations of oppressive regimes had denied them. (The Arabic terms, transliterated, are thawra, karama, and haqooq.) In some cases, large-scale protests led to peaceful, though temporary transfers of power and a short-lived period of greater cultural and political freedom. In Syria and Yemen, protests met with a government crackdown and the emergence of warring factions that were all too soon embroiled in civil war.

In Yemen powerful tribal and military leaders side with pro-democracy protesters calling for President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s resignation. Protests erupt for the first time in January of 2011. The failure of negotiations between loyalists and members of the opposition leads to fighting in the city of Sana’a, Yemen’s capital. In November, ten months later, President Saleh hands over power to his vice president Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. Hadi assumes power after an election in which he is the only candidate. During the ensuing national dialogue, warring sides attempt to reconcile their differences. By 2014, the talks have failed. Angered by President Hadi’s failure to include Houthi representatives in his government, Houthi fighters from the north of the country take control of the capital. (Houthis belong to the Zaidi religious minority, an offshoot of Shia Islam. The Houthi resistance movement, or Ansar Allah, is named after Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi who founded the movement in the 1990s partly in response to the growing influence of Saudi Arabia’s Salafist Sunni ideology in Yemen.

President Hadi escapes to the port city of Aden and onward to Saudi Arabia. The country’s ruler, King Salman, is certain the Houthis are Iranian proxies. Determined to prevent Iran from gaining a foothold in the region, he organizes a military coalition of predominately Sunni Arab states.

In March 2015, the Saudi-led coalition intervenes in Yemen’s civil war. One of its principal goals is to restore to power the government of President Hadi and quell the insurgency. Reacting to the sudden outbreak of fighting, the Obama administration issues a press release announcing its support for the military coalition and begins to expedite the delivery of arms to the nations involved:

In response to the deteriorating security situation, Saudi Arabia, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, and others will undertake military action to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s legitimate government.As announced by GCC members earlier tonight, they are taking this action at the request of Yemeni President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

The United States coordinates closely with Saudi Arabia and our GCC partners on issues related to their security and our shared interests. In support of GCC actions to defend against Houthi violence, President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led military operations. While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support.”

After 4 years of chaos, Obama’s “war of choice” has devolved into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. As you might expect, civilians in Yemen are paying the highest price for the ongoing violence. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, all sides in this conflict have violated international law without being held accountable (as usual:)

Houthi forces have used banned antipersonnel landmines, recruited children, and fired artillery indiscriminately into cities such as Taizz and Aden, killing and wounding civilians, and launched indiscriminate rockets into Saudi Arabia.

Both sides have harassed, threatened, and attacked Yemeni activists and journalists. Houthi forces, government-affiliated forces, and the UAE and UAE-backed Yemeni forces have arbitrarily detained or forcibly disappeared scores. Houthi forces have taken hostages. Forces in Aden beat, raped, and tortured detained migrants.”

In addition to these charges, both the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition have made an already catastrophic humanitarian situation worse by blocking or confiscating food, medical supplies, and fuel necessary to keep hospital generators functioning and pump water to homes. A UN-commissioned report undertaken by the University of Denver finds that more of Yemen’s civilians are dying from hunger, disease, and a dearth of health clinics than from actual fighting. By the end of 2019, an estimated 131,000 Yemenis will have died from these collateral consequences of the war and its destruction of civilian infrastructure, including the targeting of hospitals by Saudi planes. Four years of war have had a particularly devastating effect on pregnant women and new mothers who are acutely malnourished. In 2018 approximately 410,000 pregnant or breastfeeding women seen by health clinic staff suffered from acute malnutrition. According to Dr. Mariam Aldogani, Save the Children’s field manager in the port city of Hodeidah, “This is a creeping but catastrophic consequence of the brutal conflict. We regularly see hungry pregnant women surviving on just one meal of bread and tea a day. Many come to our clinics unable to walk, too exhausted from not getting enough to eat.”

Maternal malnutrition threatens both the mother and the child, and is one of the leading causes of miscarriages along with infections, severe vitamin deficiency, and fear. Babies who survive may be born prematurely, have low birth weight, and stunted growth, which has adverse, long-term effects on the child’s mental and physical development. Dr. Hayat, whom Save the Children field workers interviewed for a recent report, described the all-too-typical results of maternal malnutrition during pregnancy:

The pregnancy progresses normally but due to malnutrition when she reaches a certain month, she miscarries. Suddenly, [the family] calls me that she has pain, and I go to her. She would have heavy bleeding, and we take her in an ambulance to the city. There would be nothing that I could do for her.”

Periodic Saudi blockades of Yemen’s port cities, supported by the US and UK, are imposed to restrict the importation of arms to the warring parties. Unfortunately, the blockades also prevent the delivery of essential humanitarian items like drugs and medical supplies. Journalist Peter Osborne, reporting for Middle East Eye in 2016, spoke with Dr. Ahmed alHaifi in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a about the consequences of these blockades:

[Dr.] al-Haifi estimated that 25 people were dying every day at the hospital for want of medical supplies. ‘We are unable to get medical supplies,’ [he said.] ‘Anaesthetics. Medicines for kidneys. There are babies dying in incubators because we can’t get supplies to treat them. They call it natural death, but it’s not. If we had the medicines, they wouldn’t be dead. I consider them killed as if they were killed by an air strike, because if we had the medicines they would still be alive.’

Since the war began, there have been roughly 12,000 reported fatalities from the direct targeting of civilians. Of these, nearly 70% are from Saudi-led coalition airstrikes on hospitals, homes, schools, factories, and markets, among other civilian targets. In other words, the coalition, aided and abetted by the US and UK, are responsible for the majority of civilian deaths. Equally complicit in prolonging this carnage is our own mainstream media, content to provide Donald Trump and his steady stream of lies and offenses with maximum coverage while scarcely mentioning the bloodshed and mayhem in Yemen—tragic consequences of the administration’s desire to keep US weapons makers (Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, et al) fat and sassy no matter how many lives are lost in the process, and maintain mutually beneficial relationships with its Persian Gulf allies, particularly Saudi Arabia.

UN assessments, without exception, reveal a grim reality for the people of Yemen. The war and the collapse of the economy have brought the country to the brink of famine. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “An estimated 80 per cent of the population—24 million people—require some form of humanitarian or protection assistance, including 14.4 million, or 53% of the population, who are at risk of starving to death. Nearly 400,000 Yemeni children suffer from acute malnutrition, rendering them susceptible to infections, disease, and stunting.

Attacks on civilian infrastructure have seriously degraded the country’s ability to provide clean water and medical services. Under such conditions, easily preventable diseases are spreading. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) reports that there are now 1.1 million Yemenis suffering from cholera. The estimated 3 million Yemenis who have abandoned their homes to escape the violence have become either internally displaced or have sought refuge in neighboring countries like Oman, Djibouti, Sudan, Somalia, and even Saudi Arabia. Literally millions of internally displaced Yemenis struggle to survive in makeshift shelters.

If you are proud to be an American and have supported either the Demorat Obama or the Republicon Trump, I hope you understand that the actions described above rest on your soul and that the $20 you toss into the collection plate on Sundays will do nothing to save it….

If you are brave enough, Learn More at:



There are monsters among us. Those monsters walk the earth each day.

You can read about an American “plan” to either invade some place new or to otherwise inflict pain to convince a “non-compliant” foreign government how to behave. Last week it was Iran but next week it could just as easily again be Lebanon, Syria or Venezuela. Or even Russia or China, both of whom are seen as “threats” even though American soldiers, sailors and marines sit on their borders and not vice versa. The United States is perhaps unique in the history of the world in that it sees threats everywhere even though it is not, in fact, threatened by anyone.

Just as often, one learns about a new atrocity by Israelis inflicted on the defenseless Arabs just because they have the power to do so. Last Friday in Gaza the Israeli army shot and killed four unarmed demonstrators and injured 300 more while the Jewish state’s police invaded a Palestinian orphanage school in occupied Jerusalem and shut it down because the students were celebrating a “Yes to peace, no to war” poetry festival. Peace is not in the Israeli authorized curriculum.

And then there are the Saudis, publicly chopping the heads off of 37 “dissidents” in a mass display of barbarity, and also murdering and dismembering a hapless journalist. And let’s not forget the bombing and deliberate starving of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians in Yemen

It is truly a troika of evil, an expression favored by US National Security Advisor John Bolton, though he was applying it to Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, all “socialist” nations currently on Washington’s “hit list.” Americans, Saudis and Israelis have become monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world, even if in their own minds they are endowed with special privilege due to their being “Exceptional,” “Chosen by God” or “Guardians of Mecca and Medina.” All three countries share a dishonest sense of entitlement that supports the fiction that their oppressive and often illegal behavior is somehow perfectly legitimate.

To be sure not all Americans, Saudis or Israelis are individually monsters. Many are decent people who are appalled by what their respective governments are doing. Saudi citizens live under a despotism and have little to say about their government, but there is a formidable though fragmented peace movement in slightly less totalitarian Israel and in the United States there is growing anti-war sentiment. The discomfort in America is driven by a sense that the post 9/11 conflicts have only embroiled the country more deeply in wars that have no exit and no end. Unfortunately, the peace movement in Israel will never have any real power while the anti-war activists in America are leaderless and disorganized, waiting for someone to step up and take charge.

The current foreign policy debate centers around what Washington’s next moves in the Middle East might be. The decision-making will inevitably involve the US and its “close allies” Israel and Saudi Arabia, which should not surprise anyone. While it is clear that President Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran before canceling the action at the last minute, exactly how that played out continues to be unclear. One theory, promoted by the president himself, is that the attack would have been disproportionate, killing possibly hundreds of Iranian military personnel in exchange for one admittedly very expensive surveillance drone. Killing the Iranians would have guaranteed an immediate escalation by Iran, which has both the will and the capability to hit high value targets in and around the Persian Gulf region, a factor that may also have figured into the presidential calculus.

Trump’s cancellation of the attack immediately produced cries of rage from the usual neoconservative chicken-hawk crowd in Washington as well as a more subdued reiteration of the Israeli and Saudi demands that Iran be punished, though both are also concerned that a massive Iranian retaliation would hit them hard. They are both hoping that Washington’s immensely powerful strategic armaments will succeed in knocking Iran out quickly and decisively, but they have also both learned not to completely trust the White House.

To assuage the beast, the president has initiated a package of “major” new sanctions on Iran which will no doubt hurt the Iranian people while not changing government decision making one iota. There has also been a leak of a story relating to US cyber-attacks on Iranian military and infrastructure targets, yet another attempt to act aggressive to mitigate the sounds being emitted by the Ziocon chorus.

To understand the stop-and-go behavior by Trump requires application of the Occam’s Razor principle, i.e. that the simplest explanation is most likely correct. For some odd reason, Donald Trump wants to be reelected president in 2020 in spite of the fact that he appears to be uncomfortable in office. A quick, successful war would enhance his chances for a second term, which is probably what Pompeo promised, but any military action that is not immediately decisive would hurt his prospects, quite possibly inflicting fatal damage. Trump apparently had an intercession by Fox news analyst Tucker Carlson, who may have explained that reality to him shortly before he decided to cancel the attack. Tucker is, for what it’s worth, a highly respected critic coming from the political right who is skeptical of wars of choice, democracy building and the global “liberal” order.

The truth is that all of American foreign policy during the upcoming year will be designed to pander to certain constituencies that will be crucial to the 2020 presidential election.

One can bank on even more concessions being granted to Israel and its murderous thug prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring in Jewish votes and, more importantly, money. John Bolton was already in Israel getting his marching orders from Netanyahu on the weekend and Pence was effusive in his praise of Israel when he spoke at the meeting in Orlando earlier in the week launching the Trump 2020 campaign, so the game is already afoot. It is an interesting process to observe how Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson contribute tens of millions of dollars to the politicians who then in turn give the Jewish state taxpayer generated tens of billions of dollars in return. Bribing corrupt politicians is one of the best investments that one can make in today’s America.

Trump will also go easy on Saudi Arabia because he wants to sell them billions of dollars’ worth of weapons which will make the key constituency of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) happy. And he will continue to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran and Venezuela to show how tough he can be for his Make America Great audience, though avoiding war if he possibly can just in case any of the hapless victims tries to fight back and embarrass him.

So, there it is folks. War with Iran is for the moment on hold, but tune in again next week as the collective White House memory span runs to only three or four days. By next week the Americans might be at war with Mongolia depending on what the leaders of the Troika of Evil have been smoking.

Learn More At: