Category: United States

Posted on

THREE WAYS OBAMA CAUSED THE SYRIAN DISASTER

The Radical-in-Chief didn’t just support one monster. He backed two.

Obama owns the disaster in Syria in a way that no one else does. Three of his policies intersected to cause the bloodshed, devastation and horrors there.

  1. The Iraq Withdrawal
  2. The Arab Spring
  3. The Iran Deal

Obama’s Iraq withdrawal turned the country over to Iran and ISIS. The tensions between the Shiite puppet regime in Baghdad (which Obama insisted on backing) and the Sunni population created a cycle of violence that reduced the country to a bloody civil war between Shiite militias and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The collapse of the multicultural Iraqi army allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq to seize huge swathes of territory. And ISIS and Iran began carving up Iraq into their own ethnically cleansed dominions.

Then his Arab Spring empowered the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sunni forces to seize power in countries around the region. Unlike Egypt and Tunisia, whose governments fell under White House pressure, and Libya, which Obama bombed and invaded, the Iranians and Russians didn’t cut their Syrian allies loose.

Iraq’s civil war spread to Syria. Initially Obama backed the Sunni Brotherhood militias. These groups represented themselves as free, secular and democratic. They were actually nothing of the kind. But as Libya and Yemen turned into disasters, and the Syrian militias clamored for direct military intervention, Obama instead turned to Iran. The Sunni Islamists hadn’t worked out so he cut a deal with the Shiites.

Obama’s new deal with Iran was sealed with a fortune in illegal foreign currency shipments flown in on unmarked cargo planes, a virtual blank check for Iran’s nuclear program, the collapse of sanctions and the withdrawal of support for the Sunni militias in Syria. And that gave Iran a free hand in Syria.

If you want to understand why Syria is a disaster area, these are the three reasons.

Obama empowered ISIS and Iran next door to Syria. Then he empowered Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias in Syria. And then he finally empowered Iran, Assad and Russia in Syria.

If he had set out to cause as much death and devastation as possible in Syria, he couldn’t have done any more damage without dropping nuclear bombs or his campaign propaganda on its major cities.

Every major terror player in Syria was empowered by Obama’s terrible decisions.

ISIS and Iranian expansionism grew in the vacuum his policies had created. He backed the Brotherhood and Al Qaeda militias with training, political support and weapons shipments. And then he decided to create another vacuum that would allow Iran to overrun the region to do the work he didn’t want to do.

Syria is just the culmination of a series of bad decisions guided by a single disastrous philosophy.

Obama’s foreign policy was a leftist response to 9/11 and the Iraq War. Its central premise was that Islamic terrorism was our fault. Islamic terrorists had attacked us because of our support for the governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This idea was implicitly expressed in his Iraq War speech.

“Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells,” he had declared.

The solution was withdrawing from Iraq. And withdrawing political support from our allies.

The Islamic terrorists would run for office, win elections and then stop being terrorists. Or at least they would limit their terrorism to domestic and regional violence. There would be no more justification for our “imperialist” military interventions in the region. That was Obama’s “smart power” foreign policy.

Instead it all went badly wrong.

The alliance between the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar and the Obama regime toppled friendly governments and replaced them with terror states across the Middle East. But popular uprisings against Islamist rule in Tunisia and Egypt forced out Obama allies: Mohammed Morsi and Rashid Ghannouchi. Obama’s illegal invasion of Libya led to everything from the return of slave markets to ISIS cities. Libya’s Brotherhood allied with Al Qaeda influenced terror militias leading to the Benghazi attack.

Obama’s other worst Arab Spring disasters happened in Syria and Yemen. Iran used the Brotherhood bids for power as an opening. The fighting between Shiite and Sunni Jihadists devastated both countries. Obama wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to win, but he didn’t want to keep invading countries to do it.

The Muslim Brotherhood couldn’t take power or hold on to it without military support. Hillary Clinton had talked Obama into invading Libya. But he didn’t want any more wars. Especially after Libya.

When some of his advisers urged him to intervene more strongly in Syria, he wavered.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner, who vacationed all over the world, couldn’t actually find anyone except the French to actually support action in Syria. And he was too used to leading from behind to take the lead. The red line had been broken. He slowly crawled all the way up to action. And then ran away while pathetically blaming the British for his own cowardice, double-dealing and broken promises.

The former UK PM would reportedly describe Obama as, one of the “most narcissistic, self-absorbed people”.

Obama avoided the war by humiliating his own Secretary of State and colluding with the Russians. He dodged having to deliver on his red line by agreeing to pretend that Syria had destroyed its WMDs.

Triumphant press releases and media accounts claimed that all the chemical weapons were gone.

This fake deal would serve as a precedent for another fake deal to stop Iran’s own WMD program. Both deals were equally worthless and were backed by the experts and reporters who are now demanding action all over again against the Syrian WMDs that, if you listened to them, weren’t supposed to exist.

“The credible threat of force brought about an opening for diplomacy, to come in, which then led to something that no one thought was possible,” Derek Chollet, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, said.

There was no credible threat of force. And there was a reason no one thought that it was possible.

It wasn’t.

The Russians and Iranians had played Obama. And they would go on playing him. But Obama wanted to be played. He wanted to save face by handing over his disaster to the Russians and Iran.

He wanted to implement regime change in the Middle East. But he didn’t want to get his hands dirty.

It all began with his backing for Sunni Islamist takeovers. Then he switched to backing Shiite Islamists.

As Hillary once said, “What difference does it make?” Except to the dying and the dead.

We support monsters.

That is the familiar leftist critique of American foreign policy during the Cold War. The same radicals who supported the racist Sandinistas, who chanted, “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win” at their anti-war rallies, and wore red Che t-shirts, claimed that we wrongly supported anti-Communist dictators.

But the left is always twice as guilty of its own accusations.

In Syria, Obama didn’t just support one monster. He backed two. The bloodshed in Syria is entirely a product of the decisions that he made. But he wasn’t satisfied with supporting just one bunch of genocidal Islamic fanatics in a holy war. In one of the most extraordinary crimes, he backed both.

And he closed his eyes and allowed a third, ISIS, to rise.

Obama wanted to overthrow the dictators who were our allies. And he turned to the Brotherhood to do the job. When the Brotherhood couldn’t stand up to Iran or ISIS, he turned to Iran. He violated the law numerous times, providing weapons to Sunni Jihadists and cash to Shiite Jihadists, launching one illegal war and threatening to launch another, and it all ended in a miserable disaster that he ran away from.

The blood of 500,000 people is on his hands.

Originally Published in FrontPageMag.

Posted on

Americans Acknowledge Deep State as Public Disclosure of Crimes Looms

A stunning poll from Monmouth University revealed how a clear majority of Americans have woken up to the concept of a ‘deep state’.

 ‘Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term “Deep State;” another 24% are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of apparatus exists in Washington. This includes 27% who say it definitely exists and 47% who say it probably exists. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist (16% probably not and 5% definitely not).’

This poll validates the genuineness of the ‘great awakening’ facilitated by President Trump (and his close associates). Every day, thousands of Americans achieve awareness of the unbelievable level of corruption in the political system. I have covered how, in the past, a number of politicians alluded to this concept of a deep state. Examples include President Eisenhower’s reference to the military–industrial complex and President Kennedy’s speech warning of ‘secret societies’ and a ‘monolithic and ruthless conspiracy’. Shockingly, just this past Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul answered ‘absolutely’ when directly asked if a deep state exists.

For specific names of deep state activists, you can point to a former employee of both the CIA and FBI Philip Mudd who, in referring to the President, said they [the deep state] will ‘kill this guy’. Interestingly, Mr. Mudd is alleged to be a direct descendant of Samuel Mudd, an American physician who was imprisoned for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. I suppose there is some genetic disposition within the Mudd family to overthrowing governments.

In January, President Trump referenced the ‘deep state’ in a tweet. But, in a speech last month at CPAC, he vaguely referred to ‘forces’ that don’t have the people’s best interest: 
‘We’re fighting a lot of forces.  They’re forces that are doing the wrong thing.  They’re just doing the wrong thing.  I don’t want to talk about what they have in mind.  But they do the wrong thing.  But we’re doing what’s good for our country for the long-term viability and survival.’

The President is most likely hinting at a much darker reality where his enemies are not simply part of rogue intelligence agencies. Perhaps, he is channeling the qanon posts, described by New York Magazine as:

‘…someone calling themselves Q began posting a series of cryptic messages in a /pol/ thread titled “Calm Before the Storm” (assumedly in reference to that creepy Trump quote from early October). Q claimed to be a high-level government insider with Q clearance (hence the name) tasked with posting intel drops — which he, for some reason, called “crumbs” — straight to 4chan in order to covertly inform the public about POTUS’s master plan to stage a countercoup against members of the deep state.’

These posts have been widely mocked by mainstream media publications like Newsweek as ‘fake news’. Curiously, Newsweek did notreceive a comment from the White House on a claim made by Alex Jones that he was told by them to start covering the qanon posts. As of today, there has been no public statement from the Trump administration on the authenticity of these qanon posts. The silence speaks for itself.

Originall Published in News with Chai.

Posted on

Who Will Stop Iran?

Since President Donald Trump’s famous Iran policy speech, Iran has been on the move, in a sense testing how serious the USA was in stopping their forward march.  They have used the Iraqi military, the USA has financed and trained to occupy Kirkuk and as of this morning crossed over into territory enshrined as Iraqi Kurdistan by even the most ardent Iraqi constitutionalists.

With all of the Kurdish infighting aside, the Kurds are still both America’s and Israel’s most reliable partner in the Middle East and they are the last force capable of blocking an Iranian advance.  The Iraqi military and the Iranian backed PMU have been unlawfully using American weapons against the Kurds. Of course, this has caught the ire of the US Congress who has become vocal in its urging of the White House to come to the aid of the Kurds before it is too late.

The failure to stop Iran now will not only hand the region over to the Iranian Mullahs, it will spell the end of American dominance at a global level. Afterall, if Israel and the Kurds, as well as the Saudis sense that the USA can no longer be counted on to ensure stability in the region, there are others that may be able to.

This is why Israel, Saudi Arabia, and parts of the Kurdish leadership are now in deep discussions with Putin and his military leadership. While this may be a ploy to force the USA to act, it appears to be a recognition of the new reality on the ground.  The only question to the three countries listed above, what will they have to pay to the Russian Bear to ensure it tightens the leash on Iran?

Posted on

From JFK to Trump – The End of the Deep State and a New Path Forward


The days of invasion and occupation by the US for the preservation of a flawed, fiat currency based economic system are slowly coming to an end. Things are so out of hand that this week one US Senator couldn’t even keep track of all the wars the US is engaged in. Moving forward, sweeping changes are taking place as the petrodollar system is under attack by China and the global currency reset led by Bitcoin continues. US foreign policy has been thrown into shambles as evident by the recent state visit by the Saudi king to Russia. The Saudis likely purchase of S-400 air defense systems seriously weakens attempts to isolate Russia via sanctions.  These events all contribute to the undermining of the US dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.

As the current system of central banking ends (whether it is in 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years is immaterial), the only thing in question is what will replace it. I have advocated for the use of cryptocurrencies as an effective way to counter the Chinese / Russian push toward a gold standard. Greater use of cryptocurrencies will eventually make central banks (like the FED, ECB, etc.) irrelevant. I generally ignore so-called experts who have claimed the imminent death of Bitcoin. For example, Jamie Dimon’s opinion on Bitcoin is like asking the head of the post office what he thinks of e-mail. 99bitcoins.com even has a running log of over 170 pronouncements. Importantly, the potential for blockchain technology is enormous. Entire industries including (and not limited to) finance, insurance, advertising and health care can experience greater efficiencies as more transparency is introduced for all transactions.

Generally, for a currency to be effective, it should have three qualities – functioning as a unit of account, a medium of exchange and a store of value. For a more technical understanding of the valuation of Bitcoin, I recommend reading NYU Professor Damodaran’s blog post. What I think most people miss is that for any currency to be successful it needs one thing – confidence. For the past 70 years, the US dollar has had the world’s confidence. In the future, whatever replaces it (either gold, silver, Bitcoin, some other cryptocurrency or something totally different) will need that confidence to succeed.

President Kennedy vs The Deep State

With the US is in the throes of seemingly unbridgeable partisan division, the news that President Trump will not block the release of the long-classified CIA and FBI documents regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should come as good news. Unfortunately, any time the JFK assassination is brought up by the talking heads in the media, they simply label those who disagree with the official narrative as ‘conspiracy theorists’. This scurrilous attempt to demonize anyone who engages in critical thinking often trivializes conflicting government information and disturbing facts like the death of numerous key witnesses. Perhaps, those in the media would consider members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (in 1970s) as conspiracy theorists too for some of their findings.

For those who are skeptical of the official Warren Commission report, it is crucial to understand the motivation for groups who had an interest in President Kennedy’s death. In one of his more controversial speeches before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961, President Kennedy referenced ‘secret societies’ and a ‘monolithic and ruthless conspiracy’. In my opinion, the context of the speech clearly shows that he was not referring to the Soviet Union but to an internal, subversive force within the US government. This is what some would call the deep state or shadow government. In light of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy stated his desire to ‘splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds’.

We have also gotten hints of the existence of the deep state / shadow government from politicians over the years. President Eisenhower referenced the military–industrial complex right before the end of his 2nd term. Senator Daniel Inouye (United States Senator from Hawaii from 1963 to 2012) spoke about a ‘shadowy Government’ during the Iran-Contra hearings. Congressman Larry McDonald, called ‘the most principled man in Congress’ by Congressman Ron Paul, spoke of a conspiracy to create a one-world government.

I would encourage anyone to do their own research and draw their own conclusions on questionable CIA activities like Operation Gladio, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip and Project MKUltra in addition to an extensive history of executing regime change. Interestingly, it was confirmed that CIA Director John McCone, brought in by President Kennedy to replace Allen Dulles, was part of the JFK assassination cover-up. Even in recent years, the CIA’s practice has been to lie to its own employees as ‘a means of protecting vital secrets’. Some contend that the release of the JFK assassination files could lead to more revelations of prior incidents (i.e. 9/11/01 attacks, Oklahoma City bombing, etc.).

Mainstream Media Failure

The mainstream media has been a willing accomplice of the deep state for decades by manipulating public opinion. For example, in this video, a young Dan Rather completely misrepresents the details of the Kennedy shooting. I liken actions such as these to The Truman Show, a film about a man who is living in a constructed reality tv show that is televised globally around the clock. Once the character, Truman Burbank (played by actor Jim Carrey), realizes that nothing in his life is real, he starts to rebel and attempts to escape his existence. When the creator of the show is asked in an interview why Truman hadn’t discovered the true nature of his world, he replies ‘We accept the reality of the world with which we’re presented, it’s as simple as that’. This arrogance is apparent in many mainstream media talking heads.

Fortunately, this control of the American people by the mainstream media is crumbling. A recent poll shows that 46% of American voters(including 20% of Democrats) believe that the media make up stories about President Trump. In a panel hosted by CNN two months ago, a group of Trump supporters dispute assertions made by the moderator, telling her that they trust their Facebook feed more than CNN.

President Trump vs The Deep State

With the deterioration of the mainstream media and inflamed partisan divisions, a vacuum in the US exists. While Congressman Ron Paul (especially now since he is out of office) has no problem speaking out on controversial topics, he does not yet have a large enough audience to drive public opinion. President Trump has dropped hints by:

  • Tweeting that ‘Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?’ [January 11]
  • Cryptically referring to the CIA as a fifth column in a speech to the CIA, the day after his inauguration [January 21]
  • In an interview with Bill O’Reilly and in response to a question about Russian President Vladimir Putin saying “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country’s so innocent?” [February 4]

These veiled messages are President Trump’s way of providing clues to the American people of a much darker reality. They suggest the existence of a deep state comprised of rogue, nefarious individuals in US intelligence services that do not have the people’s (and certainly not the President’s) best interests in mind.

New Spiritual Awakening

While everyone within this financial-media-military industrial complex is not a bad person, they are part of a corrupt system that needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Many are simply trapped while others feign ignorance.

Optimistically, I think we can achieve some sort of a spiritual awakening in the US that can transcend the partisan divide. We are currently living in an upside-down world of lies. As we witness more revelations of sordid, criminal activity among those in the entertainment industry, more people will question the media and even look at some of the President’s tweets in a more positive way. Perhaps, the glorification of those in film, music, tv, and sports can be replaced with something more meaningful. Who knows, maybe one of President Trump’s most curious predictions that the ‘era of division will be replaced with a future of unity, total unity’ will come true. As the upcoming economic disorder approaches, the alternative scenario is too dire to discuss.

Originally Published in News with Chai.

Posted on

American Jewry’s Necessary Moral Reckoning

The main source of American Jewish antagonism toward Israel is divergent views on the Palestinians.

It is no longer a secret that Israel and much of the American Jewish community are moving in different directions. Leftist American commentators like Peter Beinart and Roger Cohen, and the Jewish organizations that keep them on perpetual speaking tours insist that Israel no longer merits American Jewish support.

Aside from their pique at Israel’s refusal to equalize the positions of the Reform and Conservative movements to that of the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel and their refusal to recognize that so long as the Reform and Conservative movements have next to no following in Israel they cannot expect to receive the same consideration as Orthodox religious authorities, the main source of American Jewish antagonism toward Israel is divergent views on the Palestinians.

Specifically, Israel’s political leadership and the public that voted them into office rejects the American Jewish leadership’s positions on the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Labor Party leader Avi Gabbay’s statements last week proclaiming that he doesn’t support destroying Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria in the framework of a peace deal with the Palestinians made clear that it isn’t just the Israeli Right that rejects the position of the majority of the American Jewish community. The head of the leftist Labor Party also rejects their position that Israel should expel hundreds of thousands of its citizens from their homes in the framework of a peace deal and discriminate against them for as long as no deal has been reached.

Facing the likes of Cohen and Beinart and their supporters are Israel’s defenders who argue that the primary reason for the increased estrangement between Israel and the American Jewish community is the radicalization of the American Left, and the Left’s concomitant embrace of anti-Israel positions.

Since the 1920s, the American Jewish community has identified with the political Left. So long as the Left – and particularly the Soviet Union – supported the Jewish national liberation movement, Zionism and the Jewish state, the American Jewish Left was happy to be both leftist and Zionist.

The American Jewish movement away from Israel began after the Soviet Union cut off diplomatic relations with Israel in 1967. The cleavage grew wider in successive decades as Western Europe incrementally aligned its policies on Israel with those of the Soviets and after the Cold War, replaced the Soviet Union as the epicenter of anti-Israel political rhetoric.

Today, anti-Israel activists are the rising force in the Democratic Party. Progressive politics have been so thoroughly suffused with anti-Zionism and its concomitant rejection of the civil rights of American Jewish Zionists that Democratic presidential hopefuls like senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker are abandoning their previously pro-Israel positions to ingratiate themselves with their party base.

While there is little doubt that the American Jewish Left’s increasing hostility toward Israel is a function of its membership’s abiding allegiance to their ideological camp, there is also something else at play.

In an article published this week in the American Jewish online magazine Tablet titled, “Why do American Jews Idealize Communism?” Prof. Ruth Wisse recalled the prominent role that American Jews played in the American Communist Party in the 1930s. Wisse cites the Jewish Women’s Encyclopedia Archive which notes that according to Communist Party historians, “almost half of the [Communist] party’s membership was Jewish in the 1930s and 1940s.”

This isn’t to say that almost half of American Jews were Communist. There were a mere 83,000 Jews in the Communist Party in 1943, while there were 4.7 million Jews in the US. But those 83,000 Jews – and their even more numerous fellow travelers – played a definitive role in dictating the terms of the political and social discourse in the US during those years.

Wisse quotes then Commentary magazine editor Robert Worshaw who wrote in 1947 that during the 1930s, “If you were not somewhere within the [Communist] party’s wide orbit, then you were likely to be in the opposition, which meant that much of your thought and energy had to be devoted to maintaining yourself in opposition…. It was the Communist Party that ultimately determined what you were to think about and in what terms.”

In other words, there was no way to set a public policy agenda or cultural agenda independently of the Communist Party. If the Communists determined that the public should be focused on subjugation of African Americans and should ignore the Soviet gulag, for instance, and if you felt that the gulag should be discussed, then you could find yourself accused of racism for speaking of the gulag rather than Jim Crow. If you wished to discuss neo-Classical rather than cubist art, then you were considered a throwback with no sense of art. And so on and so forth.

The only party with the power to determine what Americans would speak about, what “right thinking” Americans would think and what subjects were either irrelevant or beyond the pale, was the Communist Party.

And again, a portion of the American Jewish community played an outsized role in the Communist Party.

In her article, Wisse remonstrates with the American Jewish community for failing to conduct a moral reckoning with its historical affiliation with a party and a movement that murdered 30 million of its own citizens and was responsible for the spread of war and misery worldwide, through its totalitarian, inhuman ideology.

In her words, “We Americans and Jews ask nations that once succumbed to fascism and practiced genocide in its name to acknowledge their past evils. We do so not to perpetuate guilt, but because self-awareness alone prevents repetition of the same behavior. How then can Americans and particularly the Jews among them perpetuate the romance – or the innocence – of the Bolshevik regime?” Wisse continues, “We are… obliged to take seriously that many Jews supported one of the most murderous regimes in history and to see how and why and to what extent they went wrong.”

Wisse does not draw a connection between the American Jewish community’s growing antagonism towards Israel today and its avoidance of a moral reckoning with its Communist-supporting past. But it is important to connect the dots.

Earlier this month, the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria struck a “unity” deal with Hamas. Under the deal, Fatah agrees to support the Hamas regime in Gaza and take responsibility for the general functioning of governing structures in Gaza. Hamas, for its part, will continue to wage war against Israel and act as an autonomous governing authority, just like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hamas insists that it has not tempered its view of Israel. It remains committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state.

The deal paves the way for Hamas to join the PLO, and so replace Fatah as the largest faction of the PLO. Hamas’s leader Khaled Mashaal apparently views the deal as a vehicle for him to eventually replace Fatah and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian president.

In the face of this unity deal, there is no way to pretend that support for the Palestinians is anything other than support for terrorists who seek to annihilate the Jewish state. There is no way to pretend that support for Israeli land giveaways to the Palestinians constitute anything other than support for the empowerment of terrorists at Israel’s peril.

In other words, the Palestinian unity deal makes it impossible for Israel’s American Jewish antagonists to credibly claim that their disaffection with Israel owes to their commitment to peace and justice rather than moral sanctimony and self-righteousness.

It is difficult to avoid the sense that the American Jewish community’s decreasing support for Israel and increasing support for Palestinian terrorists is a natural extension of its past support for totalitarian Communism. It is equally difficult to avoid the conclusion that so long as the American Jewish community avoids a moral reckoning with that past, it will be incapable of reconsidering its present course.

Originally Published in the Jerusalem Post