Trump's Reckless Attack on the Syrian Military at Shayrat

I want to be clearly on the public record strongly denouncing Donald Trump's action attacking the Syrian military in Shayrat for alleged chemical-weapons use in Khan Sheikhoun. It was a very dumb thing to do, and that's an understatement. To attack a nation solely on unsubstantiated allegations is the height of folly. That cannot be overstated.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Donald Trump doesn't have, and never will have, proof that the Syrian military carried out the alleged chemical attack. On the contrary, the timing of the entire episode, on the heels of the Trump administration having said that it was not focused on ousting Assad but rather combating IS and on the heels of the Syrian military's advances nearly across-the-board, clearly suggests that Trump caved into the neocon's agenda, which is appalling. Assad didn't need to use chemicals and knew full well that doing so would be counterproductive to his cause.

I only pray that Vladimir Putin will, relatively speaking, remain the grownup in the room (the global stage). Of course within Mr. Putin's worldview, there is only so much he can tolerate before directly confronting the US militarily.

If this is Trump's idea of brinkmanship, he's grossly miscalculating. His advisors, the one's he's agreed with in the decision to attack Syria, are woefully foolish.

A pattern will finally emerge that will tell us what Trump really thinks he's doing and what he thinks he can get away with in both the short and long run.

My impression concerning this recent episode is that President Trump is erratic and more of a shallow thinker than he'd like the world to believe. It appears he was manipulated by the neocons and so-called liberal interventionists into militarily striking Syria before hard evidence gave even the semblance of justification under international and domestic secular law.

When he was running for President, he scolded Hillary Clinton that she did not know that Russia (that President Putin) had hacked the DNC or hacked her illegal server or Podesta's emails or the election, etc. He said that there wasn't evidence available to definitively conclude Russia did any of those things. Yet, here we are with that same man, Donald Trump, authorizing/ordering the US military to hit the Syrian military based upon evidence that is no more substantial than what he, Trump, said was insufficient in the case of Russia and hacking. So, we see Trump go from sober to drunk, if you will.

It also seems quite clear to me that the "news" media was put into lockstep and in high gear to gin up just such an attack.

Who benefits? The US military industrial complex, the US global imperialists, those who hate Vladimir Putin because he doesn't agree with the sexual anarchy movement of the United States, those who hate Basher Assad because he doesn't want neoliberal/corporatist economics running unbridled in Syria after the war (and it will end), that's who.

One thing is quite clear (and it's no fake), Donald Trump was never in Vladimir Putin's pocket, not even close. It's not the reason Trump did what he did. He didn't do it to prove that.

Trump did complain during the campaign that President Obama had made a huge mistake concerning the "red line" on chemical weapons. We are to believe that Donald Trump believed then that the Syrian military was responsible.

So, he's not as bright as he thinks he is. He's more easily manipulated. He's more gullible. We're all less safe in the flesh for it.

Hillary Clinton already was at foolish odds with Putin. We wouldn't have been better off with her.

It remains to be seen whether Trump can learn and correct his course before he sails humanity over the edge of no return. Let us pray.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Friedrich Hayek was Backwards

Venezuela reminds us that socialism frequently has to struggle against neoliberal-economic types who wish by any means to re-enslave the masses under the neofeudalism inherent in capitalism. Then those neofeudalists turn around and point the finger at those struggling not to be re-enslaved and call any of their leaders dictators no matter how democratically those leaders have been chosen and rechosen.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Let's get some things straight. Venezuela's poor were suffering mightily before Chavez. Venezuela has a history of neoliberal dictators. Chavez overturned that. The poor benefited hugely. Was he able to do everything he wanted before oil prices collapsed? No. Was he intending to keep Venezuela bound to oil as its main revenue source? No. Is the author (link further down in the text) correct to point at Venezuela as worse than other oil states because Venezuela didn't do as well in the face of the price collapse? No.

Venezuela has probably the most expensive oil-refining requirements because it is extremely heavy crude. Look at what happened to Canada's tar sands in the face of the same price collapse. Alberta suffered huge losses too, but Canada wasn't subjected to the same forces that had impoverished the masses of Venezuela. You don't see the CIA trying to overthrow the Canadian government. You do see it trying to overthrow Maduro, even though Maduro has caved into neoliberal economics to a degree Chavez never would have.

Let me add that the laissez-faire fakes (I say fakes because they always and everywhere want the government to clamp down on all competition from anything remotely socialist) always omit that the more socialist the nation, the more sanctions are placed upon it even in infancy. Why is that? It's because the capitalists know they can't compete against socialism and win. They call it unfair trade. Can you believe it? I hope you can. Libertarian-capitalists are hypocrites. There's no way to be one and not be.

Please notice how the title of the article used the term "frequently." Ha! We are winning that debate, obviously. They never used to qualify it. They would simply say that socialism always fails, etc. People have been taking them to task for that and rightly so. I'm one of them and gladly so.

Look, just because some people employ central planning doesn't mean that, that's the way it's done everywhere. What about the socialists who don't? What about all the employee-owned entities that own the means of production but are highly democratic within and that advocate that same democracy without? Where's the finger-pointing? Well, the hyper-capitalists, who call others economic illiterates (the irony of it), don't want to draw the world's attention to the socialist success stories out there we could model globally and should.

RLCC: Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States

Let the light in.

Lift the bottom first.

Leave absolutely nobody behind for any reason.

Invest in what we need most in a prioritized manner.

Make peace.

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes | Leave a comment

Cowardly Zionists out to be world's censors: banning books that question, books you're not to be allowed to find (let alone buy)

You know, if it hadn't been for revisionist literature, I would never have learned that there was no soap made from the fat of Jews, there were no lampshades made from the tattooed skin of Jews, there were no Jewish heads shrunken by the Nazis. I would never have learned a great deal more after that, things which were never denied by the Zionists and others that were never sufficiently refuted or even close.

Tom1

Tom Usher

Here though is proof that the Zionists can't stand any discussion about their claims about what they've deemed The Holocaust (as if there haven't been larger atrocities, even if one believes the 6-million figure). I've seen their claims demolished in many cases, shown up as poorly constructed false propaganda. How far will this banning go?

Will the Jewish revisionist historians also be banned, the ones who showed the world the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Will they ban former President Jimmy Carter's book on the Apartheid direction of Israel if Israel continues down its current path? Will they contact Facebook and Google and Twitter and any other social sites or blogs or commenting-system providers and the like to pressure all of them into removing even this commentary of mine because it doesn't toe the Zionist line? Will they seek to end the sale of the Christian Bible because the Gospels recount what the Jews (some Jews, not all) did to Christ? Will they challenge public and school and university libraries to remove such books, studies, research, etc.? Do you think by doing that, those Zionists will be making more friends for the Jews as a whole?

I differentiate between Jews according to their individual characters. Other people are not as inclined to that approach. The Zionists out to ban everything that doesn't whitewash everything they have ever done and every lie they've ever told are only making things worse for their fellow Jews who don't agree with book banning on such flimsy and, yes, hysterical bases.

Are there Nazis who hide behind careful language? Of course. That, however, is no justification for banning open discussion, academic freedom, and the freedom to publish dissenting political views.

Zionist authoritarians and ethnocracy advocates, who have literally stolen lands right out from under often peaceful and harmless Palestinian families (which theft is said to be such by the vast majority of the international community that openly states that Israel is violating international law with Israel's illegal settlements in Palestine), need to be stopped. Their anti-BDS actions need to fail, just as their illegal settlements need to fail.

We see this book banning on the heels of an alleged wave of anti-Semitism in the US that was spread in the MSM as if it was a forgone conclusion that it wasn't a Zionist doing it. Now we have seen the news that it was mostly the acts of a Jewish-American in Israel (no surprise to me at all), a dual citizen (a thing, dual citizenship, I don't agree should even be allowed).

Now, am I an anti-Semite? Hardly. If I'm an anti-Semite, then why have I openly stated that while the Zionist Project was and remains fundamentally wrong, the Jews have no real reason to claim they have no place to go, as the US would certainly accept them, all of them, if they'd give up their Project. In fact, if they'd give up their ethnocentric Project, the Palestinians would likely soften their hearts and be open to a one-state solution where Arabs, Jews, and any others, would have full, equal rights under the laws, all of the laws, no favoritism. Somehow, I'm pretty sure the obstacle to that are the same people who clamored for the books to be banned.

They are a dangerous lot, a very, very dangerous lot.

I don't have to agree with every book on the list to disagree with the dictatorial Zionists who have assumed way too much power: Amazon Mass-Bans Dissident Materials: Hundreds of Titles Erased within a Day

Posted in Holocaust | Leave a comment