Richard Black and Foreign Policy

2019/09/06

Richard Black and Foreign Policy

United States foreign policy is in disarray, although it has always been a destructive force in the world. Few U.S. politicians are willing to acknowledge this, but West Virginia State Senator Richard Black recently provided his knowledge of, and insights into, U.S. motivations for its perverse and destructive foreign policies.

                He states that U.S. officials, in 2001, decided to overthrow seven countries in five years. This insidious plan would destroy Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somali, Sudan and Iran. The U.S. invasion of Iraq succeeded in killing and displacing millions of people, destroying the nation's infrastructure, and reopening sectarian rivalries that had long been under control. Libya, once considered the 'Switzerland of the African Continent', is now a failed state thanks to United States' 'assistance' there, with no central government, violence and chaos constant factors, and the nation a breeding ground for terrorists. And while Syria seems to be having success in defeating U.S.-supported terrorists seeking the overthrow of its legitimate government, that success has come at an extremely high cost in terms of human life and human suffering. It will take years for the nation to rebuild.

                In Somalia, the U.S. continues to commit war crimes with indiscriminate bombing, often killing civilians. Sudan has been harshly criticized by the U.S. for human rights violations, and the hypocrisy of this is obvious. The U.S. not only supports but also finances the constant, shocking human rights violations of Israel and Saudi Arabia, in addition to the blatantly racist practices of the U.S. government within its own borders.

                To date, only Lebanon and Iran have thwarted U.S. plans, and Senator Black believes that Iran, at least, will continue to do so, and be successful. He said this: "Iran is a cohesive, unified nation.  Despite their internal political disagreements, Iranians are patriotic and even its dissidents are generally unwilling to undermine the unity of the nation." U.S. support for the Mohanedin-e khalq (MEK), whose sole purpose is to overthrow the Iranian government, and which was previously designated a terrorist group by the U.S., will not be sufficient to defeat the Iranian government, for several reasons, including those Black stated above.

                Despite the opposition of the Iranian people to U.S. plans, and their loyalty to the government they established over forty years ago, the U.S. continues its attempts at destabilization and overthrow. Black continues: "The Ashraf-3 base has just opened in Albania.  Its purpose is to coordinate terrorist training, logistics and military action against Iran. The Ashraf-3 facility will be used to plan the infiltration and destabilization of Iran. It may use both MEK terrorists and battle-hardened ISIS and al Qaeda troops who are moved there from Iraq and Syria. The massive Ashraf-3 base is a complete city. It has parks, shopping centers, conference centers, and a luxury hotel.  The heavily-guarded facility will be home to 3,000 MEK terrorists and families."

                One marvels at the immorality and obscenity of a government that seeks to overthrow other governments; that supports murderous terrorist groups and that establishes a huge base of operations whose sole purpose is to train such terrorists.

The senator quotes current U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, who spoke at the MEK conference in Albania in 2017, prior to ascending to his current governmental role, thusly: "Before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran." Bolton, who opposes international law, saying it only exists to restrain the U.S. from using its military power, was wrong in his prediction and, if Black's assessment is correct, he and the MEK will never 'celebrate' in Tehran. 

                Black also points out the obvious, in stating that U.S. support for terrorist organizations has never proved successful in the long run. "Although CIA's jihadists did defeat the Soviets, they also gave birth to al Qaeda, which attacked the U.S. on 9-11 and went on to spread terror across the globe.  Every time the West and its Gulf State allies use terrorists to overthrow governments, the results are disastrous." The U.S. supported terrorist groups in Afghanistan during the Russian war, apparently expecting those terrorists to turn over the country to the U.S. when the Russians were defeated, so it could install a puppet regime. This didn't happen, and now the U.S. is involved in the longest war in its history, fighting the organization it spawned in that country.

                Senator Black's knowledge of foreign policy is well-studied and clearly understood. He dismisses the usual U.S. talking points of 'national security', 'humanitarian intervention' and 'war is only a last resort' to expose the lies the nation tells to fund and commit terrorism on a world-wide scale. Heeding his words on foreign policy would make the United States, and the world, safer.

Robert Fantina

Photo: By Aaron "tango" Tang from cambridge, ma, usa - DSC03156, CC BY 2.0, https://ift.tt/2MYBTCM

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Russia to design fundamentally new supersonic passenger aircraft

2019/09/06

Russia may create a fundamentally new supersonic passenger aircraft, designed for about 20 passengers.

According to Denis Manturov, the Minister of Industry and Trade, Russian experts rejected the previously proposed idea to create a supersonic passenger aircraft on the basis of the Tu-160 strategic bomber.

Instead, they may develop a fundamentally new aircraft on a new basis. According to Manturov, in the future, Russian engineers intend to develop a compact supersonic jet, designed for 16-19 seats. The speed of such aircraft will reach 2,000-3000 km/h.

A source close to the aviation industry noted that the Tu-160 is not suitable as a basis for a new aircraft in principle. The Tupolev Tu-160 is incapable of performing long supersonic flights.

The USSR became the first country in the world that built and tested a supersonic airliner: the Tu-144 went on its maiden flight in 1968.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Can Ukraine ever recover from never-ending chaos without Russia?

2019/09/06

When is Russia going to complete the exchange of prisoners? Can Ukraine live without Russia? This does not sound likely as all of Ukraine's history is about the history of relations between Russia and the United States. There is no Ukraine there at all.

Inna Novikova, Pravda.Ru editor-in-chief talked about these and other issues in an interview with State Duma deputy Yevgeny Fedorov.

"What's happening in the situation with the exchange of prisoners between Russia and Ukraine?"

"As a member of the Russian parliament, I can say that Russia is simply a mediator, just like France and Germany. This is the so-called Quartet, which acts as a mediator in the conflict between the people's republics of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Ukraine. Accordingly, like France, Russia conducts mediation activities and builds a balance of interests between the parties. This is the work of any intermediary party.

"At the same time, as a politician with an extensive experience, I'd like to say that Russia, which was built on the principles that were formed in 1991, will disappear. It became obvious after the situation with the Crimea. How can one abandon territory at all? Let's imagine that we are in 1941. Could we abandon Ukraine after Hitler invaded it? Such an idea could never occur to anyone back then. However, we did that in 1991, and it was a deadly contradiction.

"After the Crimea referendum, it became clear that this is a false basis for building the state. Russia could collapse further. We could have witnessed the collapse of the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR. We had two choices: either to break the country down further, or build it again to go back to the Fatherland that we received from our ancestors.

Russia's move to reunite with the Crimea was an extremely important step in this direction. The same applies to Transnistria, Donetsk, Luhansk, Abkhazia, Ossetia. This historical contradiction is obvious. Why did Russia even bother to go, for example, to Transnistria? We support sovereignty, the sovereignty of Moldova in particular. What was it then? We did that because we, as Soviet people, still think of our Fatherland within the borders of 1945.

"In Transnistria, we granted Russian citizenship to 120,000 people. Yet, Ukrainian and Moldovan citizens outnumber Russian citizens there. It was the beginning of the 1990s, and it was Yeltsin who sent Russian troops there. Why did Russia go to Moldova? Was it because they discriminate the Russians there? I'm sure that they discriminate the Russians on Brighton Beach, because the crime rate in the USA is high. I am certain that Russia will not collapse after the Crimea. If we return our territories, it means that we are recovering."

"President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that Ukraine continues to pursue its course to NATO and Europe."

"Of course. He himself is a Russian-speaking individual, just like his predecessor Poroshenko. Yet, they perfectly realise that Ukraine is not going to return anything. It will never work out for them, because building a new Fatherland is an extremely difficult historical process that includes major wars, huge losses among the population. We were building our Russian Fatherland for a thousand years. It goes about hundreds of years, but never decades. Ukraine will have to roll back to Russia, because they will never be able to build one of their own. As a matter of fact, Ukraine's history is all about the history of relations between Russia and the United States.

Also read our previous interviews with Mr. Fedorov:

Russia to liberate the world from US occupation

Lenin planted the seeds that destroyed the USSR

To revise results of WWII, the West needs to win WWIII

USA instructs Russian Central Bank how to strangle Russian economy

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

The Truth Behind Alexander Acosta's Resignation

2019/09/05

The Truth Behind Alexander Acosta's Resignation

Nancy O'Brien Simpson

The Jeffrey Epstein File has myriad tentacles of political intrigue, machinations and just plain evil at the highest levels.

By now everyone knows about the sweetheart deal that Jeffrey Epstein received in 2008. The FBI had the goods on Epstein.  Their investigation of him was nicknamed "Operation Leap Year" and resulted in a 53-page indictment that could have put Epstein away for life.  It could have stopped the child trafficking and saved hundreds of children.  Instead, it was put on the shelf and never presented to a grand jury.  

No, never presented to a grand jury rather, Alexander Acosta, then the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and Alan Dershowitz Epstein's attorney cooked up a sweetheart of a deal to keep Epstein and his trafficking operation in business.  Epstein would be granted immunity from all federal criminal charges. And, even more bizarre they added to the deal that the four named co-conspirators and any unnamed "potential" co-conspirators would be immune from all federal charges.  This is mindblowing.  Any "potential" child traffickers could never be indicted on federal charges of child trafficking in connection with Epstein?  That needs to sink in and be headline news on a continuous loop.  This is the justice system in the United States of America.  

According to the Miami Herald, the non-prosecution agreement "essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein's sex crimes". At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: "Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept sealed." 

Acosta's keeping the deal sealed is considered by many illegal and unethical. The Miami Herald describes an email from Epstein's attorney after an irregular off-site meeting with Acosta: "'Thank you for the commitment you made to me during our Oct. 12 meeting,' Lefkowitz one of Epsteins's attorney's wrote in a letter to Acosta after a breakfast meeting in West Palm Beach. He added that he was hopeful that Acosta would abide by a promise to keep the deal confidential. 'You ... assured me that your office would not ... contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or potential civil claimants and the respective counsel in this matter,' Lefkowitz wrote." 

The Herald article contended that certain aspects of Acosta's non-prosecution agreement violated federal law. "As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls - or anyone else - might show up in court and try to derail it." 

Some things are wrong, some things misguided, and some things are evil.  This was evil.  

Acosta's sweetheart deal not only sealed the results of the deal from victims it also

pampered and protected not only Epstein but all of his co-conspirators and fellow traffickers and  

"potential" traffickers.  The powerful protect their own.  This can be seen in all the

 A-Listers who knew exactly who and what Epstein was and brazenly cavorted with him at 

his chi-chi parties.   

Think about it.  For the next decade, Alexander Acosta knew in great detail what was going down on Orgy Island and he turned his back.  Did not raid, did not monitor, did not investigate he simply allowed the trafficking of children to continue unimpeded.

What were the ramifications of this unprecedented enabling of child traffickers by Alexander Acosta?  He was actually rewarded for his efforts by being named the new Secretary of Labor by Donald Trump.  The irony of ironies.  The Secretary of Labor oversees child trafficking -the fox guarding the henhouse. 

On April 27, 2017, Acosta was confirmed as Secretary of Labor by the U.S. Senate in a 60-38 vote. He received the support of only eight Democratic Senators while all Republican senators voted for confirmation.  These senators knew Acosta's history with Epstein, they knew about the sweetheart deal and it appears they simply did not care about the kids being trafficked.  Just like the A-listers that attended his parties and hung with him.  The powerful avert their eyes and dance with the devil if he travels in the right circles. 

Add to the mix a Daily Beast article by investigative journalist Vicky Ward who quotes a former senior White House official who reports during his interview with President Donald Trump's transition team Acosta said: "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone." If one knew that children, perhaps hundreds of underage children were being sexually abused and trafficked, would you simply turn your back and walk away if someone told you that they were being used for "intelligence" purposes? 

Ah, but it gets even more, dare we say ...diabolical.  One of the first things Acosta did in his new position as Secretary of Labor was to propose 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking, The International Labor Affairs Bureau. That agency combats human trafficking including child sex trafficking), child labor and forced labor internationally. The ILAB's budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m in 2020. The proposed reduction was so draconian that experts said it would effectively destroy many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.

In a Press Release dated April 3, 2019, released by Congresswoman Katherin Clark: 

"Today, in an Appropriations Committee Hearing, Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Congresswoman Katherine Clark (MA-5) questioned Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta on whether he is fit to oversee the Department of Labor based on his history of siding with the powerful over the victims of exploitation and his proposal to cut programs that are meant to protect workers and survivors."

 

Clark questioned Secretary Acosta's loyalty to the Department of Labor's mission. "One out of seven runaways are likely child sex trafficking victims, and there are estimates that hundreds of thousands of adults and children are victims of sex and labor trafficking in the US," said Clark. "And yet, you proposed a budget cut of 79 percent to the International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB), a cut of $68 million to just $18.5 million. But this isn't the first time you've ignored human trafficking, is it?" 

The democrats were so outraged by this wanton act of sabotaging the government's ability to stop child trafficking they demanded Acosta step down.  They said it was a pattern with Acosta, enabling the trafficking of children to continue unimpeded.  

The battle over the future of the cuts to child trafficking budget is ongoing. Acosta's proposed cuts were imported into Trump's $4.7tn, released in March, which contains several Republican goals including extra money for the military and funding of the border wall.The Democrats have responded with a 2020 House Budget that passed in June. It would see child trafficking resources expand to $122m.

You have to wonder about powerful men like Alexander Acosta.  How do they sleep at night?  Do they even have a conscience?  When did they get so powerful that protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein was cool?  When did they get so craven that slashing the budget so child traffickers could continue their abuse of children was okay?  Why would Donald Trump make him Secretary of Labor when he knew about the enabling deal Acosta had cut with Epstein.  How did all those Senators confirm Acosta to the exact job he never should have had?  How and why did Donald Trump take that slashed budget from Acosta and put it in his own budget?  

Nancy O'Brien Simpson
Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York.  She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.  A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights.  She is a psychotherapist and political commentator.  

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...

Russian woman fights for her taken child in Italy

2019/09/05

Anna Varganova, a single mother from Russia, said that Italian social services took her five-year-old son away from her in order to sell him to a childless couple, 360 TV channel reports.

The Russian woman gave birth to a child in Italy, but his father, an Italian citizen, refused to accept the child. The boy holds Russian citizenship, and Varganova wanted to take him home to Russia.

In early August, she was summoned to a migration center. Child protection services took the child while the woman was being interviewed. The woman claims that she did not know where her son was for the next three days.

Now the woman has the right to have meetings with her child twice a week under close supervision of social workers. She says that officers try to convince the little boy that her mother abandoned him.

The woman is sure that she lost her son because she informed social services about her intention to take the child home to Russia. In Italy, she lives in a dormitory room, but owns an apartment in the city of Engels, Russia.

"They don't want to help the child - they want to make money on him. There are many childless Italian women who would be willing to take him," Varganova said.

Irina Bergset, a spokeswoman for Russian Mothers public movement for the protection of parental rights, said that there were many of such stories in Italy. Italian social services make money by selling children to wealthy Italian families. "Children under five years of age sell very well," said Bergset.

Varganova, who was temporarily deprived of parental rights, has turned to the Russian embassy for help.

"The child is dying. He is withering away like a flower. I want to save him and go to Russia," the woman said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Читать далее ...