Sunday, March 13, 2016

Polls showed that 80% of citizens demanded that the Chancellor Merkel resign

The Chancellor must resign

And this is not my opinion, thinks so, at least three thousand people that came to the rally in protest against migration policy of Angela Merkel. Demonstrators with slogans "Merkel must go!", "No to Sharia law in Germany!" and "leave Policies – remains the people" demanded that the Chancellor resigned.
The people who came to demonstrate, differ in their oppositional views. First, the police numbered several hundred people, and later it turned out that with the policy of Merkel disagree at least three thousand Germans. Why "at least"? Because many will always sit in front of the TV and talk about how bad the ruler, but to Express their views publicly would not venture. Yes, in Germany too there are so-called "sofa politics". They are everywhere.
The rally was timed to coincide with parliamentary elections in three Federal States – Baden-w├╝rttemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt. They will be on the migration background of a deep crisis not only in Germany but throughout Europe. Because of this, the elections will be difficult for Angela Merkel and her party "Christian democratic Union". Experts predict that Merkel's party will lose about 10% of the vote, who will join right-wing party "Alternative for Germany".
Interestingly, criticism of migration policy of the German Chancellor is observed not only among the opposition but also among representatives of the "Christian democratic Union". Suppose that the population of Germany and so didn't really like the idea to live among the refugees, but attacks on migrant women clearly played a role. After all, the police had received nearly 300 complaints of sexual harassment from entering the country.
Polls showed that 80% of citizens believe that the German government has lost control of the refugee situation. Refugees in Europe became a problem from the beginning. And now the people began to openly Express their attitude to what is happening. Protest moods are getting stronger.

Barack Obama admits Ukraine was always only for US interests not the Ukrainian goal

Barack Obama admits Ukraine was always only for US interests not the Ukrainian goal


Ukraine has lost — gloomy news coming one after another. No sooner had the country recovered from the statements of Jean-Claude Juncker, leaving nanika chance of full EU integration, both from across the ocean came the final verdict: Barack Obama announced that the United States never planned to fight for it's independent power.

A hard landing instead of a smooth takeoff.

Western leaders never took Ukraine seriously, for them it was always only an instrument of pressure on Russia.

You must admit I always thought that Ukrainians are adequate, speak and write not what I think actually. It seemed to me, they realize that they occupy a humble place in this cruel world where there are no friends, only temporary allies, United for a short time with common tasks. And plans to participate in the section of Russia — "to be in the chain of hunters who are preparing to skin the carcass of the biggest in the world" as said Ukrainian political analyst Yuri Romanenko is nothing more than trolling.

But that turned out to be seriously. They have convinced themselves that the world will retaliate against Russia for Ukraine wronged. And will not stop until Crimea and Donbass will not return to it. Even if they have to start a third world war.

For the sake of this noble cause of the world, of course, ready to commit suicide.

"The fact is that Ukraine is a country that is not part of NATO, will always be vulnerable to military dominance on the part of Russia, regardless of what we do," said Barack Obama in a controversial interview to The Atlantic. And explained: Ukraine for Russia is among the main , and for US — no.

"If someone is considering the possibility that we will go to war against Russia over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, it needs very clear and understandable to speak. The idea that the hard conversations or interference in some military action in that region will affect the decision of Russia or China, contrary to all evidence we've seen over the past 50 years," not left any hopes the hawks own the American President. Not knowing what caused the Ukraine universal a muffled groan of frustration.

After these confessions, I think even the most gullible and obstinate svidomye the Executive had to understand what the Russians had always known: the world of the suicidal is not ready. Even more so, for the sake of nanki — distant country, which is somewhere on the periphery of the Western world, in the zone of influence of the Kremlin. The "Golden billion", in pursuit of their own, and not the Ukrainian goal, tried to do a little blood — to draw Russia into war with Ukraine. Did not work. And they retreated.

Big fucking deal — next time, you see, happens. Not in Ukraine, so in Belarus, Central Asia or the Caucasus. You never know the hot spots around geopolitical competitor that can "warm up". In the end, nance light a wedge has not converged.

It is the awareness of this sad fact completely ruined the mood of the winners of the "revolution of a gidnost".

In ESMA knowledgeable zamglavnogo first editor of "Mirror of week" Sergey Rakhmanin the other day literally blew the Ukrainian infopole their stories about how actually are the negotiations Norman Quartet. According to him, public reports of the trilateral contact group different from that maintained secretly, — Petro Poroshenko have to maneuver between militant minded Ukrainian society and peace-loving West.

Berlin and Paris, who are tired of the endless excuses, outlined the Kiev deadline of holding the elections in the Donbas: June. For the remaining time of the Verkhovna Rada should adopt the Law on elections in certain districts of Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Otherwise, sanctions against Russia will be lifted — or summer, or winter.

It is strange that in Ukraine no one comes to mind that this moment — with the elections in LNR and DNR will begin to implement the Minsk agreements. Is condition for lifting the sanctions.

That is, again, a dead end. It is no coincidence that the leader of the DND Alexander Zakharchenko called Minsk-2 diplomatic Debaltsevo.

Normandy format Ukraine clearly doesn't like, she tries confidentially to bargain with Germany and France, to help her get past the awkward position of the Complex of measures to implement the Minsk agreements. But without Russia, the Ukraine, no one wants to deal.

"Kiev is convinced that Moscow is not privy to his plans, however, to our knowledge, Berlin and Paris (without informed the Ukrainian side) do not just share with the Kremlin all the necessary information, and consult with representatives of Russia concerning certain provisions of the future law", is revealed to the readers the awful truth Sergey Rakhmanin.

He, however, failed to remain in positions of dispassionate expert. Telling why Poroshenko should not perform the Minsk agreement (LDNR after the elections in these areas are still not under the control of Kiev, de-facto, but will become so de-jure), at the end of the article the journalist quite openly urged Ukraine to war — whether for Donbass, or Russia. "The strong respect the strong," rightly noted by Sergei Rachmaninoff.

In nance finally realized that the West is not going to be in a military campaign to the East. Their problems it has to solve alone.

The question is whether Petro Poroshenko on another adventure — without the support of Europe and USA? Logic dictates that there is. However, the Ukrainian logic defies prediction.

In Friday, speaking to the graduates of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ambassador Jeffrey Payette in fact urged Ukraine to fulfill the Minsk agreements. "For US it is clear that an important first step in the implementation of the Minsk agreements is the establishment of security. No one expects elections in the Donbass or progress in the Parliament on the implementation of the commitments made by Ukraine, while the Ukrainian soldiers will die and get injured every day," the diplomat said.

His words do not mean that he voiced Washington's position — the official position of the US stated Barack Obama in his interview. I was not the first time I've noticed that Geoffrey Pyatt, perhaps, too deeply immersed in the Ukrainian problems and sometimes speaks contrary to the policy that determines his boss at the state Department.

But it may disorient the naive winners of the Maidan, trying to catch the sensitive ears of any signs of attention and support. No support, no attention, the West is only trying to save face, to persuade Petro Poroshenko to capitulate to Vladimir Putin. Tired of all this fuss about so few important geopolitical players nezalezhnoy provincial powers with unreasonable ambitions and claims.

"Will Poroshenko once again to draw the attention of the West?" — asks the burning question, Director of the Center for Eastern European perspectives in Washington Nikolay Vorobiev. In his opinion, a mean streak, which came after the Minsk-2, can still prove to be the runway. However, acknowledges that "map "Russian aggression" to play becomes more difficult because the radar in the West also, any movement of every Russian soldier, mercenary or separatist in the Donbas".

Nowhere this poor nation will not take off — it threw all, both Russia and the West.

Ukrainians must not allow ourselves again to be deceived: the American Ambassador expressed is just a personal opinion, than himself and confessed. Divisions. Money too.

As, however, and the Ukraine.

Pavel Shipilin

Saturday, March 12, 2016

British columnist: Trump is not the freak, Chicago is the real face of the USA's Future

We are against the regime of the US | (Syria ISIS War )
British columnist: Trump is not the freak, Chicago is the real face of the USA's Future

American political analysts have come to unity in the opinion that trump is a deviation from the norm, the candidate who is at odds with high morals and ideas, associated not only with the White house, but also by the United States. However, they are sorely mistaken, says John white, a political commentator, The Independent, Huffington Post and other international publications.

"The truth is, trump is not the idea and reality of America, the ugly reality of the country and society, who has dropped the mask", — the journalist writes.
The presidential candidate from the Republican party, Donald trump

According to white, the situation in the US began to change in 2008, when the President first came Barack Obama. The United States "was in desperate need of hope, inspiration and uplifting from the swamp of cynicism and callous disregard for human rights inside the country and abroad". With this task after the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. the best way to make nobody famous black Senator from Chicago, Barack Obama.

"Seven years later the dismay of many of Obama is impossible to deny," writes the columnist.

By the same logic, he continues, in 2016 the list of candidates for the post of President of the United States appears trump, which is the least comfortable of the American establishment. However, "on the background of colleagues in the Republican party had blown out like balloons".

According to most Americans, trump can't do anything wrong, said white. "He is ruthless, cruel to his opponents, hungry for success and glory and is willing to do whatever it takes to win. In other words, trump is not no deviation from the norm, and the perfect embodiment of the American dream" — sums up the author.

Donald Trump: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The GOP debate has put everything on the table
by , March 12, 2016
Everyone expected another street brawl, but the Republican presidential debate was … well, presidential.
The issues were actually discussed and debated, and foreign policy came to the forefront early on. When Social Security came up, three of the candidates said we needed to make cuts, raise the retirement age, and declared the system was inevitably going bankrupt, Donald Trump was the only one to dissent. He said he would leave the system as it is, and went into his usual song-and-dance about cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse.” When called on it by Dana Bash – who pointed out that experts estimate waste accounts for about $3 billion, leaving a $147 billion shortfall – Trump replied that they say this because:
“Because they don’t cover most of the subjects. We’re the policemen of the world. We take care of the entire world. We’re going to have a stronger military, much stronger. Our military is depleted. But we take care of Germany, we take care of Saudi Arabia, we take care of Japan, we take care of South Korea. We take – every time this maniac from North Korea does anything, we immediately send our ships. We get virtually nothing.
“We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, on the border between North and South Korea. We have so many places. Saudi Arabia was making a billion dollars a day, and we were getting virtually nothing to protect them. We are going to be in a different world. We’re going to negotiate real deals now, and we’re going to bring the wealth back to our country. We owe $19 trillion. We’re going to bring wealth back to our country.
This is really quite remarkable. What Trump is saying is something Ron Paul used to say: that we could avoid national bankruptcy if only we would ditch the Empire. Unlike Paul, Trump – who is no libertarian – doesn’t oppose Social Security in principle: far from it, he pledges to leave it untouched. The point, however, is that he is focused on the crisis in this country, and sees our overseas entanglements as an albatross hung around our necks.
He topped this with an attack on the military contractors:
“They have a fantastic lobby. They take care of all of the senators, the Congressmen. They have great power and they don’t bid out. The military is never properly bid. When we go out to military bids, it’s not properly bid. And the people that really sell us the product are oftentimes the product we don’t want, only because that particular company has political juice, OK?”
This really underscores the corruption at the heart of the system. Recalling Eisenhower’s warning about the power of the military-industrial-congressionalcomplex (that was the original formulation, which Eisenhower edited out of his speech), Trump exposed the real situation in this country: a government of completely bought-off politicians.
However, things went downhill from there. Trump’s answer about his “Islam hates us” statement was vague, and troubling. His original statement, to Anderson Cooper, was ambiguous, albeit bristling with hostility. It was, in short, Jacksonian, i.e. typical of the classical “isolationist,” who is loath to engage in foreign adventurism, but is positively ferocious and certain to overreact when aroused. The shadow of the 9/11 attacks stills hangs heavy over America, and the recent attack in San Bernardino conjured that Jacksonian ferocity and helped fuel Trump’s campaign.
Rubio had the best line: “I’m not interested in being politically correct. I’m interested in being correct.” He went on to point out that Muslim-Americans are part of this country, and many serve in the military. However, he also said “We’re going to have to work with the Saudis. We’re going to have to work with the Gulf kingdoms. We’re going to have to work with the Egyptians to defeat, for example, ISIS.” Yet it is the Saudis and the Gulf emirates that are main generators of terrorist ideology in the region: it is they who are funding and organizing the terrorist legions who have decimated Syria. It is the Saudis who have funded Wahabist propaganda and the building of extremist mosques from Bangladesh to Bosnia. Work with them? We should be holding them to account.
Cruz’s answer was positively sinister: after taking the opportunity to attack Trump’s profession of neutrality when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and declaring that – unlike Trump – he’d “rip up the Iran deal on my first day as President,” he declared:
“Let me give you an example of a Muslim for example, we ought to be standing with, President el-Sisi of Egypt, a president of a Muslim country who is targeting radical Islamic terrorism.”
Stand with a ruthless dictator who has jailed thousands without trial, including journalists, wrecked the economy, and destroyed any hope of establishing democracy? When, later on, the clueless Jake Tapper – formerly of – tried to pin support for despots on Trump, Cruz’s enthusiasm for the Egyptian variety didn’t come into the equation. Tapper, of course, has a longstanding hatred for Trump.
Cruz went on to declare: “The Ayatollah Khomeini wants nuclear weapons to murder us” – getting both the name of the Ayatollah and the facts about Iran’s stance wrong. When and where did anyone in Iranian leadership say they want nuclear weapons, let alone to “murder us”? Lying Ted, as Trump calls him, was at it again. Getting on yet another neoconservative hobbyhorse, he attacked Trump on Israel:
“Donald has said he wants to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians. As president, I will not be neutral. And let me say this week, a Texan, Taylor Force. He was an Eagle Scout, he was a West Point graduate, he was an Army veteran. He was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist this week in Israel, and I don’t think we need a commander in chief who is neutral between the Palestinian terrorists and one of our strongest allies in the world, the nation of Israel.”
Hugh Hewitt, the fake “journalist” who started out as a pro-war propagandist during the Bush years, took up Cruz’s rant from that point, asking Trump “Do you still want to stay neutral when the Palestinian authority is inciting these attacks?”
Trump reiterated his oft-stated stance after prefacing it with a long disquisition on how “pro-Israel” he is, including a reference to his Jewish daughter and son-in-law:
“I think if we’re going to ever negotiate a peace settlement, which every Israeli wants, and I’ve spoken to the toughest and the sharpest, they all want peace, I think it would be much more helpful if – I’m a negotiator. If I go in, I’ll say I’m pro-Israel and I’ve told that to everybody and anybody that would listen.
“But I would like to at least have the other side think I’m somewhat neutral as to them, so that we can maybe get a deal done. Maybe we can get a deal. I think it’s probably the toughest negotiation of all time. But maybe we can get a deal done.”
It would’ve been easy for Trump to avoid trouble, pledge allegiance to Tel Aviv, and forget about it: but he’s a stubborn man, and once he gets an idea in his head – for good or for ill – he sticks to it. That may not always be such a good thing, but I this case it certainly is. I think here is where Trump is at his most “presidential”: unlike the others on that stage, he really does see himself as President of these United States, and – taking on that role – he realizes that brokering such a deal would greatly advance American interests, not to mention cement his role as the deal-maker of the century.
In response, Lying Ted was back on the attack, fibbing his head off with the assertion that the Palestinian Authority is in a “unity government” with Hamas. That unity government collapsed in 2015, and shows no signs of being reconstituted. In reality, there never even was a “unity government” – the actual ministers in the government did not belong to either Hamas or the Fatah faction of the Palestinian Authority. Instead, it consisted of technocrats whose job it was to pave the way for new elections in both the occupied territories and Gaza. Naturally, none of the moderators called Cruz on it: certainly Hewitt, who probably does know the facts, had no interest in doing so. And of course both Dana Bash and Jake Tapper are tools who know when to keep their mouths shut.
Rubio tried to outdo Cruz with a “pro-Israel” diatribe, explicitly ruling out any prospect of negotiating a peaceful settlement of this long-festering conflict because “there is no one to negotiate with.” He repeated Cruz’s assertion that the “unity government” still exists: so much for his  much-touted foreign policy expertise! Repeating the Likud party line that an independent Palestine “will be used as a launching pad” for attacks on the Jewish state, Rubio separated himself from every American President from Bill Clinton onward – including George W. Bush – in ruling out a negotiated settlement leading to a two-state solution.
Getting back to Trump, the real estate mogul talked about his many Jewish friends in New York City who want such a deal to become a reality, and reiterated his stance: “Some believe it’s possible. It may not be, in which case we’ll find out. But it would be a priority if I become president to see what I could do.”
On this issue, Trump towered over the others: he came across as someone the audience could imagine as our next President. When history beckons, Trump’s instinct is to grasp it by the hand.
The next question from the ridiculously biased Hewitt revealed answers from all the candidates that rule them all out as supportable in any way.
“Just this week,” averred Hewitt, “the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Lloyd Austin, essentially said it’s going to take a lot more troops on the ground to fix – to end the ISIS threat in Syria and Iraq.” Turning to Cruz, he asked:
“From the beginning of this campaign, you have said you will follow the judgment of military commanders in the Pentagon. So here’s the commander saying we need a lot more troops on the ground. Will you follow that advice and inject Americans again into what is in essence is metastasizing Sunni-Shia civil war?”
To begin with, Hewitt is a bigger liar than Cruz: Gen. Austin said no such thing. Here is what he did say:
"’Clearly there are things that we will want to do to increase the capability a bit, to be able to increase the pace of operations, and that will require some additional capability. We have gone through and done some analysis … to see what types of things we need to provide. And we have made those recommendations.’
“While Austin declined to share the recommendations in the hearing, he said additional US military personnel could help develop better intelligence on the ground, potential provide more advise-and-assist teams and help with some logistics. ‘We could increase some elements of the Special Operations footprint,’ he explained.”
Lying Ted claimed that we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our back, and said we aren’t arming the Kurds (we are). He never challenged Hewitt’s assertion that Gen. Austin is recommending “a lot more” troops on the ground, although he probably knows it’s incorrect. Instead, he reversed his previous reluctance to commit to grounds troops in Syria and went along with Hewitt’s fictional account of what “the generals” supposedly want.
Worst of all was Trump, who fell right into Hewitt’s ambush:
“HEWITT: Mr. Trump, more troops?
“TRUMP: We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them. We have to get rid of it. And then come back and rebuild our country, which is falling apart. We have no choice.
“HEWITT: How many…
“TRUMP: I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast. Look, we’re not allowed to fight. We can’t fight. We’re not knocking out the oil because they don’t want to create environmental pollution up in the air. I mean, these are things that nobody even believes. They think we’re kidding. They didn’t want to knock out the oil because of what it’s going to do to the carbon footprint. We don’t fight like we used to fight. We used to fight to win. Now we fight for no reason whatsoever. We don’t even know what we’re doing.
“So, the answer is we have to knock them out. We have to knock them out fast. And we have to get back home. And we have to rebuild our country which is falling apart.”
Of course Trump has no idea what Gen. Austin actually said at that congressional hearing, and Hewitt knows he doesn’t. And Trump’s answer to the question – really a complete reversal of his previous position that we should let the Russians take care of ISIS – underscores both the weaknesses and the strengths of “isolationism,” American style.
It isn’t pacifism, that’s for sure. What Trump represents – in his crude, inconsistent way – is the traditional American antipathy for getting involved in overseas adventurism. And yet once we are involved, the American isolationist wants to win. Blinded by the illusion that a quick victory is possible, he forgets his objections to the interventionist regime-change panacea once his Jacksonian fury is provoked. Trump’s critique of our present policy – “Now we fight for no reason whatsoever. We don’t even know what we are doing” – could apply equally to his own inchoate vision.
And yet we should note that his answer to Hewitt was framed in “isolationist” terms: he was careful to reiterate that “we have to get back home. And we have to rebuild our country which is falling apart.” In Trump’s view, foreign wars are a diversion from his main task of reversing the decline he sees all around him. What he doesn’t realize is that such diversions are the main reason for that decline.
What’s significant about Trump is his fundamental aversion to the internationalist consensus that has long dominated both parties. What’s dangerous about him, however, is that he could easily be diverted into another Middle Eastern war, as evidenced by his answer to Hewitt’s question. He simply can’t be trusted.
This ambiguity translates into all the other issues that came up at Thursday’s debate. On the Cuban issue and the Iranian deal, Trump went into his usual song-and-dance about “making a better deal,” going so far as to say he would close the US embassy in Cuba until such a mythical deal can be made. On the Iranian issue, he denounced the deal made by the Obama administration and went further by saying that he would not only police it but also predicting that the Iranians would be unlikely to keep to it and that it would “probably” be annulled.
Much of this is political  maneuvering: Trump was in his “unifier” mode, as he has been lately, and he is eager to cut another one of his famous “deals” – this time with the GOP Establishment. So he’s trimming his “isolationist” sails, albeit not enough to alienate his constituency and appear weak. What it all boils down to is that we can’t know what he would actually do in office – and that is a deal breaker, as he would put it, for anyone who is looking for a fundamental shift in our foreign policy of global intervention.
Speaking of Trump’s constituency, this is the real value of his candidacy. Trump, the man and the candidate, is beside the point: the real gold mine here, which most anti-interventionists (and libertarians) have overlooked, is that Trump’s anti-internationalist rhetoric is one of his main attractions. He has touched a deep nerve in this country, which no one has managed to match, in large part because he realizes that things can’t go on as they have – and that our overseas empire is dragging us down into an irreversible decline.
So in that sense the amazing success of his candidacy – against all odds – is cause for optimism. What the rise of Trumpism shows is that the sentiment is there, the support exists for a foreign policy that puts America first. There is, however, a great big caveat.  As that bitter old “isolationist” Garet Garrett put it some seventy years ago:
“No doubt the people know they can have their Republic back if they want it enough to fight for it and to pay the price. The only point is that no leader has yet appeared with the courage to make them choose.”
Donald Trump is not that leader. Yet his candidacy may very well pave the way for such a leader to emerge. In spite of his many flaws and inconsistencies, he has succeeded in breaking the neoconservative monopoly on what constitutes Republican foreign policy orthodoxy – and, what’s more, his success at the polls has exposed the neocons as generals without much of an army. These accomplishments have been pointedly ignored by all too many anti-interventionists, both leftists and libertarians, who are more concerned with convincing themselves and their little sectarian circles of their own moral purity than with taking advantage of Trump’s demolition of the War Party.
Libertarians are particularly blinded by dogmatism when it comes to Trump. What most of them don’t understand is that Trump’s broad foreign policy prescription – stop subsidizing our “allies,” stop policing the world – if carried out would objectively roll back the size, scope, and expense of Big Government in this country, regardless of Trump’s intent. That’s because our empire not only requires a huge expenditure of tax dollars but also erodes our civil liberties due to the “blowback” we must be on guard against constantly. Trump is terrible on such issues as Apple’s refusal to submit to the government’s demands to unlock its technology to permit surveillance. Yet the chief consequence of his broadly “isolationist” foreign policy would be to eventually debunk the alleged need for such surveillance.
Libertarians have traditionally treated foreign policy as a subsidiary issue, something to be tacked on to the usual litany of free market and civil libertarian concerns most “libertarian-ish” politicians and publicists invoke. The reality, however, is that a noninterventionist foreign policy is central to the philosophy of libertarianism, and this is proved by the history of this country, which has experienced a “Great Leap Forward” in the power and reach of government with every war. If the last twenty years haven’t taught us that lesson, then one can only wonder when and if libertarians will ever learn it.
I’ll end this with a prediction: Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican nominee. I don’t care how many delegates he amasses: for all his inconsistencies, he still represents a deadly threat to neoconservative domination of the GOP, and the party elite isn’t going to let him have “their” GOP. Doug Wead, a longtime libertarian and strategist for both the Ron Paul and Rand Paul campaign, here outlines the many ways in which the Establishment can – and, in my view, will – steal the nomination from under Trump’s nose. Wead knows the nuts and bolts of the Republican party machinery all too well, and I don’t believe Trump and his campaign managers have a clue about what they are up against.
In a sense, this is the best outcome we could hope for: by stealing the nomination away from Trump, the elites will de-legitimize not only the Republican party but also the illusion of electoral politics and American “democracy.” People will wake up to the fact that the game is rigged – and that’s when our not-so-wise rulers will begin see that they’re in some really serious trouble.
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert andDavid Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

Read more by Justin Raimondo

America and the World will Never Believe the US Govt. Again: 9/11 in plain sight

9/11 In Plane Site

Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole. Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until almost 30 minutes after the initial impact. See these astonishing photographs and video footage for the first time. Given that the outer wall of the Pentagon had not yet collapsed and the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - how does a jetliner over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon? Furthermore, can physics explain why there is no damage to the Pentagon's upper floors where the tail section would have hit?"I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound. I was convinced it was a missile.

 It came in so fast -- it sounded nothing like an airplane." Lon Rains - editor for Space News (Pentagon eyewitness) In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources that a giant 100 ft. crater was plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash? Why does photographic evidence overwhelmingly show that this was absolutely not the case? Why no crater? At the World Trade Center, why did firefighters, reporters and other on the scene eyewitnesses describe a demolition-like, pancake collapse of buildings One, Two & Seven? Hear the outrageous admissions made by the building lease owner recorded on video, plus shocking new video evidence helps to answer some of these important questions. What is the bright flash on the right side of the Boeing 767, seen just before impact on both the North Tower & the South Tower, captured on video by 5 separate cameramen including CNN and ABC? Slow motion analysis reveals startling verification of this extraordinary event and begs the question, "What is it?"
Find out what former military personnel think this could be.

Why were there numerous reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings had collapsed? Hear & see the testimony of the reporters, rescue teams and eyewitnesses who tell a different story of potential demolition charges, unexplained explosions, and vehicles loaded with explosives as reported on live television the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Why did another eyewitness report that United Airlines Flight 175 was not a commercial airliner? What kind of plane hit the second tower? Is there some type of exterior swelling protruding from the undercarriage of "Flight 175" ? 

An independently conducted computerized digital analysis says yes. Where was this "instrument" attached? How could it have departed from a commercial airport without being noticed? What purpose did it serve in the attacks? Full-screen television blow-ups directly from CNN and other mainstream sources reveal the intricate details of this strange anomaly. In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources that a giant 100 ft. crater was plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash? Why does photographic evidence overwhelmingly show that this was absolutely not the case? Why no crater? Why no skid marks? Why no burn marks? Why was the entire world deliberately mislead? Examine the video and photographic evidence for yourself. How does a Boeing 757, constructed from lightweight aluminum, penetrate over 9 ft. of steel reinforced concrete? Photographs and recently discovered computer animations help shed light on this unexplained feat of physics.

Obama is fed up with the around-the-clock NATO sabre-rattling on Russia

Scandal: Obama Picks Lady Who Might Not Hate Russia Enough for Top NATO Post

Obama's choice for NATO's deputy secretary general was once in favor of mending relations with Russia. Neo-cons are now threatening mass suicide if her appointment is confirmed.

This maniac probably doesn't want to nuke Russia. What's wrong with her?
This maniac probably doesn't want to nuke Russia. What's wrong with her?
NATO: What does it stand for? "North Atlantic Treaty Organzation", obviously, but also "Encircle Russia With Military Bases and Warheads." Everybody knows this, except for maybe Obama's choice for NATO's next deputy secretary general, Rose Gottemoeller. What's her deal?
According to Blommberg, Gottemoeller, currently the US undersecretary of state for arms control, was
an integral part of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy with Russia ... Two years ago, many Republican senators, including John Cornyn, James Risch and Marco Rubio, opposed her confirmation for her current job. They object to the terms of the New START Treaty, for which she was the lead negotiator.There is a new round of criticism with this new nomination. Republican hawks in Congress have faulted her as not rigorous in negotiating and enforcing treaties with Russia. They have alleged that as she pursued new arms-control treaties with Moscow, she was not up front about Russian violations of existing accords.

As you can see, it's not that Gottemoeller is "soft" on Russia. She simply prefers apparently out-dated concepts like "treaties" and "negotiations" to "war" and "nuclear Armageddon" -- which of course is unacceptable, especially for NATO's second-in-command.
Assuming that Gottemoeller isn't part of a Soviet sleeper cell, the real news here is that Obama has chosen a "moderate" (by American standards) for the No.2 post at NATO. How far can we read into this? It's always been clear that Obama, despite his numerous faults, has been less hawkish than his inner circle (see: Hillary rooting for bombing Libya; backing down on invading Syria). Is this appointment a signal that Obama is fed up with the around-the-clock NATO sabre-rattling?
Probably not, but it's fun to dream about.
In the meantime, Gottemoeller will continue to disrespect democracy with her so-called "treaties."

Sunday, March 6, 2016

“The World”: German Gold confirmed lost forever!

“The world,”: German Gold confirmed lost forever!

Now, officially, what many conspiracy theorists fear a long time ago. Of the German Gold stored in the US, there isn't much left. As an illuminating report by the Springer investigative magazine, “The world” found out, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the largest part of the German gold no longer exists and in a big style fake bars of gold to Frankfurt. Is this conspiracy, in close collaboration with the Gold-keepers from Frankfurt.
But after the series. The German gold reserves is estimated to be – Economics editor Sebastian Jost on 3381 tons in total. Of these, around 1,500 tonnes in New York camped allegedly. The majority of the Germans is certain: Who stores his Gold in one of the foreign imports are completely dependent on the bankrupt state looks to be the precious metal ever again. The Bundesbank decided as a counter-offensive in 2013 with a new bearing concept, to prove the contrary. Just as amateurish with the North American Pleitiers under a ceiling plug-in end of the Federal banksters do this can be found in the report.
The ridiculous first 5 tonnes (More you managed to, allegedly, in the first year) ingots under a great deal of hoopla initially completely melted, in order to confirm the authenticity of the bankruptcy of the country brought in bullion. After that, you announced that now it is clear that everything is real and no further Review by smelting was necessary.
Suddenly, the deliveries were faster: by 2015, 184 tons, were alleged gold over the pond. These were melted down in times of a sample, which is why it can be assumed with reasonable certainty that it is tungsten cores with gold plating. By 2020, a further 111 tons. Then, the tungsten is probably all. The last around 1200 tonnes remain supposedly in New York.
From this we can easily the following can be derived: Of the 1500 tons are only 5-10 tons left. Of which 5 tons were delivered as an Alibi completely, and the Rest as a Coating for fake bullion used to make believe that everything is still available. The Bundesbank, with veiled hoax, apparently! The warehouse in New York are completely empty.
Many thanks to the tireless editors of for this excellent clarification!

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Opinion: The communist failures that await Obama when he goes to Cuba

Published: Mar 5, 2016 8:05 a.m. ET
Ration books, worthless currency show Cubans need more economic opportunity

AFP/Getty Images
A shopkeeper in Havana writes in a customer’s ration book.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — As President Barack Obama prepares for his March 21 visit to Cuba, I wish he would speak to my Colombian friend Elsa who recently returned to the States from two weeks on the island. Elsa is a surfing instructor, promoting what is a new sport in Cuba. During her stay she boarded with a family in Havana and as Spanish speaker obtained insights into daily life that are unavailable to many tourists.
Elsa is deeply impressed with the warmth and generosity of Cubans and optimistic about the slow transition underway to something resembling a market economy. She hopes that as Cuba shifts away from communism it will retain the revolution’s advances in education and health care.
But arrayed against Elsa’s hopes is deep worry about economic failure that deprives Cubans of any prospect of improving their low living standards.
At this point in telling her story, Elsa takes out a cell phone and scrolls to photos of her host’s ration book. There it was, the well-worn “libreta” possessed by every Cuban that is emblematic of communist failure.
Along the left hand column are commodities — rice, beans, cooking oil, sugar, salt, etc. Its agriculture in shambles from decades of shifting policies, Cuba now depends on imports for 80% of its food.
Fifty-eight years into its revolution Cuba is still rationing basics, and worse, rations have been cut, no longer providing minimal levels of nutrition. People can’t subsist on six pounds of rice per month, 20 ounces of beans, one cup of cooking oil, and 12 eggs. Milk is in short supply, chicken and meat are rarities.
As in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union under communism, shortages are suppressed inflation.
A second glaring failure is the existence of multiple exchange rates and two currencies circulating simultaneously. The resulting distortions are huge, compounding inefficiencies. Tourists and foreign businesses change money at 1 peso to $1 while the free market rate is 25 to $1. Cubans are paid in near-worthless national pesos, their wages averaging 600 pesos or $24 per month.
Cuba circulates two different currencies: The nearly worthless national peso or CUP (top) and the convertible peso or CUC (bottom), which is worth $1 or 24 times as much as the CUP.
Communist Cuba inadvertently promotes income inequality. People receiving remittances from abroad or with access to hard currency — like cab drivers or hotel maids — can be relatively privileged. Meanwhile ordinary people languish, unable to consume even at basic levels. Without food rations, free housing and health care, Cubans would sink deeper into poverty.
For years the government has promised to unify the two currencies but there’s been no action. Pavel Vidal, a professor at Colombia’s Universidad Javeriana and a specialist on the Cuban economy, says Raul Castro’s goal was doing currency unification before the 7th Communist Party Congress this April. Vidal doubts the timetable will hold.
There are political and economic risks from unifying the currencies. The dual exchange-rate system is a major source of government income. Hotels, for example, hand tourism proceeds to the government at the official rate while the state pays hotel workers at the market rate, pocketing the difference between the rates.
Cuba, of course, blames the United States for its economic difficulties. Despite Obama’s moves to normalize relations, the 1962 U.S. embargo restricting bilateral trade remains in place. Congressional Republicans say there is no chance of it being lifted while Cuba’s communists are in power.
John Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, says normalization will proceed slowly with the Cubans pressing for an end to the embargo while they move slowly on allowing U.S. investment. Kavulich does expect action this year on unifying the exchange rate.
Analysts say that Cuba’s tentative moves to restructure its economy would be greatly assisted by renewing its membership in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank from which it withdrew in the 1960s, denouncing them as tools of imperialism. Both entities could provide Cuba with policy guidance and money. The Obama administration is believed to have dropped its opposition to Cuba rejoining the IMF but so far Cuba has shown no interest in doing so.
If Havana wants to revive agriculture and abolish rationing it should reconsider its position.
Barry D. Wood reports on the global economy. He visited Havana most recently a year ago.