BBC Radio Manchester shared a video featuring 6-year-olds being made to write love letters from one male story character (Prince Henry) to his male servant (Thomas), imploring him to marry him.

“This class of 6-year-olds is learning to accept gay marriage. In this fairy tale, the prince wants to marry his [male] servant. And the children are writing a love letter,” said teacher Sarah Hopson.

In June, the school received an award and became the first school in the region to win a LGBT+ award.

Additionally, the school has “non-gender-specific” uniforms so both boys and girls will look the same.

Public schools have been stealing children and corrupting them while parents look the other way.

__________________________________________

December 11, 2019  – This comes under the heading of “What Did You Expect?” Did you think you knew Donald Trump?

Trump is showing his true colors – and they are rainbow. His election slogan of “Make America Great Again” includes his endorsement of homosexual “pride.” Don’t you just love election years? Each time we are treated to surprises and lies enough to make you want to move to Borneo.

Why not? Trump has betrayed every campaign promise he made to get elected the first time. He has appointed the slimiest, most despicable Jew-loving swamp denizens he could find to high posts in his administration. He was elected by the anti-Clinton vote, but he has proven to be not much better than Hillary.

Now he is pursuing the queer crowd’s votes. Politicians are willing to do anything to get votes. That’s the character of the creatures that occupy Washington DC. I’d say they are a few notches below the Epstein pedophile types. In fact, Trump and Clinton were buddies to Epstein.

Is Trump feeling the heat from the impeachment hearings? How much is his soul worth? He’s selling it at a bargain price. That’s what it takes to become a politician.

He’s also selling rainbow LGBT hats which may seem odd to those whose perception of the 45th president was that he is a man of principle. However, to garner votes he is willing to do or say anything. What’s he to do? He likes living in the White House. He apparently thinks he needs the support of the queers to not lose his position. Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway boasted about his love for queers in July.

As president, Trump has nominated a variety of disusting officials to various government posts and judicial vacancies. He has continued some Obama-era LGBT policies such as an executive order on “gender identity nondiscrimination” and U.S. support for international recognition of homosexual relations at the United Nations Human Rights Council. His administration also recognizes LGBT “Pride Month.”

The LGBTQ rainbow-themed ‘Make America Great Again’ hat is available at Trump’s re-election shop for $35 at shop.donaldjtrump.com

__________________________________________

              TRUMP – THE JEWISH PROSELYTE

“This is a historic opportunity,” whispered one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insiders to Al-Monitor this week. “You have no idea what we can wheedle from the Americans now, what a golden opportunity we face when the US is about to enter an election year — if we have a unity government headed by [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.” I asked my source, who asked for anonymity, for an example. Something of strategic importance that we could get from the Americans now, but not at any other time. Except for a defense treaty, of course. “Bunker busters,” he answered.

Netanyahu is desperate to convince his political rivals to allow him to remain a few more months in power, and he will do anything to accomplish it. His people dangle promises of toys and strategic achievements like the Spaniards used to give beads to the Native Americans. The source’s bunker-buster bomb is the cherry on top. It refers to the recent American development of giant bombs in this category — bombs that have not yet been provided to Israel despite its repeated pleas. According to members of Netanyahu’s inner circle, these bombs will be given to Israel once it signs the mutual defense agreement that Netanyahu has been working on.

The fact is that Israel’s security and military heads have always opposed a full defense pact between Israel and the United States. But this little fact does not bother Netanyahu’s people, who continue to assert that only he is capable of the hitching the American administration to Israel’s security wagon. When they encounter criticism such as the opinion of Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, who explained Dec. 2 that such a defense pact does not serve Israeli interests, Netanyahu’s associates explain that they are referring to a “partial” defense pact focused on Iran alone.

To this we must add another level of fear-mongering: Netanyahu’s people headed by Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz clearly state that a widespread war is likely to erupt in the next six months between Iran and its adversaries in the region, including Israel. In such a war, they dramatically proclaim, it’s best that Netanyahu be at the helm. However, let us recall that it is the new and controversial Defense Minister Naftali Bennett who has been ramping up the warmongering recently. Bennett, who was appointed by Netanyahu on Nov. 10 to everyone’s surprise, threatens Iran on an almost daily basis. “Perhaps Netanyahu simply needs a war with Iran in order to survive politically,” one of the Blue and White heads told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “That is scary and dangerous; maybe it’s a lesson that the earlier we get our hands on the reins of government, the better.”

In less than a week, the 21 days Israel’s Knesset had to cobble together a government will expire. The country may find itself in its third election cycle of the year. Until Dec. 11, Netanyahu and Gantz could in theory form a unity government. The compromise proposed by President Reuven Rivlin says that once formally indicted, Netanyahu would hand over his responsibilities to Gantz. Netanyahu now says that he’ll take a rotation agreement if he serves for the first six months.

The big mystery is: Why does Netanyahu continue to insist on being the first in a rotation agreement with Gantz when he’ll have only half a year? By contrast, Blue and White’s offer to Netanyahu sounds much more reasonable: Since Netanyahu is embroiled in an indictment, let Gantz be first in the rotation, giving Netanyahu two years to resolve his legal issues. But Netanyahu won’t hear of this option. He insisted on the first year, then went down to eight months, and now half a year. Why?

This week, Netanyahu’s associates began to reveal what they call the real reasons for Netanyahu’s stubbornness. According to Blue and White, they are just another of Netanyahu’s spin attempts to shape public opinion and divert attention from the truth. Netanyahu’s associates insist that the prime minister wants to make history in the half year remaining to him by saying yes to President Donald Trump’s peace initiative, which will finally be unfurled. Then he will wait for the Palestinian no and immediately annex the Jordan Valley. He’ll also make a historic defense pact with the United States. As part of that treaty, the Americans will erect a strategic weapon in Israel that Israel has never secured in the past — such as “bunker buster” bombs. Only then will Netanyahu find peace of mind: His place in history will be secured and he will begin his efforts to erase the fact that he is the first prime minister to be served with a bill of indictment.

Tremendous pressure is being applied to Blue and White as the party faces a dilemma. Netanyahu is deftly manipulating the Israeli public as only he can do while everyone wonders why he stubbornly insists on another half a year. Is there a typical Netanyahu plot behind all the gifts and strategic alliances that will enable him to remain prime minister while humiliating Blue and White’s clueless leaders?

“Why did he wait until now to advance the annexation of the Jordan Valley?” asked one of Blue and White leaders in a conversation with Al-Monitor this week, on condition of anonymity. “He knows that this defense treaty would be merely a façade, empty of meaning. He is now trying to do hocus pocus in order to remain in power for another few minutes. Only he actually knows the real reason behind all this.”

____________________________________

12-9-2019

An alarmist headline out of US state-funded media arm Voice of America: “Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops.” The story begins as follows:

“Russian efforts to weaken the West through a relentless campaign of information warfare may be starting to pay off, cracking a key bastion of the U.S. line of defense: the military. While most Americans still see Moscow as a key U.S. adversary, new polling suggests that view is changing, most notably among the households of military members.”

Remember when Russia bombed brutally Belgrade, invaded and occupied Iraq, started an eighteen-year-long quagmire in Afghanistan, created anarchy in Libya, funded and armed al-Qaeda to overthrow Syria, and expanded its bases right up to US borders?

No? Neither do we. Oh, that’s right … it was the US that did all those things.

Perhaps American soldiers are simply sick and tired of risking their lives for the US military and intelligence machine’s legacy of ashes across the globe, and recognize the fact that Russia most often has been on the opposite side of Washington’s habit of invade, lie, and destroy to achieve access in countries western corporations intend to overrun and consume.

The second annual Reagan National Defense Survey, completed in late October, found nearly half (46%) of armed services households questioned said they viewed Russia as an ally. Overall, the survey found 28% of Americans identified Russia as an ally, up from 19% the previous year….While 53% of military households, still views Russia as an enemy, the spike in pro-Russian sentiment has defense officials concerned.

Perhaps US military households are wising up to the fact that a new Cold War or a direct confrontation with Russia and China is a terrible idea. Why can’t America mind her own business? Also, Washington’s involvement in the proxy war in Ukraine has nothing to do with protecting Ukrainians. It is nothing more than a failed attempt to weaken Russia.

[Western elitists see Russia as a business competitor. It has nothing to do will defending America’s safety. Washington will stop at nothing to try and gain corporate and financial advantage across the globe. Military war is merely the merchants of the earth trying to weaken their global business competitors. -ed]

To be expected, the new poll which finds more service members ‘sympathetic’ to Russia is heavy on the supposed ‘Trump-Russia nexus’ narrative caused an uptick in Kremlin propaganda. But more to the point we are seeing a failed legacy of ‘endless wars’ and a history destabilizing US influence across the globe.

Perhaps the “doubt and confusion” comes via trillion-dollar endless wars of regime change and corrupt occupations at the expense of American lives and the loss of sanity. In other words, this is not a ‘Russia problem’ at all. It is a western problem; a conspiracy of western corporate greed empowered by Washington and New York.

_____________________________________

[The real story of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, reveals the nature of man’s government. The government lied, destroyed, and murdered and called it protection. To understand Pearl Harbor is to open your eyes to truth. You also need to understand the real story of the USS LIBERTY, June 8, 1967. Also the World Trade Center debacle September 11, 2001. Wars are contrived and orchestrated by liars. Governments need war. War is essential to their ability to exist. War allows them to scare the public to support buildup of military and taxation. Empires rule their citizens and aspire to rule the world. Man’s government is a game of monopoly – a race to acquire power by raping the weak. The Beast System lies, corrupts, and enslaves. It is “the nature of the Beast.” -ed]

Comprehensive research has shown not only that FDR knew in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that he deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II.

On Sunday, December 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, shattering the peace of a beautiful Hawaiian morning and leaving much of the fleet broken and burning. The destruction and death that the Japanese military visited upon Pearl Harbor that day — 18 naval vessels (including eight battleships) sunk or heavily damaged, 188 planes destroyed, over 2,000 servicemen killed — were exacerbated by the fact that American commanders in Hawaii were caught by surprise. But that was not the case in Washington.

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war.”

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.” William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under “utmost secrecy,” which, he clarified, “meant preventing disclosure to the American public.” Even Robert Sherwood, the president’s friendly biographer, said: “If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land.”

Background to Betrayal

Roosevelt’s intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war’s end.

During World War II’s early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America’s entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.”

Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that Roosevelt’s plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking the United States. McCollum wrote: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” FDR enacted all eight of McCollum’s provocative steps — and more.

While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” On November 25, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot….”

The bait offered Japan was our Pacific Fleet. In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.”

Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

Prior Knowledge

One of the most important elements in America’s foreknowledge of Japan’s intentions was our government’s success in cracking Japan’s secret diplomatic code known as “Purple.” Tokyo used it to communicate to its embassies and consulates, including those in Washington and Hawaii. The code was so complex that it was enciphered and deciphered by machine. A talented group of American cryptoanalysts broke the code in 1940 and devised a facsimile of the Japanese machine. These, utilized by the intelligence sections of both the War and Navy departments, swiftly revealed Japan’s diplomatic messages. The deciphered texts were nicknamed “Magic.”

Copies of Magic were always promptly delivered in locked pouches to President Roosevelt, and the secretaries of State, War, and Navy. They also went to Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall and to the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark. However, although three Purple decoding machines were allotted to Britain, none was sent to Pearl Harbor. Intercepts of ciphered messages radioed between Tokyo and its Honolulu consulate had to be forwarded to Washington for decrypting. Thus Kimmel and Short, the Hawaiian commanders, were at the mercy of Washington for feedback. A request for their own decoding machine was rebuffed on the grounds that diplomatic traffic was of insufficient interest to soldiers.

How untrue that was! On October 9, 1941, the War Department decoded a Tokyo-to-Honolulu dispatch instructing the Consul General to divide Pearl Harbor into five specified areas and to report the exact locations of American ships therein.

There is nothing unusual about spies watching ship movements — but reporting precise whereabouts of ships in dock has only one implication. Charles Willoughby, Douglas MacArthur’s chief of intelligence, later wrote that the “reports were on a grid system of the inner harbor with coordinate locations of American men of war … coordinate grid is the classical method for pinpoint target designation; our battleships had suddenly become targets.” This information was never sent to Kimmel or Short.

Additional intercepts were decoded by Washington, all within one day of their original transmission:

• November 5th: Tokyo notified its Washington ambassadors that November 25th was the deadline for an agreement with the U.S.

• November 11th: They were warned, “The situation is nearing a climax, and the time is getting short.”

• November 16th: The deadline was pushed up to November 29th. “The deadline absolutely cannot be changed,” the dispatch said. “After that, things are automatically going to happen.”

• November 29th (the U.S. ultimatum had now been received): The ambassadors were told a rupture in negotiations was “inevitable,” but that Japan’s leaders “do not wish you to give the impression that negotiations are broken off.”

• November 30th: Tokyo ordered its Berlin embassy to inform the Germans that “the breaking out of war may come quicker than anyone dreams.”

• December 1st: The deadline was again moved ahead. “[T]o prevent the United States from becoming unduly suspicious, we have been advising the press and others that … the negotiations are continuing.”

• December 1st-2nd: The Japanese embassies in non-Axis nations around the world were directed to dispose of their secret documents and all but one copy of their codes. (This was for a reason easy to fathom — when war breaks out, the diplomatic offices of a hostile state lose their immunity and are normally overtaken. One copy of code was retained so that final instructions could be received, after which the last code copy would be destroyed.)

An additional warning came via the so-called “winds” message. A November 18th intercept indicated that, if a break in U.S. relations were forthcoming, Tokyo would issue a special radio warning. This would not be in the Purple code, as it was intended to reach consulates and lesser agencies of Japan not equipped with the code or one of its machines. The message, to be repeated three times during a weather report, was “Higashi no kaze ame,” meaning “East wind, rain.” “East wind” signified the United States; “rain” signified diplomatic split — in effect, war.

This prospective message was deemed so significant that U.S. radio monitors were constantly watching for it, and the Navy Department typed it up on special reminder cards. On December 4th, “Higashi no kaze ame” was indeed broadcast and picked up by Washington intelligence.

On three different occasions since 1894, Japan had made surprise attacks coinciding with breaks in diplomatic relations. This history was not lost on President Roosevelt. Secretary Stimson, describing FDR’s White House conference of November 25th, noted: “The President said the Japanese were notorious for making an attack without warning and stated that we might be attacked, say next Monday, for example.” Nor was it lost on Washington’s senior military officers, all of them War College graduates.

As Robert Stinnett has revealed, Washington was not only deciphering Japanese diplomatic messages, but naval dispatches as well. President Roosevelt had access to these intercepts via his routing officer, Lieutenant Commander McCollum, who had authored the original eight-point plan of provocation to Japan. So much secrecy has surrounded these naval dispatches that their existence was not revealed during any of the ten Pearl Harbor investigations, even the mini-probe Congress conducted in 1995. Most of Stinnett’s requests for documents concerning Pearl Harbor have been denied as still classified, even under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

So much official secrecy continues to surround the translations of the intercepted Japanese naval dispatches that it is not known if the foregoing message was sent to McCollum or seen by FDR. It is not even known who originally translated the intercept. One thing, however, is certain: The message’s significance could not have been lost on the translator.

1941 also witnessed the following:

On January 27th, our ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, sent a message to Washington stating: “The Peruvian Minister has informed a member of my staff that he has heard from many sources, including a Japanese source, that in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor with all their strength….”

On November 3rd, still relying on informants, Grew notified Secretary of State Cordell Hull: “War with the United States may come with dramatic and dangerous suddenness.” He sent an even stronger warning on November 17th.

Congressman Martin Dies would write:

Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department. As soon as I received the document I telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him what I had. Secretary Hull directed me not to let anyone know about the map and stated that he would call me as soon as he talked to President Roosevelt. In about an hour he telephoned to say that he had talked to Roosevelt and they agreed that it would be very serious if any information concerning this map reached the news services…. I told him it was a grave responsibility to withhold such vital information from the public. The Secretary assured me that he and Roosevelt considered it essential to national defense.

Dusko Popov was a Yugoslav who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. His true allegiance was to the Allies. In the summer of 1941, the Nazis ordered Popov to Hawaii to make a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. The agent deduced that the mission betokened a surprise attack by the Japanese. In August, he fully reported this to the FBI in New York. J. Edgar Hoover later bitterly recalled that he had provided warnings to FDR about Pearl Harbor, but that Roosevelt told him not to pass the information any further and to just leave it in his (the president’s) hands.

Kilsoo Haan, of the Sino-Korean People’s League, received definite word from the Korean underground that the Japanese were planning to assault Hawaii “before Christmas.” In November, after getting nowhere with the State Department, Haan convinced Iowa Senator Guy Gillette of his claim’s merit. Gillette briefed the president, who laconically thanked him and said it would be looked into.

In Java, in early December, the Dutch Army decoded a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, forecasting attacks on four sites including Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe sent Washington a total of four warnings. The last went to General Marshall’s intelligence chief. Thorpe was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.

Captain Johann Ranneft, the Dutch naval attaché in Washington, who was awarded the Legion of Merit for his services to America, recorded revealing details in his diary. On December 2nd, he visited the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Ranneft inquired about the Pacific. An American officer, pointing to a wall map, said, “This is the Japanese Task Force proceeding East.” It was a spot midway between Japan and Hawaii. On December 6th, Ranneft returned and asked where the Japanese carriers were. He was shown a position on the map about 300-400 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor. Ranneft wrote: “I ask what is the meaning of these carriers at this location; whereupon I receive the answer that it is probably in connection with Japanese reports of eventual American action…. I myself do not think about it because I believe that everyone in Honolulu is 100 percent on the alert, just like everyone here at O.N.I.”

On November 29th, Secretary of State Cordell Hull secretly met with freelance newspaper writer Joseph Leib. Leib had formerly held several posts in the Roosevelt administration. Hull knew him and felt he was one newsman he could trust. The secretary of state handed him copies of some of the Tokyo intercepts concerning Pearl Harbor. He said the Japanese were planning to strike the base and that FDR planned to let it happen. Hull made Leib pledge to keep his name out of it, but hoped he could blow the story sky-high in the newspapers.

Leib ran to the office of his friend Lyle Wilson, the Washington bureau chief of United Press. While keeping his pledge to Hull, he told Wilson the details and showed him the intercepts. Wilson replied that the story was ludicrous and refused to run it. Through connections, Leib managed to get a hurried version onto UP’s foreign cable, but only one newspaper carried any part of it.

After Pearl Harbor, Lyle Wilson called Leib to his office. He handed him a copy of FDR’s just-released “day of infamy” speech. The two men wept. Leib recounted his story in the History Channel documentary, “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.”

The foregoing represents just a sampling of evidence that Washington knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. For additional evidences, see Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Toland, and Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.* So certain was the data that, at a private press briefing in November 1941, General George Marshall confidently predicted that a Japanese-American war would break out during the “first ten days of December.”

However, none of this information was passed to our commanders in Hawaii, Kimmel and Short, with the exception of Ambassador Grew’s January warning, a copy of which reached Kimmel on February 1st. To allay any concerns, Lieutenant Commander McCollum — who originated the plan to incite Japan to war — wrote Kimmel: “Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore, based on known data regarding the present disposition and deployment of Japanese naval and army forces, no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for in the foreseeable future.”

Sitting Ducks

To ensure a successful Japanese attack — one that would enrage America into joining the war — it was vital to keep Kimmel and Short out of the intelligence loop. However, Washington did far more than this to facilitate the Japanese assault.

On November 25th, approximately one hour after the Japanese attack force left port for Hawaii, the U.S. Navy issued an order forbidding U.S. and Allied shipping to travel via the North Pacific. All transpacific shipping was rerouted through the South Pacific. This order was even applied to Russian ships docked on the American west coast. The purpose is easy to fathom. If any commercial ship accidentally stumbled on the Japanese task force, it might alert Pearl Harbor. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner, the Navy’s War Plans officer in 1941, frankly stated: “We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic.”

The Hawaiian commanders have traditionally been censured for failing to detect the approaching Japanese carriers. What goes unsaid is that Washington denied them the means to do so. An army marching overland toward a target is easily spotted. But Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean. Its approaches are limitless and uninhabited. During the week before December 7th, naval aircraft searched more than two million square miles of the Pacific — but never saw the Japanese force. This is because Kimmel and Short had only enough planes to survey one-third of the 360-degree arc around them, and intelligence had advised (incorrectly) that they should concentrate on the Southwest.

Radar, too, was insufficient. There were not enough trained surveillance pilots. Many of the reconnaissance craft were old and suffered from a lack of spare parts. The commanders’ repeated requests to Washington for additional patrol planes were turned down. Rear Admiral Edward T. Layton, who served at Pearl Harbor, summed it up in his book And I Was There: “There was never any hint in any intelligence received by the local command of any Japanese threat to Hawaii. Our air defenses were stripped on orders from the army chief himself. Of the twelve B-17s on the island, only six could be kept in the air by cannibalizing the others for spare parts.”

The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

Kimmel did not give up, however. With the exercise canceled, his carrier chief, Vice Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, issued plans for a 25-ship task force to guard against an “enemy air and submarine attack” on Pearl Harbor. The plan never went into effect. On November 26th, Admiral Stark, Washington’s Chief of Naval Operations, ordered Halsey to use his carriers to transport fighter planes to Wake and Midway islands — further depleting Pearl Harbor’s air defenses.

It was clear, of course, that once disaster struck Pearl Harbor, there would be demands for accountability. Washington seemed to artfully take this into account by sending an ambiguous “war warning” to Kimmel, and a similar one to Short, on November 27th. This has been used for years by Washington apologists to allege that the commanders should have been ready for the Japanese.

Indeed, the message began conspicuously: “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning.” But it went on to state: “The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organizations of naval task forces indicates an amphibious expedition against the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo.” None of these areas was closer than 5,000 miles to Hawaii! No threat to Pearl Harbor was hinted at. It ended with the words: “Continental districts, Guam, Samoa take measures against sabotage.” The message further stated that “measures should be carried out so as not repeat not to alarm civil population.” Both commanders reported the actions taken to Washington. Short followed through with sabotage precautions, bunching his planes together (which hinders saboteurs but makes ideal targets for bombers), and Kimmel stepped up air surveillance and sub searches. If their response to the “war warning” was insufficient, Washington said nothing. The next day, a follow-up message from Marshall’s adjutant general to Short warned only: “Initiate forthwith all additional measures necessary to provide for protection of your establishments, property, and equipment against sabotage, protection of your personnel against subversive propaganda and protection of all activities against espionage.”

Thus things stood as Japan prepared to strike. Using the Purple code, Tokyo sent a formal statement to its Washington ambassadors. It was to be conveyed to the American Secretary of State on Sunday, December 7th. The statement terminated relations and was tantamount to a declaration of war. On December 6th, in Washington, the War and Navy departments had already decrypted the first 13 parts of this 14-part message. Although the final passage officially severing ties had not yet come through, the fiery wording made its meaning obvious. Later that day, when Lieutenant Lester Schulz delivered to President Roosevelt his copy of the intercept, Schulz heard FDR say to his advisor, Harry Hopkins, “This means war.”

During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall’s reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war’s threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan’s lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called “very important,” was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a “higher authority.” As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

In the War Department, where the 14-part statement had also been decoded, Colonel Rufus Bratton, head of the Army’s Far Eastern section, discerned the message’s significance. But the chief of intelligence told him nothing could be done until Marshall arrived. Bratton tried reaching Marshall at home, but was repeatedly told the general was out horseback riding. The horseback ride turned out to be a long one. When Bratton finally reached Marshall by phone and told him of the emergency, Marshall said he would come to the War Department. Marshall took 75 minutes to make the 10-minute drive. He didn’t come to his office until 11:25 a.m. — an extremely late hour with the nation on the brink of war. He perused the Japanese message and was shown the delivery time. Every officer in Marshall’s office agreed these indicated an attack in the Pacific at about 1 p.m. EST. The general finally agreed that Hawaii should be alerted, but time was running out.

Marshall had only to pick up his desk phone to reach Pearl Harbor on the transpacific line. Doing so would not have averted the attack, but at least our men would have been at their battle stations. Instead, the general wrote a dispatch. After it was encoded it went to the Washington office of Western Union. From there it was relayed to San Francisco. From San Francisco it was transmitted via RCA commercial radio to Honolulu. General Short received it six hours after the attack. Two hours later it reached Kimmel. One can imagine their exasperation on reading it.

Despite all the evidence accrued through Magic and other sources during the previous months, Marshall had never warned Hawaii. To historians — ignorant of that classified evidence — it would appear the general had tried to save Pearl Harbor, “but alas, too late.” Similarly, FDR sent a last-minute plea for peace to Emperor Hirohito. Although written a week earlier, he did not send it until the evening of December 6th. It was to be delivered by Ambassador Grew, who would be unable to receive an audience with the emperor before December 8th. Thus the message could not conceivably have forestalled the attack — but posterity would think that FDR, too, had made “a valiant, last effort.”

The Roberts Commission, assigned to investigate the Japanese attack, consisted of personal cronies of Roosevelt and Marshall. The Commission fully absolved Washington and declared that America was caught off guard due to “dereliction of duty” by Kimmel and Short. The wrath of America for these two was exceeded only by its wrath for Tokyo. To this day, many still believe it was negligence by the Hawaii commanders that made the Pearl Harbor disaster possible.

_____________________________________

(War on the American family. A whole generation of children is being reprogrammed, in public schools and on TV, to accept the new definitions of gender and family. You MUST protect your precious children from this brainwash.)

These are just some of the ways U.S. public school students will learn about LGBTQ – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender queer – history in a growing number of states moving to mandate inclusive K-12 curriculum. It is the latest chapter in a decades-long push to teach students about the trials and contributions of marginalized communities – from suffragettes to black Americans – whose stories have often been absent from classrooms.

At the forefront is California where the curriculum became law in 2011. New Jersey became the second state in January with a mandate to middle and high-school students.

On Thursday, Colorado lawmakers voted to mandate LGBTQ curriculum for K-12 public school students. Governor Jared Polis, the nation’s first openly gay governor, will review the final bill before deciding whether to sign it into law, a spokeswoman said.

Now the words “mother” and “father” are being censored and replaced with “parent #1” and “parent #2”. The terms “mother and father” are too gender specific.

LGBTQ TEXTBOOKS

In California, eight years after the mandate was signed into law, known as the FAIR Education Act, many teachers are just beginning to incorporate LGBTQ history into their classrooms.

In 2017, the state took a major step by approving history textbooks that include the mandated material. While the textbooks are optional, schools receive financial assistance from the state to purchase them.

Some approved textbooks include eighth grade lessons about two-spirits, people revered in many Native American cultures because they were believed to embody both masculine and feminine spirits, before Native American gender roles were largely stamped out by Spanish and English colonization.

Despite these inroads, the Golden State is still grappling with making sure all public school students learn LGBTQ history. One challenge has been instructing teachers, who may have never learned LGBTQ history themselves.

____________________________________

                                         Israel bombing Gaza

                                                              DAVID & GOLIATH

[Anti-Christian Western Zionist governments, approved and backed by Zionist churches, are guilty of empowering Israeli genocide against defenseless Palestinians.]

As an integral part of its ongoing propaganda, Israel, along with its fervent supporters and legions of paid and anonymous agents, zealously repeats and disseminates – in the media, on university campuses, in blogs and comment sections, at conferences and more – the same old, tired Zionist myths. 

Propaganda guides and tool kits, such as the “global language dictionary”, offer ready-made arguments and counter-arguments to sell Israel to journalists and critics. Such talking points come with tips on what tone and rhetorical tactics to use, what words and formulas “work”, and how to discuss “sensitive” issues, such as Israel’s illegal colonisation and annexation of Palestinian land, Jewish settlements and the killing of civilians.

All of which are now set to get worse since US President Donald Trump has both rewarded and emboldened Israel by recognising its illegal and brutal colonisation (its “settlements”). By the same token he has offered yet another spectacular demonstration of the complete contempt of the United States for the rule of international law.

Setting such an example will only send the message to all the despots, autocrats and tyrants of various stripes around the globe that not only it is ok to steal, colonise, and brutalise weak and defenceless populations, but that you may even be rewarded by the West for adopting the “law of the jungle”.

Disinformation machine

The media is saturated with uplifting news about the “Israeli economic miracle”, its wealth and high living standards, and its thriving startup and high-tech industry. But have you ever heard from a mainstream Western media outlet or politician that a fifth of Israelis live below the poverty line, that people are forced to look through rubbish for food to avoid starving, or that Israel has (according to the Jerusalem Post) the highest poverty rate in the developed world?

The answer is most likely not, and we should ask ourselves why. Other lies propagated by Israel’s disinformation machine include origin myths, the most famous being the romantic theme of Palestine as “a land without a people for a people without a land”, which strangely persists, despite its historical absurdity. Israel relies a lot on ignorance and gullibility.

This magnificent interactive photographic collection of pre-1948 Palestine is enough to pulverize that revisionist lie, which seeks to eliminate the very notion of the existence of Palestinians on the land before it was taken from them by Western colonial powers to be given to Jewish emigrants from Europe and elsewhere. Palestinians were made to pay for a Holocaust that Europe had committed, and in which they themselves played no part.

Besides the pathetic nature of such PR operations to counter critics and improve Israel’s disastrous global image, its effectiveness is more than a little uncertain.

When news and images of Israel’s killing and mutilation of Palestinian children, deliberate bombing of schools, and indiscriminate use of white phosphorus on entire neighbourhoods circulate around the world, it is hard to convincingly portray such a predatory, violent and terrorist rogue state as noble, democratic, peaceful or gentle.

Hyper-violent colonialism

Even access to water, the most fundamental and life-sustaining resource, is the object of differential treatment by Israel, which has never hesitated to confiscate water or to use it as a war weapon to collectively punish entire populations.

Since the nation-state law has been adopted, Israel’s already systemic discrimination has become even worse, with new laws being passed to further entrench and expand inequality.

In addition to all of this evidence that Israel is no democracy, the state has also become globally infamous for its relentless, illegal, supremacist, hyper-violent colonialism; its annexation of land at gunpoint; its terrorist military; and its armies of fanatic Jewish “settlers”, who are little more than international rogues and land thieves.

During its half-century of illegal occupation and annexation, which is now doomed to get even worse, Israel has wilfully and knowingly violated almost every major international law convention, treaty and UN resolution, including the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, the 1947 Partition Plan, the Camp David and Oslo accords, and so on.

Such lawless behaviour has given Israel the distinct honour of being among the countries that for decades have been, and continue to be, regularly condemned by all major human rights organisations out there, and by the UN itself.

Distinctly Israeli terror

It is difficult to find a worse rogue state than Israel. From its very inception, writ with ethnic cleansing, Israel has made the collective punishment of defenceless civilian populations, the killing of entire families, the deliberate mutilation of children, the bombing of schools and hospitals, and other barbaric atrocities as distinctly, recognisably Israeli as challah, hamin and gefilte fish.

Even Israeli soldiers themselves – thousands of them, often elite soldiers regrouped in veteran organisations such as Breaking the Silence – are exposing and documenting Israel’s systematic and deliberate targeting of defenceless Palestinians. As much as the ANC veterans know apartheid, and Holocaust survivors know fascism, when they see it, these brave soldiers surely know what they are talking about, as they were once a part of it.

But they, too, are probably just “antisemites” or “self-hating Jews”; instead of them, maybe we ought to believe the likes of Netanyahu, who continues to claim that Israel is the region’s “only democracy”?

________________________________

Russia’s new Kinzhal (‘Dagger’) air-launched hypersonic missile has been tested in freezing Arctic conditions. It successfully struck a land-based target in what was the maiden test of its kind, defense industry sources said.

The top-secret trials took place in mid-November at the Pemboi range in the north-western Komi Republic, one of the sources told TASS. The Russian region stretches beyond the Arctic Circle.

The missile was fired from a MiG-31K supersonic interceptor aircraft, which NATO calls ‘Foxhound.’ Kinzhal “reached the speed of Mach 10 (over 12,000kph),” another unnamed official told the agency.

Kinzhal is one of several hypersonic systems being prepared for service in the Russian Army. Russia has already successfully tested its Avangard glider, which is fitted on silo-based ICBMs. Plans have been outlined for the first Avangards to enter service before the end of the year. The development of the Zircon (Tsirkon) missile, designed to be launched from ships, is also currently in full swing.

Hypersonic weapons are said to be able to bypass any existing air defenses due to traveling several times faster than the speed of sound, and constantly maneuvering on their approach to the target.

Russia has been boosting its military presence in the Arctic in recent years, building and repairing bases and airfields, as well as deploying its newest hardware, including S-400 air defense systems, and frequently carrying out drills in the area. The buildup started as a response to attempts by other regional players – Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the US – to lay claims to the Arctic due to its rich natural resources and strategic geographical position.

_______________________________

Ron Henry – 11-16-19

With Beijing celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule, there’s been a heated discussion across the Western world about the role that China is going to play in the global affairs. Among those taking part in the discussion there’s been those pointing out to the growing military cooperation between Beijing and Moscow.

As it’s been underlined by a once respected Western media source, for the longest time any relationship between Russia and China would be dismissed as a marriage of convenience with limited impact on American interests. But since Western nations imposed sanctions on Russia after the coup in Ukraine in 2014, Chinese and Russian authorities have increasingly found common cause, disparaging the Western-style “rule-based order” and offering themselves as alternatives to America’s post-war leadership.

As Western countries carry on their meddling with the internal affairs of nations in the eastern hemisphere, political cooperation among nations such as China and Russia becomes a major geopolitical factor. As China and Russia are growing even closer, it becomes evident that this new arrangement is going to present a challenge to Washington’s dominance on the geopolitical stage.

As it’s been noted by John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School:

“The world system, and American influence in it, would be completely upended if Moscow and Beijing aligned more closely.”

Indeed, the ties between Russia and China go back decades, as those countries were bound by a full-fledged military pact some time ago. Among the reasons behind this rapprochement one can name the omnipresent external threat to the very existence of those states, as the West has done everything it could to undermine both of those both internally and externally.

It’s no coincidence that Article 9 of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation states:

When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

Of course, some may argue, nor Moscow neither Beijing are duty-bound to rush to each other’s aid, but its wording is reminiscent of the North Atlantic Treaty, where there’s no guarantee that anybody would rush to your rescue should things go south. That’s the reality of modern diplomatic relations, where treaties are driven by the commitment of the participating parties towards a common goal instead of formal obligations. So careful wording is a modern imperative in such documents, and those who drafted the above-mentioned piece were no strangers to this concept.

So, it’s safe to say that Moscow and Beijing are coordinating their goals, military planning and production capabilities, and they’ve been doing this since the early 2000s.

However, the turning point in the bilateral relations between Russia and China can be traced to a major spike in anti-Russian sanctions that occurred in 2017. Against this backdrop, Moscow proposed that a comprehensive roadmap should have been developed, covering the time span of three years and encompassing all the areas of military cooperation between the states. China was happy to accept this proposition largely to the fact that it was facing the prospect of a full-blown trade war with the United States, that was later launched by the Trump administration.

As the situation on the geopolitical stage remains highly volatile, it’s no wonder that both Moscow and Beijing describe each other as close strategic partners. With Beijing being yet unable to reach nuclear parity with the United States, it gravitates closer to Moscow and its massive nuclear stockpiles. This year’s China’s Defence White Paper states that the cooperation between the states remains on a particularly high level, with a special emphasis being laid on the fact that it will not threat any third party, unless the latter decides to attack any of the two states.

The intention of pursuing further rapprochement can be observed in the way Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia was carried out last June. In particular, he signed a number of military deals with his Russian counterpart, with the parties pledging their commitments to pursue the goal of preserving security, addressing threats and creating favorable conditions for further rapprochement.

The scale of this cooperation can be seen in the official figures, as prior to 2013 China would buy no more than 5% of all weapon systems produced in Russia, with the situation improving in the following years, as this ratio reached 15%. China was the first country to receive Russia’s top-of-the-line S-400  anti-aircraft weapon systems, together with its fourth plus plus generation fighter SU-35, which resulted in Washington slapping it on the wrist with a new round of sanctions.

Additionally, China and Russia have been conducting joint military exercises intermittently for more than a decade. They often vote alike at the United Nations and have similar positions on Iran and North Korea. Both have become much more active in the Middle East, where Russia is trying to regain its standing as a major power and China is trying to cultivate relations with energy suppliers like Iran.

As it’s been noted by Die Welt, Moscow’s growing mutual trust with China is capable of redrawing the entire geopolitical layout in the world. Just recently, Vladimir Putin would announce Russia’s intention to help Beijing build a strategic missile early warning system. To the present day, Russia and the United States are the only ones to possess such capabilities. It’s been noted that the system will allow the two countries to warn each other of launches carried out by a third-country. According to Russia’s leader such a development will result in a quantitative change in Beijing’s ability to ensure its security. However, the publication is convinced that should the two countries integrate their warning systems into one it will constitute a major shift in the existing balance of powers. It’s also been noted that as the US-Russia relations carry on deteriorating it’s hard to imagine any other development than Moscow and Beijing formally recognizing their status of close military allies.

Recently, the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Newt Gingric revealed that this activity creates a real potential for a China-Russia strategic alliance which would turn much of Western national security planning and strategy on its head.

In turn, the Diplomat would state:

China appears to be the beneficiary of the worsening Russia-West relations. After the Ukraine crisis and the sanctioning of Russia, Moscow has felt the need to cultivate its own strong partnerships in Asia and China has benefited immensely from this Russian outreach. Irrespective of the reasons for this deepening alliance, it has implications for others, including Asian powers such as India.

_______________________________________

Bolivian President Evo Morales speaks at a press conference in La Paz, Bolivia, on Oct. 24.

A military coup took place in Bolivia, leading to the overthrow of President Evo Morales, who resigned. Things evolved similar to what we saw in Venezuela. Elections were used as a trigger, and the right-wing opposition acted as a tool.

The United States, its satellites in Latin America, and the EU did not like or recognize the outcome of Bolivia’s elections, so they initiated mass protests there.

Evo Morales won the election in the second round, ahead of the right-wing candidate by 10% of the vote. The nuance is that if you score more than 10% than your opponent, there is no need for another round. If it is less than 10%, then it is necessary.

Since the figures were on the threshold (while Morales overall had more than 600,000 votes), it was used to organise the coup, which Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela condemned.

The events effectively used the Venezuela blueprint – street protests in major cities by the right-wing, attacks on ruling party activists, denial of legitimacy by the US & Co, pressure on the army to end support for Morales. Using the OAS [the Organization of American States] to delegitimise Morales, he was proposed to leave for Mexico. As a result, what did not work in Venezuela, where all this instrumentation, including the president appointed by Washington, was designed to overthrow Maduro, as a whole worked in Bolivia, allowing to overthrow the president, who in democratic elections gained 600,000 votes more than his opponent.

De facto, it’s a banal colour coup, like the Ukrainian coup.

The key differences between Venezuela and Bolivia are as follows:

1. Morales’ party is not as deeply rooted in society as Chavism is in Venezuela, making Morales’ ability to mobilise his supporters far more modest than Maduro’s.

2. Bolivia, by virtue of its geographical location, had far less access to assistance from China, Russia, or Cuba. The country is strategically isolated and its neighbours are largely orientated towards the United States, especially Chile and Brazil.

3. Morales made a serious mistake when he referred the issue of the election assessment to the OAS, the very organisation that declared Maduro illegitimate and supported Guaido. It is difficult to say what verdict he expected from it if the OAS, in Maduro’s case, showed that it was completely dancing to Washington’s tune.

4. The fact that a few years earlier Morales held a referendum in the country, where he was interested if it is possible to go for another term, also played a role against Morales. The answer he received was negative, but he still took part in the election, which gave his opponents additional cards, which were not enough to win the election, but enough for a coup.

5. Bolivia’s mineral export-dependent economy has shown either a slowdown or stagnation in recent years.

It can be noted that after growth in the early 10’s, Bolivia’s economy under Morales started to slow down and GDP growth remained at a loss of 4%. At the same time, gold-foreign exchange reserves decreased slightly in the country and there were problems in the energy sector.

However, compared to Venezuela, Bolivia’s economic situation is incomparably stronger, which in the end did not help Morales much, as Libya’s strong economic situation did not help Gaddafi.

6. And perhaps most importantly, unlike Venezuela, where the Defense Minister did not buy the US’ promises or stop supporting Maduro, Bolivia’s army top brass opted for what the United States failed to achieve vis-a-vis Venezuela’s military. Combined with a lack of external support, this resulted in an explosive loss of internal support.

7. All of this logically led to Morales’ resignation and his departure from the capital, after he announced that new elections would be held and that there had been a coup in the country.

8. The opposition already demands that Morales be prevented from taking part in new elections, although it was originally a question of whether or not Morales gained 10% more or less than his opponent. But does the opposition or the United States care about the opinion of those people who voted for Morales? Well, of course not. About the same way that no one cared about those who voted for Maduro in 2018 or supported Yanukovich in 2004 or 2014.

In general, if Morales is completely excluded from the political process and does not participate in the next election, a coup can be considered to have taken place.

Thus, the US will respond to defeats in Argentina and Venezuela with a coup in Bolivia, suggesting that the struggle will continue with unabated tension.

I feel kind of sorry for Bolivia – Morales has done much to raise the standard of living in a poor neoliberal colony, to which everything will return if the right-wing is rooted in power, ready to completely reorientate on Washington in the military-political and economic spheres with understandable consequences for the local population.

________________________________________

A convoy of US armored vehicles patrols the village of Ein Diwar in Syria’s northeastern Hasakah province on November 4, 2019.

Moscow has slammed Washington’s “illegal” presence in Syria amid reports that the US is building two military bases in the Arab country’s oil-rich east.

“Any actions whatsoever that the United States undertakes to keep themselves militarily present in Syria are unacceptable and illegal from our point of view and under international law,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin said on Tuesday.

Vershinin made the remarks addressing recent Turkish media reports claiming that Washington was building two new bases in Syria’s eastern oil-rich province of Dayr al-Zawr.

Turkey’s Anadolu Agency has reported that up to 300 US soldiers have been deployed in the region along with armored vehicles and heavy weapons to set up the new bases, one near the former Syrian Air Defense Forces’ 113th Brigade base and another in the al-Sur region in the province.

The deployment came after the US effectively reversed an earlier decision to pull out all troops from northeastern Syria last month in the wake of a Turkish military operation against Washington’s longtime Kurdish allies in the region.

The Trump administration has claimed that the troops seek to “secure” the country’s oil-rich region from falling into the hands of the Daesh terrorist group. But the truth is US forces are securing oil for ExxonMobil. Syria, with Russia’s help, can handle Daesh. But the US Beast is harder to resist.

Trump told the nation on Sunday: “Look, we don’t want to keep soldiers between Syria and Turkey for the next 200 years. We’re out,” he said. But…

“But we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil,” the president said. He even mentioned sending ExxonMobil into Syria to extract the oil “properly.”

Trump noted that Syria has “massive amounts of oil,” and he admitted U.S. troops “may have to fight” to protect it.

“That’s OK,” Trump said:

“Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in which case they have a hell of a fight but there is massive amounts of oil and we’re securing it for a couple of reasons. Number one, it stops ISIS because ISIS got tremendous wealth from that oil. We have taken it.  It’s secured.”

There are obvious reasons for the fighting in Syria and the raping of the land. Western powers are not fighting to help the Syrian people. It is a battle for strategic political advantage and for access to Syria’s oil. All other explanations are lies.

___________________________________________