The murder of Gaddafi, the Libyan President by forces useful to NATO produced terrorism and not the democracy and peace that Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron promised.
At the time of the illegal criminal aggression by NATO against Libya, the promise made by Obama and the rest of the crew was that they were only providing “cover” for the rebel groups. The British, French and Americans had convinced the Russian and the Chinese that they should not veto the Security Council resolution on Libya because the intentions of the NATO European military alliance were to “level the playing field” and give the French sponsored and British supported rebels a change against the legal central government in Tripoli.
France was once an imperialist colonial empire that fought against Vietnamese independence in the 1950’s. The French had a very bloody war with Algeria in the 1960’s, trying to keep that North African nation occupied as a French colony.
The British colonial empire is well-known. It was subjugated a third of the world, keeping the Indian nation a colony until 1949. During the empire period the British were feared as a brutal colonial empire that used government forces to kill any nationalist’s who opposed British rulership. Remember, America fought two wars against British imperial control in 1775 and again in 1812. Britain also helped the Confederates during our civil war.
Ignoring both the French and British past as dominator of weaker counties, the USA under Barack Obama joined them in an unprovoked attack against the sovereign State of Libya itself a member of the United Nations. At the time the Libyan government of Gaddafi was recognized by 101 countries as the legal government. The attack, marketed as merely giving air cover to rebel groups, was factually illegal criminal aggression by the NATO military alliance. Such aggression had been condemned by the Nuremberg War trials as War Crimes and Crimes against humanity.
So what do we see today. We see Libya no more a democracy than it was under Gaddafi. Rather, the French sponsored and British supported ruling elite is a government not able to control various internal militias, it also cannot control terrorist groups such as the ones attacking the USA and Swedish embassy. We see that the thousands of refugees displaced to southern Europe have remained in those countries. And we see that the economy and standard of living among Libyan citizens has decreased.
All that was accomplished was to replaced a stable and legal government with a European puppet regime on the “dole” to France. We merely made matters in North Africa worse and invited increased turmoil and fostered more terrorism.
I note the inherent prejudice of the report, namely, that the reporter states that the Republicans refused to fund the government and then the reporter modifies the statement that “does not also repeal or delay the implementation of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform bill,…” the reporter also notes that the House majority is Republican while he does not note that the Senate majority is Democrat. Words are inportant and the word order used in a sentence influences the perceptions of the reader. The reporter does not state the fact that the House has passed four funding resolutions that will keep workers working and keep government open. All of house funding bills were rejected by the Senate. As the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid said, “…the bills passed in the House which do not fund Obamacare are dead on arrival (DOA) in the Senate.” Harry Reid is a Democrat. Yesterday, the House passed another funding bill which would keep open all agencies closed by the shutdown. However, because the house bill did not fund Obamacare, the Senate rejected it. The House is repeatedly funding the government and keeping it open. The Senate is repeatedly defunding the government and closing it. Hey, Obamacare is not functional yet. It is planned to go into effect but the15 thousand pages of regulations need review and modifications. History shows that taxes once inplemented and collected are never repealed. Let’s take more time with the health care overhaul. Let’s fund the government while we realistically approach this problem. Please remember that it took a lot of bribery in the Senate such as the Nebraska bribe, the Louisiana bribe and the threats against incumbent Representative to get the health care law passed. It also took Chief Justice John Robert’s extraordinary expansion, even rewrite of the law, to declare it constitutional. We the people should demand that we separate from the current budget the health care law with it’s massive taxes, fees, fines and exemptions. The health care law is too massive and too important to be lumped into normal congressional business. It needs to be treated bipartisan .
http://news.yahoo.com/us-blackmailing-russia-over-syria-lavrov-105610311.html This refrain by the USA is correctly criticized by the Russians. Since the days of Obama Arab Spring speech in Egypt, all we have seen in the Middle East is an onward march by Muslim extremists backs by the CIA and NATO and now he wants the UN to do it for him. From the beginning of his regime, Obama has played the Noble Peace prize while he has pursues wars in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Surprizing, he has left intact the hereditary monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Arab Emirates.
Oil in all of these places or ease for the transport of oil is the underlying corporate play. And Obama, who started at 900 thousands in personal wealth is approaching 12 millions. How does he get it. Through the “blind” trust set up for him by Warren Buffet, a frequent guest at the White House. Warren Buffet who does not want the pipeline because it hurts his profits from the Burlington Northern Railroad. Warren Buffet and friends who want to close coal nines in Kentucky and West Virginia, in favor of their oil and gas interests in Texas and the Dakotas.
At The Russia Foreign minister said, the Americans are fixated on Regime change. He says that all the former imperialist and colonial powers of England and France want is for regime change. All USA wants is regime change. How to get it? He says the three unholy partners say, use force. They want military intervention, bombs, missiles, troops on the ground under UN mandate. So it is the USA that cries and continues to cry, attack, attack. We are definitely the war mongers in this case.
Previous articles on this blog has enumerated the case in favor of Libyan ruler Gaddafi. Why, because he was the internationally recognized leader of the Libya, like the king of Saudi Arabia is. I made the case in favor of Mubarak. Why, because like the sultan of Arab Emirates, he was the UN recognized leader of his nation. I make the same case for Assad. Why, because if an international oil company wants to tap into the Syria oil, they must sign a contract with the leader of the Syrian people, Assad.
Some cynics will say this is politics Chicago style, because of Obama’s Chicago roots. I call it arrogance and gangsterism when the USA wants to go around the world and pick and choose what governments it will play with and which ones have to be changed before we will play. Oh, and leave your ball with us when you leave the same, Obama says, because we like YOUR ball and would rather play with it than with you.
In fairness to Obama, some will say that he is a novice playing in a big boys game. They will point to the long Imperial colonial history of both France and England. They will recall the bloody wars France fought in Vietnam and Algeria in order to force their imperial colonial will on the native people of those countries. They will recall that England and France were the colonial powers responsible for the boundaries that are the mid-east today- boundaries that favor English and French corporate interests at great cost to the average persons in those countries. They will tell you that where French and English people reside today in Africa, the locals are the servants and the white or half white elites are the rulers and beneficiaries of the local resources. So, they will tell you it is not big bad Obama but those nasty imperialists.
But Obama is more than willing to play along with the French and English bullies. Why, one can only wonder why the USA wants to join with them in order to advance their selfish corporate interests at the expense of the everyday citizens of those nations. It can only be that Obama talks the talk of peace, peace, but secretly pushes his friends to cry war, war. Sadly, the Russian Lavrov is again being shown that it is not only Hilary Clinton that lied to him, it is not only John Kerry who lied to him, it is the big boy in the white house who lied to him.
It is embarrassing, as a USA citizen to think that the world is seeing daily evidence that the USA cannot be trusted because its political leaders are liars.
This article is a prime and potent example of why we should not attack Syria. A missile, bomb or drone does not know the difference between the innocent and the guilty. The bomb does not stop halfway to the target because it senses that there are innocent children there. It just keeps on dropping until it blows up the target including the innocents who happen to be there. The USA cannot lower itself to the level of the terrorists.
Congress must not support the Obama administration and an over zealous navy. Sure, the Navy had a very small role in Afghanistan but they do not need to prove their value by attacking Syria from their ships. Americans value their Navy and no amount of brazen aggression by the USA administration is needed to make us value them more.
To Mc Cain, Linsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi and congressman Ted Cruz: Please stop your inane and insane posturing and calls for the USA military to participate in the wholesale killing , (can we say murder) of Syrians. I heard our congressional representatives saying that they know for sure that the government of Syria used Chemical weapons. Based on what? They based it upon the CIA intel presented to them by the Obama administration. This same administration came out today and said that it is an absolutely logical conclusion to assume that the government of Syria is responsible. So? Are we to bomb and kill Syrians based on assumptions and logical conclusions. Friends, we are talking about killing people!
I am embarrassed to refer my readers to the interview by V. Putin of Russia. He called for conclusive proof that 1. The government of Syria ordered the gas attack. 2. That the regular army of Syria actually released the chemicals. That is to me more democratic and reasonable. Can it be that a former communist and KGB official is more democratic than the President of the USA.
President Obama. Sir: you said “no “to your cabinet officials who counseled immediate and devastating attacks on Syria. You said “no” to those who advised you to go to war without Congressional approval. Now, Sir, please say “no” to the assumption that the government of Syria is responsible and stand down the navy. Withdraw our ships and stop CIA money payments and USA arms shipments to the Islamic rebels. And at the same time, put the full diplomatic weight of the USA behind an effort to convince our friends in Russia and China that we are believable and willing to cooperate and collaborate with them to end the violence in Syria without demanding the ouster of the President of that sovereign nation.
Riots are illegal. Looting is illegal. Shop lifting is illegal. No matter what civil rights excuse the LA protesters use, they are criminals. They should be arrested, arraigned and if guilty, convicted. It really is time for our nation to stop the phony excuse that these people are merely expressing themselves. Wal-Mart should take the photos that they have from the security cameras and sign legal complaints against the criminal rioters and looters. I don’t know if these people live in the neighborhood they destroyed. But the city should be real slow to clean up the mess. If they foul their nest, maybe they should be required to clean up their own mess. Hey, the law requires dog owners to pooper scoop. The same goes for the rioters.
This is the USA. We are a land of law. The man was accused, faced his accusers and the jury heard the testimony. They found him not guilty. That’s the law. Get used to it. We do not try our people by the mobs of New York who are out for a spree on a hot Sunday afternoon. Secondly, I seem to remember a man named OJ Simpson. I was convinced and still am convinced that he murdered two people. One was his wife whose throat he brutally slashed. The other was Ron who was merely an innocent bystander who fought his attacker and was brutally stabbed to death in an epic fight for survival. The murderer, who was covered in blood, got into his car and lead a police chase lasting hours. The trial of OJ was also very public and many people were upset with the verdict. However, they did not become mobs protesting in major cities. Like me, they accepted the law as the law and the verdict of the jury as the final result. However, personally, many of them still consider O J Simpson guilty of a double murder. Like I said, this is America. We are a land of law and the black people and the white people in the streets of our cities undermine that law and weaken our nation when they refuse to accept the voice of that law, namely the voices of the people on the jury.
One more comment, the lead article on the Internet tonight was, “Obama walks a tight rope as he responds to the Zimmerman case.” Why do the so-called journalists write like that? The President is a federal official. He is not supposed to comment on local murder cases, no matter if he thinks that Trayvon Martin looked like the son he and Michelle never had! Also, it is not a tight rope because the duty of the President is to uphold the law. Of course, maybe, President Obama does not like the law. He constantly talks about circumventing the Congress and doing things by presidential directive and without the consent of the Congress. He has even said that the constitution is an outdated document that often gets in the way of justice and progress. Yet, he also swore his Presidential oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US. That oath is a sacred obligation and not merely words repeated for the camera. So, no tightrope here. President Obama is obligated to respect the law and encourage the people to respect the law.
How many people were murdered during the past several months? How many were white? How many were black? How many had the case followed by the national media? How many did Diane Sawyer present to her audience? How many did Obama know about, comment upon, or even care about? Yes, this case was sad. Yes, we all wish it had never happened? Yes, it was preventable. But let’s get some perspective here. Last week on a 700 mile drive on our Interstate highway system, I passed at least a dozen markers where young people died in car accidents? Many were under the age of twenty-five. The main cause was not drugs, or alcohol. The main cause was texting and over tiredness. Does any body care. Do the protestors in Times Square care? I think not. Deaths on our highways are routine and many people are suggesting the markers be taken down because they upset us.
How many soldiers died during the last year in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do the protestors in NYC care? Do they even know? Does the New York Times ever report the statistics or the photos of the flag drapped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base? Does President Obama ever comment on those deaths? Does he know? Does he care?
One wonders if America is worthy of itself! One wonders why our police, firefighters and first responders even try to help a nation that seems on a course for self-destruction! One wonders why soldiers should continue to carry out national military policy when the nation does not care and the President does not care! Maybe America is not worthy of itself?
From this writers viewpoint, if America is torn apart by hate mongers, it only has itself to blame. If we don’t know better, we should.
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.
.
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
‘In announcing his gun control proposals, President Obama said that he was not restricting Second Amendment rights, but allowing other constitutional rights to flourish.’For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”
The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.
The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”
Who threatens American society most: law-abiding citizens or criminals? (Matt Rourke/AP)
This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.
The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.
Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.
Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.
But President Obama, it seems, does.
He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.
For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.
Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?
A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.
An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.
These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?
My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.
Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”
What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?
Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.
If President Obama determines a need to defend his family, why can’t we defend our own? (Jonathan Ernst, Reuters/Landov)
Good.
We need more armed citizens in the schools.
Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?
Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?
Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.
Why do I specify concealed carry? As if the weapons are concealed, any potential malefactor must assume that anyone on the premises he means to disrupt may be armed—a deterrent of even attempted violence.
Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?
Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding?
The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.
Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.
But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.
President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?
It is beyond amazing that suddenly we have one lower level Republican IRS agent who claims that he and he alone is totally and completely responsible for the whole IRS scandal and Rep. Cummings tells the nation that alright, we finally found this lone Republican guy and all the scandal is wrapped up. So he thinks we should just stop immediately, put this whole sorry scandal in a box and shelve it. Amazing, that Democrats could find this lone Republican to take the sole blame. Amazing, that the Democrats always knew that it was a conservative Republican who was to blame. Amazing, that this relatively low level IRS employee should think of himself so highly as to believe that he and he alone is the center of the IRS scandal.
This writer believes that Rep. Cummings has found his knave and now he wants everybody to just move on. It reminds me of Hiliary who said concerning Benghazi that ” Who cares now, they are dead, the deed is done, so let’s move on.”
It seems that the Democrat motto is that No one is ever to be held accountable except a Republican.
It is actually insulting that our Democrat congressmen think so little of the citizens as to dismiss our intelligence with “proof” of the bogey man under the bed.
If all of us can be rational for a minute, then we need to thank Russia for world peace. The world peace prize needs to go to Vladimir Putin not Obama. It was the French and the British who tricked NATO and the UN into forcing the legal Libya government of Gaddafi to be overthrown. Not without a lot of help from Obama!! Why? Who really knows? But the oil of Libya is important to Britain and France. And YES, (capitals intended) we really do need to remember the very dark Imperialist past of France and Britain. It seems that their enslaving and mercantilist past is very much a present force in their politics.
The whole idea of the mid eastern Caliphate is a Muslim Brotherhood idea and is backed by the faction called Al Qaeda and maybe, in some convoluted way, by the Saudi Wahabi Islamic sect. It also seems to play well with France and Britain. But such a Caliphate is not in the best interests of Russia and the United States. On this issue the Obama administration is blinded by President Obama’s Muslim background and by the Liberal Eastern Academic establishment’s idea that such a Caliphate is a natural outcome of geopolitical reality. WRONG!!!
The overthrow of the legal governments of Libya and Egypt are directly related to the wrongly informed politics of Britain, France and the USA. ALLOW ME to be very clear. I sincerely and honestly believe in the self determination of the future of these nation States. However, it may be that the self-determination of these nation States will be decided by their very unique ethnic, religious and cultural demographics and not be decided by Western European and USA ideas about how and what and why!! What should such self determination reflect? Let the peoples of the Arab and non-Arab Middle Eastern (SW Asia) determine their own fate without any involvement of the former Imperialist France and Britain and without the ill informed interference of Obama.
If the Sunni can win on their own, so be it. If the Shiites can win on their own, so be it. If the Wahabi sect can win, or the Taliban, or the Al Qaeda, the Ala alawhits, so be it!!
The Western European powers of former Imperialist nations like Belgium, France and Britain need to stay out.
That is the message that Vladimir Putin is sending out, not only to the West but also to the rebels in every region. Namely, if you really have popular support and if you really represent the regional self interests of the people in your area, then we the Russians, ARE REAdY AND WILLING TO DEAL WITH YOUR SUCCESS. However, if you are merely the puppets of the French, British, Belgian, znd USA Imperialist powers of the New World Order, then we, the Russians, and joined by our Chinese counterparts, we stand against you’
Friends, the Russians and the Chinese are right. Stay out of these regional, cultural, Muslim conflicts. Align yourself with the unfettered winner and all will be well with the world.
Progressive Politics 