But first, imagine it is 1963 and you walk outside to see your
neighbor, Martin, leaving hastily on his way to do something. The speed of his leaving makes even the
man across the street curious enough to ask.
"Martin, where are you running off to again?"
Dr. King turns to the man as his key unlocks the car door, and says, "Friend, look around you, can't you
see the work that needs to be done?...and if so, how about coming along with me?"
"Ah, there you go again Martin," replies the man, "you worry too much about politics and the
like. Things are going to workout...I mean, don't you watch television?...they say it all the time. Anyway, you are too radical
for me...reading, truth searching, voting...let somebody else do all that work for rights and
freedoms. Besides, doesn't your Bible teach that we are in the "end times," and things are
like this because it's the way it's suppose to be?...You know, prophecy and all that."
Suddenly the phone rings indoors, for the man who had been speaking, and he announces. "Oh well, excuse me
Rev, some of us have a life...later my brothers." And he trots off as Dr. King happens to look your way.
"Excuse me friend, I notice you standing there...no doubt you heard the conversation? Listen,"
he opens the car door, "I am on my way to talk to a few folks gathered at the Lincoln
Memorial...would you like to join us?" Click here to be
inspired, and to see how things turned out.
What would your response have been to M.L.K Jr? What
if Dr. King listened to types like the man across the street? Has some convenient distraction, carried you away
from getting involved in the fate of your society? For the clarion call continues today, arguably in a time
where the situation is much worse than it was even then. If you are not convinced that it is, I would strongly
suggest that you do your best efforts to, "Look Into It."
A special welcome if you've come by this site
Genocide or Kings and Government on
"Biblical And Natural Law Principles Regarding War"
WAR IS A RACKET
ESSENTIAL VIDEO PLEASE SHARE!
This message was preached by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Sunday, August 13, 2017 during the
service at Liberty Fellowship. To purchase a copy of this message or to support the fellowship please visit
"Donald Trump does NOT have
authority from God to do anything he wants regarding assassination and war. Not only does Trump not have
authority from God to fight premature, foolish, and unjust wars, he doesn’t have authority from the Supreme
Law of the United States to fight such wars: the Constitution of the United States.
Our President is not a king; he is not an emperor; he is not a monarch. Only the people’s
representatives in Congress can lawfully declare war. Any war fought outside the jurisdictional authority of
the U.S. Constitution is an illegal war. Tragically, America has not fought a constitutional war since World
War II. And our spineless congressmen (from both parties) have allowed presidents--left and right--to get
away with it." An Excerpt From The Must-Read Article :
HOW WILL YOU BE REMEMBERED DURING THESE TREACHEROUS TIMES? ARE YOU
FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND JUSTICE?...THINK ABOUT IT, CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A PATRIOT?
Art of WAR"
Portraits of Racketeering & Terrorism by
The U.S. Empire and Its Allies
A Pact with the
How SA Funded Global
Uncovering Saudi Arabia
The War You Don't
John Pilger: Palestine Is Still The Issue
- Real Stories -
Abby Martin "Exposes" Zionism &
* All 12 videos are essential, please watch and share!
-- Dwight David Eisenhower --
"Every gun that is made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the
sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy
bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a
town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete
pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer
with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be
found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the
cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may
"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?"
Why does the US have 800 military
bases around the world?
David Vine: American Bases Around The World
Striking Example of How The US Is Enslaved To The Military Industrial
The US has about 800 military bases in other countries, according to David Vine
in his forthcoming book Base Nation. And it costs a lot of money to keep them open. Why are
they there in the first place?
Chalmers Johnson : The Sorrows of
Published on Nov 22, 2010
Interview with Chalmers Johnson author of "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism,
Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" given February 12, 2004 in Seattle.
David Vine is the author of the landmark book, Base Nation, on US military
bases around the world. This is an eye-opening, factual account based on years of research.
David explains how these bases do not serve America's security or best interests, rather they
anger and cause many in these occupied countries to rise up and demand that America go home. He
also points out how the costs to maintain these bases along with hundreds of thousands of US
troops and their families is causing our needs at home to be neglected.
Trump says the F-35 is too expensive and he's not wrong. But this is what he's
The Bases Are Loaded: US Permanent Military Presence in
Published on Jun 20, 2007
Will the U.S. ever leave Iraq? Official policy promises an eventual departure,
while warning of the dire consequences of a "premature" withdrawal. But while Washington
equivocates, facts on the ground tell another story. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, and
author Chalmers Johnson, are discovering that military bases in Iraq are being consolidated
from over a hundred to a handful of "megabases" with lavish amenities. Much of what is taking
place is obscured by denials and quibbles over the definition of "permanent." The Bases Are
Loaded covers a wide range of topics. Gary Hart, James Goldsborough, Nadia Keilani, Raed
Jarrar, Bruce Finley Kam Zarrabi and Mark Rudd all add their observations about the extent and
purpose of the bases in Iraq.
How often do we hear the claim that American troops “defend our
freedoms”? The claim is made often by U.S. officials and is echoed far and wide across the land by television
commentators, newspaper columnists, public-school teachers, and many others. It's even a common assertion that
emanates on Sundays from many church pulpits.
Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In fact, the
situation is the exact opposite — the troops serve as the primary instrument by which both our freedoms and
well-being are threatened.
Let's examine the three potential threats to our
freedoms and the role that the troops play in them:
Every competent military analyst would tell us
that the threat of a foreign invasion and conquest of America is nonexistent. No nation has the military
capability of invading and conquering the United States. Not China, not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not
Syria. Not anyone. To invade the United States with sufficient forces to conquer and “pacify” the entire nation
would take millions of foreign troops and tens of thousands of ships and planes to transport them across the
Atlantic or Pacific ocean. No foreign nation has such resources or military capabilities and no nation will
have them for the foreseeable future.
After all, think about it: the U.S. army, the most
powerful military force in all of history, has not been able to fully conquer such a small country as Iraq
because of the level of domestic resistance to a foreign invasion. Imagine the level of military forces that
would be needed to conquer and “pacify” a country as large and well-armed as the United
I repeat: No foreign nation has the military
capability to invade the United States, conquer our country, subjugate our people, and take away our freedoms.
Therefore, the troops are not needed to protect our freedoms from this nonexistent threat.
Despite widespread fears to the contrary, there is
no possibility that terrorists will conquer the United States, take over the government, and take away our
freedoms. At most, they are able to kill thousands of people, with, say, suicide bombs but they lack the
military forces to subjugate the entire nation or any part of it.
Equally important, while the troops claim
that they are protecting us from “the terrorists,” it is the troops themselves — or, more precisely, the
presidential orders they have loyally carried out — that have engendered the very terrorist threats against
which the troops say they are now needed to protect us.
Think back to 1989 and the years following — when
the Berlin Wall fell, East and West Germany were united, Soviet troops withdrew from Eastern Europe, and the
Soviet Union was dismantled. The Pentagon didn't know what to do. Unexpectedly, its 50-year-old “official
enemy” was gone. (The Soviet Union had previously been America's “ally” that had “liberated” Eastern Europe
from Nazi Germany.) With the fall of the Soviet empire (and, actually, before the fall), the obvious question
arose: Why should the United States continue to have an enormous standing army and spend billions of dollars in
taxpayer money to keep it in existence?
The Pentagon was in desperate search for a new
mission. “We can be a big help in the war on drugs,” the Pentagon said. To prove it, U.S. military forces
evenshot to death 18-year-old American citizen Esequiel Hernandez in 1997, as he tended his goats
along the U.S.-Mexican border. “We'll help American businesses compete in the world.” “We'll readjust NATO's
mission to protect Europe from non-Soviet threats.” “We'll protect us from an unsafe
Then along came the Pentagon's old ally, Saddam
Hussein, to whom the United States had evenentrusted weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranian people, and gave America's standing army a new raison
d'être. Invading Kuwait over an oil-drilling dispute, Saddam provided the Pentagon with a new official
enemy, one that would last for more than 10 continuous years.
Obeying presidential orders to attack Iraq
in 1991, without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the troops ended up killing
tens of thousands of Iraqis. Obeying Pentagon orders to attack Iraq's water and sewage facilities, the troops
accomplished exactly whatPentagon planners had
anticipated — spreading deadly infections and
disease among the Iraqi people. Continuing to obey presidential orders in the years that followed, the
troops enforced what was possibly the mostbrutal embargo in
history, which ended up contributing to the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, deaths that U.S. officials said were
“worth it.” Obeying presidential orders, the troops enforced
theillegal “no-fly zones” over Iraq, which killed even more Iraqis,including children. Obeying presidential orders, the troops established themselves on Islamic holy
lands with full knowledge of the anger and resentment that that would produce among devout Muslims. Obeying
presidential orders, the troops invaded and occupied Iraq without the constitutionally required
congressional declaration of war, killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis — that is, people
whose worst “crime” was to resist the unlawful invasion of their homeland by a foreign
All that death and destruction — both pre-9/11 and
post-9/11 — have given rise to terrible anger and hatred against the United States, which inspired the pre-9/11
attacks, such as the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the
the attacks on overseas U.S. embassies, the 9/11 attacks, and the terrorist threats our nation faces
Through it all, the Pentagon simply echoed the
claims of the president — that all the death and destruction and humiliation that the U.S. government had
wreaked on people in the Middle East, as well as its unconditional military and financial foreign aid to the
Israeli government, had not engendered any adverse feelings in the Middle East against the United States.
Instead, the president and the Pentagon claimed, the problem was that the terrorists simply hated America for
its “freedom and values.”
If the American people had dismantled the
nation's standing army when the Soviet empire was dismantled, the federal government would have lacked the
military means to meddle and intervene in the Middle East with unconstitutional military operations, sanctions,
no-fly zones, bases, invasions, and occupations. Therefore, there never would have been the terrorists attacks
against the United States and a “war on terrorism” for the troops to fight, not to mention the USA PATRIOT Act, secret search warrants and secret courts,
thePadilla doctrine, and other federal infringements on our rights and
Finally, but certainly important, despite being
the most powerful standing army in the world, the U.S. troops were not even able to protect Americans from
terrorist acts, as best evidenced by two terrorist attacks on the same target — the World Trade Center, first
in 1993 and then again in 2001.
[Article Continued Below]
US War Costs 3 Times Higher
Than Pentagon Estimates - Report
RT Published on Nov 13, 2017
It's been calculated that - by the end of this year -
the US will have spent a total of 5-point-6-trillion dollars on wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. That's triple what the Pentagon says it's
"...If the American people knew about this
they'd say, 'enough of this militarism!'"
-- Ron Paul --
The Real Cost Of War:
Three Times More Than The Government Admits
Streamed live 5 hours ago
According to a new study by Brown University's Watson Institute, the real cost of the US wars since 9/11 is
three times the Pentagon's estimate. Some $5.6 trillion have been spent on the endless global war. The total
costs of 16 years of war are even higher, and they extend beyond just finance.
would like to think that we could win the moral argument against the global military empire,
but we have to be realistic. And I think the Watson Institute does a great service, by
simply breaking it down into financial terms.”
Americans need to understand that their pockets are
being picked by very wealthy connected people, and it’s not benefiting them. So I think
that if middle America can understand the real costs to their future, their children’s future,
their financial future of this military empire, I think we might have a chance of really
winning that argument.”
-- Daniel McAdams --
WAR IS A RACKET
3. The federal
As our Founding Fathers understood so well, the
primary threat to our freedom lies with our own government. That's in fact why we have the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights — to protect us and our freedoms from federal officials. If the federal government did not
constitute such an enormous threat to our freedoms, there would be no reason to have the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights.
Yet, what is the primary means by which a
government takes away the freedoms of its citizenry? Our American ancestors gave us the answer: its military
forces. That is in fact why many of our Founding Fathers opposed a standing, professional military force in
America — they knew not only that such a force would be used to involve the nation in costly, senseless, and
destructive wars abroad but also that government officials would inevitably use the troops to ensure a
compliant and obedient citizenry at home.
Consider the words of James
A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have
been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a
war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people.
Here's how Patrick Henry put it:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute
the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished?
Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined
Would U.S. troops obey presidential orders to
deploy against the American people and take away our freedoms?
There is no doubt about it. Of course they would,
especially if the president told them that our “freedom and national security” depended on it, which he
As I suggested in my article,
“The Troops Don't Support the
Constitution,” in the United States the loyalty of
the troops is to the president as their supreme commander of chief, not to the Constitution. Recent evidence
of this point, as I observed in my article, was the willingness of the troops to obey presidential orders to
deploy to Iraq despite the fact that the president had failed to secure the constitutionally required
congressional declaration of war.
What if the president ordered the troops to deploy
across the United States and to round up “terrorists” and incarcerate them in military camps, both here and in
Cuba? Again, there can be no doubt that most of the troops would willingly obey the president's orders,
especially in the middle of a “crisis” or “emergency” because they view themselves as professional soldiers
whose job is to serve the president and not to question why but simply to do or die.
Another good example of the allegiance that the
troops have toward the president involves the case of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. Labeling Padilla a
“terrorist,” the president ordered the troops to take him into military custody, deny him access to an
attorney, and punish him without a trial and due process of law. The troops obeyed without question. Do you
know any troops who have publicly protested the Padilla incarceration or who have resigned from the army in
protest? How many have publicly announced, “I refuse to participate in the Padilla incarceration because I took
an oath to support and defend the Constitution”?
Indeed, how many of the troops resigned in
protest at the president's orders to set up a prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, knowing that the reason he
and the Pentagon chose Cuba, rather than the United States, was precisely toavoid the constraints of the Constitution?
If the troops didn't protest with respect to Iraq
or Padilla or Gitmo, what is the likelihood they would protest when their commander in chief ordered them to
arrest 100 other Americans “terrorists,” or 1,000?
I repeat: The troops, from the Pentagon on down,
would not disobey orders of the president to disarm and arrest American “terrorists,” especially in the midst
of a “crisis” or “emergency.”
And even if some were to protest, they would be
quickly shunted aside (probably punished as well) and replaced with those troops whose allegiance and loyalty
to the president would be unquestioned.
Now it's true that soldiers are supposed to
disobey unlawful orders, but as a practical matter most of the troops are not going to overrule the judgment of
their commander in chief as to what is legal or not. After all, how many troops involved in the torture and
sex-abuse scandal refused to participate in the wrongdoing, especially since they thought that it was approved
by the higher-ups? Again, how many refused orders to deploy to Iraq despite the fact that there was no
constitutionally required congressional declaration of war?
Imagine that the president issues the following
grave announcement on national television during prime time: “Our nation has come under another terrorist
attack. Our freedoms and our national security are at stake. I have issued orders to the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to immediately take into custody some 1,000 American terrorists who have been identified by the FBI as having
conspired to commit this dastardly attack or who have given aid and comfort to the enemy. I have also ordered
the JCS to take all necessary steps to temporarily confiscate weapons in the areas where these terrorists are
believed to be hiding. These weapons will be returned to the owners once the terrorist threat has subsided. I
am calling on all Americans to support the troops in these endeavors, just as you are supporting them in their
fight against terrorism in Iraq. We will survive. We will prevail. God bless America.”
Now ask yourself: How many of the troops would
disobey the orders of the president given those circumstances, especially if panicked and terrified Americans
and the mainstream press were endorsing his martial-law orders?
The answer: Almost none would disobey. They would
not consider it their job to determine the constitutionality of the president's orders. They would leave that
for the courts to decide. Their professional allegiance and loyalty to their supreme commander in chief would
trump all other considerations, including their oath to “support and defend the
Therefore, if the federal government is the
primary threat to our freedom, then so are the troops: their unswerving loyalty to their commander in chief
makes them the primary instrument by which the federal government is able to destroy or infringe the rights and
freedoms of the citizenry.
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in
which the president wields, albeit unconstitutionally, the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war
against another nation — and that he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power.
President Bush made his position clear prior to his invasion of Iraq, when he emphasized that while he welcomed
the support of Congress in the event he decided to wage war on Iraq, he didn't need its approval. His position
was reconfirmed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whoinformed Congress on October 19, 2005, that the commander in chief's position was that he did not need
the consent of Congress to send the nation into another war, this time against Syria.
No one can deny that we now live in a nation in
which the president claims the omnipotent power to jail and punish any American citizen whom the president
labels a “terrorist,” denying him due process of law, trial by jury, and other constitutional guarantees — and
that he has the means — a loyal and obedient army — to exercise that power.
Thus, as a practical matter the troops
serve not as a defender of our freedoms but instead simply as a loyal and obedient personal army of the
president, ready and prepared to serve him and obey his commands. It is an army that stands ready to obey the
president's orders to deploy to any country in the world for any reason he deems fit and attack, kill, and maim
any “terrorist” who dares to resist the U.S. invasion of his own country. It is also an army that stands ready
to obey the president's orders to take into custody any American whom the commander in chief deems a
“terrorist” and to punish him accordingly.
There is one — and only one — solution to
this threat to our freedoms and well-being: for the American people to heed the warning of our Founding Fathers
against standing armies before it is too late, and to do what should have been done at least 15 years ago:
dismantle the U.S. military empire, close all overseas bases, and bring all the troops home, discharging them
into the private sector, where they would effectively become “citizen-soldiers” — well-trained citizens
prepared to rally to the defense of our nation in the unlikely event of a foreign invasion of our country. And
for the American people to heed the warning ofPresident Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex, by shutting down the Pentagon's
enormous domestic military empire, closing domestic bases, and discharging those troops into the private
“Oh, my gosh, if we did all that, how
would our freedoms be protected?”
Protected from what? Again, there is no
threat of a foreign invasion. And again, terrorism is not a threat to our freedom. Moreover, dismantling the
standing army would remove the primary means by which presidents have succeeded in engendering so much anger
and hatred against our nation — anger and hatred that in turn have given rise to the threat of terrorism
against our nation. And finally, the worst threat to our freedom is our own government, and by dismantling the
standing army we would reduce that threat significantly.
What would happen if a foreign nation ever began
constructing thousands of ships and planes and mobilizing millions of people to invade the United States? The
answer to that threat was also provided by our Founding Fathers: the foreign nation in question would be met by
a nation of free well-armed citizens who would be prepared and willing to rally quickly to oppose any invasion
and conquest of our nation. Invading a United States filled with well-trained, free men and women would be much
like invading Switzerland — like swallowing a porcupine. Don't forget that the men and women who currently
serve in the U.S. armed services wouldn't disappear; instead they would join the rest of us as
citizen-soldiers, people whose fighting skills could be depended on in the unlikely event our nation were ever
threatened by invasion by a foreign power.
We should also keep in mind the tremendous
economic prosperity that would result from the dismantling of America's enormous standing army. Not only would
all the taxpayer money that is being used to fund the standing army be left in the hands of the citizenry for
savings and capital, but all those new people in the private sector would be producing as well, instead of
living off the IRS-provided fruits of other people's earnings. Thus, the economic effect would be doubly
positive, and, while weakening the federal government, it would make our nation
What about foreign monsters, tyrants, oppressors,
and conquerors? The answer to that was also provided by our Founding Fathers: Our government would no longer go
abroadin search of monsters to destroy, but foreigners suffering oppression and tyranny would know that there would always be at
least one nation that would accept them — the United States of America. Rather than police the world,
Americans would focus on producing the freest and most prosperous society in history as a model for the
world and to which those who escaped tyranny and oppression could freely come.
Of course, those Americans who would nonetheless
wish to leave their families and jobs to help oppressed people overseas would still be free to do
We should also bear in mind
theperverse results of the federal government's military empire and overseas interventions.
World War I brought World War II, which brought the Soviet communist occupation of Eastern Europe, which
brought the Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, along with an enormous standing army in our
country. The Middle East interventions and meddling have brought us terrorism, the war on terrorism, the USA
PATRIOT Act, the Padilla doctrine, military torture and sex abuse, and CIA kidnappings and “renditions” to
foreign countries for the purpose of proxy torture.
By their fruits, you shall know
One vision — the vision ofmilitarism andempire — will bring
America more violence, death, destruction, impoverishment, and loss of freedom. The other vision — the
vision of a limited-government, constitutional republic with citizen-soldiers — would put our nation back on
the right road of peace, prosperity, harmony, and freedom.
Big Military Spending Boost Threatens Our Economy and
by Ron Paul
(Excerpt From The Article)
...Unfortunately President Trump seems
to be incapable of understanding that it is US intervention and occupation of foreign countries that creates
instability and feeds terrorism. Continuing to do the same thing for more than 17 years – more US bombs to
“stabilize” the Middle East – and expecting different results is hardly a sensible foreign policy. It is
insanity. Until he realizes that our military empire is the source of rather than the solution to our problems,
we will continue to wildly spend on our military empire until the dollar collapses and we are brought to our
knees. Then what?
!!! Humanitarian Crisis In
Yemen Is Worst In The World !!!
– Oxfam report -
As of March 27, 2017 According to RT Report :
At least 10,000 people killed from
coalition air strikes
100 civilians killed in 1 month according to the
More than 3MILLION Yemenis have been
displaced from their homes
Oxfam describes the humanitarian
situation as the worst on the planet
An estimated 17MILLION People lack
access to food
7MILLION are 1 step away from
Published on Mar 27, 2017
Thousands of protesters in Yemen have vented their anger at the relentless bombing by the Saudi-led coalition,
as the conflict in their country rages on. The demonstration coincided with the 2nd anniversary of the Saudi
intervention... RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
Infowars Stop Your Warmongering and Help The People of
Alex Jones, you shouldn't claim
to care about Humanity and the Constitution when you won't report on how both are being torn asunder in Illegal
"This support to the
Saudi-UAE effort to wage this war in Yemen, though, is not legitimate. It's illegal. It was started by
the Obama administration andcontinued and emphasized by the Trump
administration. It's illegal. It's brutal. "
Concurrent Resolution 81 (H.Con.Res.81) is sponsored by Representatives, Ro Khanna
(D-Calif.), Walter Jones (R-NC), Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), Thomas Massie (R-KY), and 39 other lawmakers. The
resolution commands an end to U.S. participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
The sponsors of this resolution contend that such participation, which began in March 2015, was never
authorized under the War Powers Act of 1973. Per the War Powers Act, any congressman can pose a legal challenge
and is guaranteed a floor vote on the issue. This is known as a
On November 1st, the night before the vote was scheduled to take place, House leadership swiftly pushed
through a Rules Committee vote, denying the resolution’s privileged status. Thus, preventing the
guaranteed floor vote.
What was their justification? Apparently, the House Rules Committee feels that the war in Yemen has yet to
‘rise to a level’ where the War Powers Act is applicable.
After preventing the vote on H.Con.Res.81, the House Leadership has said it shall permit a ‘compromise’
resolution on the war in Yemen. The debate, scheduled for the week of November 13th, will discuss the legality
of U.S. involvement in the war. The vote will be non-binding.
Five peace activist groups, heavily engaged in promoting the resolution, said just after the Rules Committee
“We remind the House leadership that under the War Powers Resolution of 1973,
“‘introduction of United States Armed Forces ’includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to
command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of
any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged…’
U.S. refueling of Saudi-UAE planes bombing Houthi targets in Yemen meets that definition.’”
Therefore the War Powers Act, clearly applies to the war on Yemen.
The House leadership is lying to the American people, supporting the continuation of the world’s worst
humanitarian crisis, violating the War Powers Act, and attempting to prevent Congress from stopping yet another
illegal and unconstitutional war.
Conservatively, since the beginning of 2017, at least 10,000 people have been killed in this war. The heroic
and indispensable Yemeni journalist Nasser Arrabyee has said
the toll could be as high as 60,000 deaths.
The Saudis are ruthlessly bombarding the Yemenis and their civilian infrastructure. The coalition wants to
cripple the people of Yemen to the point of submission. Their end goal is to force Yemen’s civilians to stop
supporting the northern tribesmen if only to alleviate their suffering.
U.S. involvement is most critical to the Saudi effort in this war. The U.S. military is training Saudi
Arabian forces. The U.S. is refueling the coalition’s warplanes not just in the air with tanker sorties, but
also on its bases peppered throughout the region.
As of February, according to an article written by Oriana Pawlyk for Military.com:
“Saudi Arabian coalition jets bombing Houthi rebel sites in Yemen increasingly turn to U.S. Air Force tankers for refueling support almost two years
after the conflict began. Since April 2015, the Air Force has logged 1,778 tanker sorties for the operation,
Air Forces Central Command spokeswoman Capt. Kathleen Atanasoff told Military.com on Tuesday. That includes
1,069 over the past year, an increase of 360, or 50 percent, from the 709 in
the previous period.‘These operations
are ongoing, with aircraft refueling occurring daily,’ Atanasoff said in an email. The service’s tankers such
as KC- 135 Stratotankers and
KC-10 Extenders participated in 7,564
refueling ‘events’ with coalition aircraft, with ‘about 54 million pounds of fuel off-loaded in support of
Saudi operations in Yemen,’ Atanasoff said.”
Donald Trump, doing his best Barack Obama impression, has been more than happy to sell the Saudis hundreds
of billions of dollars worth of weapons to continue their genocide. These include planes, ships, rockets,
precision-guided bombs, cluster bombs, etc. American defense contractors, particularly Lockheed Martin and
Boeing, are likewise more than happy to rake in their handsome profits from Yemen’s destruction. With Jared
Kushner playing the role of matchmaker for Mohammed bin Salman and Marillyn A. Hewson (CEO of Lockheed), the
profits will surely escalate.
However, the Saudis have another powerful ally in this war, al Qaeda. This certainly makes the
upcoming debate on Yemen a great opportunity for the House to finally get around to discussing the legality of
high treason. Or more specifically, fighting another war for al Qaeda.
In addition to the coalition’s sadistic air campaign, Yemini civilians are threatened and attacked on the
ground day in and day out by Sudanese mercenaries, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and a local
Islamic State affiliate. All of whom support the coalition.
In an article published in
The Hill, Gareth Porter and retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s
Chief of Staff) said:
“U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials have regarded AQAP as even more of a foreign terrorist threat
to the United States than ISIS. It mounted efforts to bring down U.S. airlines three times between 2009 and
2012, and nearly succeeded twice. But the Saudi/UAE war in Yemen has made them the most powerful indigenous
armed group in southern Yemen, with more money, arms and territorial control than ever before. The Saudi-led
coalition and the forces of the Saudi backed former regime have
allied openly with AQAP and even fought alongside them. As a result of the war AQAP is now poised for
the first time to compete for national power in Yemen.”
See the map below of the military situation in Yemen as of this July for an idea of just how much territory
AQAP has consolidated. The areas shaded white are controlled by AQAP, the pink areas are controlled by
Hadi-loyal forces, and the green areas are controlled by the Houthi/Saleh alliance:
This is further evidence that U.S. involvement in the Saudi war is illegal. When asked for a
justification for U.S. involvement in the Saudi/UAE war, both Barrack Obama and Donald Trump’s administrations
have cited the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). That AUMF permits military action only
against those entities who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. In other words, military action is only permitted
against al Qaeda. Yet, this war is being fought on behalf of al Qaeda against their
enemies, the Houthis.
Indeed, Asher Orkaby made the point in Foreign Affairs that, “far from being aligned with extremists, the
Houthi movement has repeatedly clashed with the Islamic State and AQAP” So, in addition to the fact that this
war was never authorized under the War Powers Act, it is also clearly not covered under the
Since the Obama administration, this is at least the third major conflict wherein the U.S. has found itself
aligned with, fighting along side, arming, and/or supporting al Qaeda. This was official policy notably during
the regime change operation in Libya and in the failed regime change operation in Syria. It is very important
to note that if things had gone to plan in Syria, al Qaeda would have almost certainly taken Damascus.
Neoconservatives are now calling for a new AUMF to explicitly define ‘the enemy’ more broadly as proponents
of so called, ‘radical Islam’. The ‘radical Islam’ handle is a red herring callously promoted by the fake news
establishment. It is meant to dumb down and obscure the realities of these conflicts for domestic audiences.
The cynical neoconservatives are pleased to have Americans view all Arabs and Muslims as one homogenous and
terrifying collective. Most Americans are designedly oblivious to the differences between Sunnis, Shiites, and
other branches of Islam. It is in the interests of the War Party for American voters to see such radically
opposed groups as Daesh and Hezbollah as cut from the same cloth. This is obviously done in order to prevent
rational discussion of these conflicts from ever taking place. For if the American people were well informed of
the consequences of U.S. policy abroad, especially in the Middle East, they would probably not even passively
support their regime’s policies.
In 2013, popular sentiment from people of all political stripes helped to prevent Obama’s would have been
Iraq-style invasion of Syria. I believe one of the primary reasons for this was the effectiveness of the famous
‘I will not fight for al Qaeda in Syria’ social media campaign undertaken by active military personnel.
Americans do not want to support and subsidize al Qaeda in Syria, Libya, Yemen, or anywhere else for that
matter. The reason these horrific policies persist is not the peoples’ apathy, it’s their ignorance.
This is a particularly indefensible war, even by U.S standards. If they choose to, this is a war the
American people can end. The establishment is certainly not comfortable publicly debating and defending their
Yemen policy. Exposing the realities of this conflict and ending the war in Yemen could trigger an anti-war
domino effect. Not since the Vietnam War has there been more fertile soil for an American anti-war
Please continue to call your Congressmen and women and tell them to vote against the war on November 13th.
Give them some good talking points for the debate. Please share, retweet posts from Yemenis on the ground, post
news items, write blog posts, write articles, and speak your mind about the war in Yemen on social media. Do
not be afraid to talk about the U.S.-Saudi/AQAP alliance. We have the truth on our side.
"They're killing lots of
people. By the indirection of their actions, they're killing potentially half a billion people over
time.The greatest humanitarian
tragedy since World War II."
-- Col. Larry Wilkerson --
Most of Congress "Likes War" and
OpposesEnding US Support for Saudi War in
Published on Nov 6, 2017
Several members of Congress have introduced legislation to invoke the War Powers Act with an
aim to shut down US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, but the resolution will not pass because the vast
majority in Congress doesn't oppose war explains Col. Larry Wilkerson
SHARMINI PERIES: It's the Real News Network. I'm
Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. In October, Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat from California,
Thomas Massie, Republican from Kentucky, Mark Pocan, Democrat from Wisconsin and Walter Jones, Republican from
North Carolina introduced a bipartisan resolution to stop the U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia in its
war against the Houthis in Yemen. This bill has the support of 34 other lawmakers who are willing to invoke the
War Powers Act, where Congress can swiftly terminate the U.S. military assistance for Saudi Arabia's war in
Yemen. But some congressional representatives on both sides of the House are reluctant to do so and to
end the war that the UN says is the worst humanitarian disaster of the 21st century. The UN is expressing
concern at the Saudi led coalition's closing of two airports, seaports, and land crossings in Yemen, warning
that this may hamper the delivery of vitally needed humanitarian aid to the Yemeni people where 14.5 million
are cut off from access to clean water and sanitation.
There are some 200,000 people suffering from cholera outbreak and over 1,300 of them
have already died where a quarter of them were children. Who in Congress might be objecting to stopping this
war and why? Let's find out from Colonel Larry Wilkerson. Larry is a retired U.S. colonel and
former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, now a distinguished professor at the College of
William and Mary. Larry, good to have you with us.
LARRY WILKERSON Good to be with you, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, you've been on the Hill working on this effort. Why don't you tell us
about the debates that's going on and the debate that's not going on. From what I understand, the bill will
pass on but no debate will be taking place in the House, but mostly who is reluctant to pass this bill?
LARRY WILKERSON: I think probably Democrats and Republicans
alike, so caught up in the war machine that this country has become, are guilty, guilty as
charged.What you have with Walt Jones from North Carolina is a pariah
Republican from the very start. What you have with Ro Khanna, and with Mark Pocan and with Tom Massie from
Kentucky, Republicans and Democrats, and the co-sponsors are those within the Congress who have the moral
courage and the understanding of U.S. history and the U.S. Constitution sufficient to apply it to what is U.S.
Code Title 50, Chapter 33, sections 1541 to 48, as I recall, which codifies the War Powers Resolution. Now,a
little history there, that's the resolution Congress passed to reassert its constitutional powers over the war
power when it grew very, very tired of the Vietnam conflict, and Richard Nixon, in particular, conduct of that
conflict towards the end of it.
They essentially told the president, "You've got to do this in order to wage war,"
abbreviating the Constitution, Article one, Section eight, a bit but nonetheless reaffirming it mostly. Nixon
vetoed it, and then the Congress, very unusually, passed the legislation over Nixon's veto. Now they are up to
the point where you can only find these iconoclastic members, these pariah members, these members who
understand the Constitution, who understand our history and more than anything understand how dangerous is the
war power to the very liberties of this republic. That's all you have left in the Congress who would, as you
pointed out in your introduction, bring the United States' action to support Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates in waging this brutal, bloody war, which incidentally the Saudis and the UAE are losing. They're
They don't, they're the only ones who want to do this and so this
legislation is being fought by hook and crook by everyone from Mark Thornberry, the Chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee who loves to have Raytheon and Lockheed Martin making lots of money off the weapons we're
selling to Saudi Arabia, to Ed Royce, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who ultimately has
committee jurisdiction over the bill. They all want to stop it, because very frankly, Sharmini, they like
SHARMINI PERIES: They like war. When the United Nations is putting out such warnings about the
conditions of so many, 14.5 million people who are suffering from this war, the devastation is staring
them in the face, there's so many children affected by this, what are their main motivations for not
wanting to support this bill?
LARRY WILKERSON They say, in the legislation that we could cite that Steny Hoyer and others
have written as an alternative to our legislation, which is called House Continuing Resolution 81, invoking the
War Powers and which should enjoy privileged status under the law and therefore have to go to the House for a
vote and not be stoppable by a committee chairman. What they're doing is offering 599, which if you
read all the whereases, and boy does it go ad nauseam into the whereases, "Whereas this, whereas this, whereas
this," if you read it closely, what you see is, they're trying to excuse the Saudis for what they're doing.
They know darn well that all those whereases in that other legislation, which recognize the nature of the
humanitarian disaster, recognize the nature of the UN recognition of the government supposedly the Saudis are
trying to defend, recognize the fact that Iran is participating and so forth.
Of course, they don't point out that Iran wasn't even in Yemen until the Saudis
attacked, that Iran wasn't doing anything until the Saudis attacked. All of this legislation that Hoyer and
others have put together, and Hoyer by the way, is a Democrat, of course, from Maryland, is just a subterfuge,
an obfuscation of the true issue, which is, the Saudis are fighting a brutal, bloody war. They're killing lots of people. By the indirection of their actions, they're killing potentially half
a billion people over time. The greatest humanitarian tragedy since World War
II. They're bombing sewage and water plants. They're bombing food sources and so forth, and all
this to support a government that I think the UN would probably like to retract its vote on in terms of being
the legitimate government of Yemen. It is, a piece of this 599 is a piece of legislation that shows just how
many ends these folks will go to in order to justify what is truly a brutal war in which the United States is
On top of that, the U.S. participation is causing Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, one of the
most dangerous terrorist groups with a global capability, to grow, to actually harden and grow in its
membership and in its actions. At the same time, we're trying to stop that group under a legitimate AUMF, the
one passed after 9/11, in Yemen with Special Operating Forces. We want to separate those two actions. The
Special Operating Forces going after Al-Qaeda in Yemen are operating under the original Authorization for the
Use of Military Force and therefore are legitimate. This support to the Saudi-UAE
effort to wage this war in Yemen, though, is not legitimate. It's illegal. It was started by the Obama
administration and continued and emphasized by the Trump administration. It's illegal. It's brutal. It's
being lost by Saudi Arabia.
You saw the architect of the war, Mohammad Bin Salman effecting something we haven't seen since
the formation of the House of Saud, recently, the last few days. He actually got rid of 11 princes. He's
getting rid of a lot of business leaders and so forth. I think this is a sign of the instability of the Saud
regime under MBS's leadership, and it's going to be interesting to see how this develops, because this is his
war. He started it. There's no defense. It's a brutal, bloody war, as I pointed
out. It's a major humanitarian disaster, and the United States has no business participating in it. It's
that clear. It's that simple.
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Larry, give us a sense of what they're telling you when you're on the
Hill about this unconditional support for Saudi Arabia's war.
LARRY WILKERSON: You'd be amazed, Sharmini. I have gotten answers from staffers and
members that range the gamut from, "Well, this is just a niche issue." That's a direct quote. "This is just a
niche issue." My response, of course, was, "500,000 people dying is a niche issue?" Well, not a lot, and get
them a little off guard with that kind of response, to a response such as this, "Well, I always go with my
committee chairman." That is, the committee of jurisdiction. "So, if Ed Royce is going to go against this, I've
got to go against it, too."This is the war power. This is your nation using bombs,
bullets and bayonets to kill the citizens of other nations and, oh, by the way, put its own men and women in
harm's way too.
This is the war power. This is the ultimate power, and you bow to your committee of
jurisdiction? Come on, Mr. Congressman. You can do better than that. To an answer like this one that I got,
"Well, Iran's there." My response, "Iran wasn't there until the Saudi-UAE coalition attacked and we supported
them." "Well, Iran is there now, so we've got to fight them. The Saudis are doing our dirty business for us."
Why do we have to fight Iran in Yemen? What is it that Iran is doing in Yemen that's destabilizing, and
destabilizing in a way that threatens U.S. national security interest? "Well, Iran always does that." Are you
kidding me, Congressman? Can't you think more critically than that? Can't you think more analytically than
that? Iran is not always going against U.S. interest. Iran, in this case, is going against U.S. interest, if
they are, because we are supporting the Saudi coalition that's waging this brutal war.
You just wouldn't believe it, Sharmini. The first reaction I have is
that they don't know what they're talking about. The second reaction I have is that they're venal, they're
cruel, they're brutal. The third reaction I have is, they're ignorant, they're just not willing to look at
the issues. And the fourth reaction I have is that they're in obeisance to the
military-industrial complex, which, if you'll look at the contribution charts, does, Lockheed Martin,
Raytheon, Boeing and so forth does contribute a heck of a lot of money to these people's campaigns. And so
with a little war like this, what's a little war as long as it maintains me in power?
SHARMINI PERIES: Only the lives of hundreds of thousands of
LARRY WILKERSON: Yes. Yes, and just, I mean, when you've got a situation where, for example,
you bomb cranes at the only port where you really can offload the food and clean water to save people's lives
and you, the United States, recognizing these cranes have been bombed and that the water and the food can't be
off-lifted until the cranes are replaced then provide the cranes out of the goodness of your heart, I hope to
replace them, only to have the cranes not able to be off-loaded and reinstalled because of Saudi-UAE bombing.
Bombing which you're supporting with refueling tankers, with targeting intelligence and so forth.
This is not just nonsense, though. It's brutal. Brutal
SHARMINI PERIES: Larry, thank you for your relentless work on the Hill and I wish you more
success. Thank you.
LARRY WILKERSON: Thank you, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us here on The Real News Network.
Steve Pieczenik Sharply Rebukes
Trump & Neocon Generals for Insidious ‘Afghanistan Strategy’
“…More men will die, men will die!
Trump has now created a greater, greater graveyard for our men which shouldn’t have been there in the first
place. It’s absolute nonsense!”
“There was no terrorist attack from Afghanistan or Iraq and these generals know it.
They’re lying, they’re cowards, moral cowards, and they’re ineffectual. And I say that as a former Rear Admiral
and a Military Officer who resigned my commission with honor. And I find them disgraceful! This is the most
absurd thing you could have done. Trump is now on notice that we will work against
“This is 6Trillion Dollars in that WAR, and who’s going to make money?…KBR. Who makes
money in Africa?…KBR. What are we doing in Djibouti?…The same thing. I’ve got soldiers who come back and say,
‘what the hell was I doing in Africa? Why am I in Djibouti, Sudan, Somalia?’ The soldiers have no idea what
they’re doing!” -- Steve Pieczenik
Alex Jones Heated Debate On Trump
- Alex Jones vs Steve Pieczenik -
Published on Aug 22, 2017
Alex Jones Heated Debate On President Trump And Afghanistan - Alex Jones vs dr steve
Donald Trump's Foreign Policy
That The Media Won't Mention
Published on Jun 19, 2017
In this video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange reports on the latest breaking news between the
failing relations between Russia and the United States. As Donald Trump faces off against Vladimir Putin the
stakes couldn't be any higher.
Syrian Warplane Engaging ISIS
Shot Down By U.S-Led Coalition!
Published on Jun 18, 2017
Reports are now confirming that a U.S-Led Coalition has just shot down a Syrian warplane
inside of southern Raqqa in Syria WHILE it was engaging ISIS so in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth
shows how there is no longer any question as to who the real face of terror is in the middle east!
"Of course, Washington’s logic is riddled with absurdity. To
claim that its forces are acting in self-defense overlooks the glaring reality that the US-led military
coalition has no legal mandate whatsoever to be in Syria in the first place. Its forces are in breach
of international law by operating on Syrian territory without the consent of the government in Damascus and
without a mandate from the UN Security Council."
[From Article Below]
"THE U.S. IS AN INVADER IN SYRIA"
[Absolute Must-Watch Videos]
"The U.S. is an Invader In Syria...The U.S. Has
No Business in Syria."
"The US & the coalition are in Syria
without any permission, w/o any lawful authority to be present."
U.S. Illegal Military Base in
Lew Rockwell talks to RT Inter-national.
"The people the U.S. is supporting in Syria, for example the Kurdish-forces
spend most of their time attacking Syrian Christians and the Armenian Christians, ethnically
cleansing their villages killing people...U.S. NEEDS TO GET OUT OF SYRIA, STOP BRINGING ON
"Some members of the coalition may say “We are in clear violation of international
law, maybe this is not right.” Others bought into this coalition to be part of a group fighting
ISIS, and now they are saying “Wait a minute. We didn’t go into Syria to fight the legitimate
duly elected government of Syria; we went there to fight this terrorist organization.”…The
coalition is certainly not there to help the Syrian people; it is there to help Saudi Arabia
with its Wahhabi radical Islamic domination of the entire world beginning with the countries
close to it".
"The thing that is concerning is that the United States has established a military base
within the sovereign territory of Syria. Now up until now we've had four bases in Turkey Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan all training terrorist to invade the Syrian nation...this is one
instance in which we actually have a 300 man base, which is actually located within Syria
without the permission of the Syrian government of course, again in clear violation of
"We now have the Bush, Obama, Trump doctrine of regime change..."
US Expands Military Footprint in Syria to Eight Bases,
‘Modifies’ Kobani Air Base
Overthrowing Assad: US Policy in Syria Undermines Legitimate
Published on Jun 30, 2017
Syria and Russia warn the latest accusations about chemical weapons are just a flimsy pretext
for a new US strike on Syria. One America's Pearson Sharp has the latest, and spoke with Virginia Senator
Richard Black, who says the US is waging an illegal war to overthrow President Assad.
[U.S. MILITARY, GET THE HELL
OUT OF SYRIA BEFORE YOU START WORLD WAR III]
Syria : US Flagrant Aggressionis Absurdly Describedas 'Self-Defence'
The shooting down of a Syrian fighter jet by US
forces this week comes on the back of several aggressive actions by American military on the ground. Taken
together the US actions mark an alarming escalation of intervention in the Syrian war – to the point where the
Americans can be said to be now openly at war against Syria.
The American military actions also come despite repeated warnings from Russia against such unilateral
deployment of force. Following the shoot-down of the Syrian SU-22 fighter bomber this week, Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov denounced the American violence as an act of «flagrant
aggression» against a sovereign state. Some Russian lawmakers such as Duma foreign affairs chief Alexei Pushkov
went further and condemned it as an act of war by the Americans.
Of course, Washington’s logic is riddled with absurdity. To claim that
its forces are acting in self-defense overlooks the glaring reality that the US-led military coalition has no
legal mandate whatsoever to be in Syria in the first place. Its forces are in breach of international law by
operating on Syrian territory without the consent of the government in Damascus and without a mandate from the
UN Security Council.
Another absurdity is the claim that the US forces are «protecting» militants whom they are supposedly
training to «fight» the Islamic State terror group (ISIS). On at least three occasions over the past month,
American military have carried out air strikes on Syrian government forces and their allies near a
strategically important border crossing between Syria and Iraq. The Americans claim that the Syrian government
forces were posing a threat to a military base at Al Tanf on the Syrian side of the border where they are
training militants belonging to a group called Maghawir al Thawra.
The Pentagon claims that these militants are being trained to «fight and defeat» ISIS. The
installation last week of long-range artillery batteries known as HIMARS at Al Tanf was justified as a
self-defense measure. US Colonel Ryan Dillon said: «We have increased our military footprint and are prepared
for any threat that is presented to us by the pro-regime forces».
As with the shooting down of the Syrian fighter jet this week, American forces are invoking
«self-defense» as a legal rationale. But as Moscow has pointed out, the Americans have no legal right to be
present on Syrian territory and then, secondly, to be unilaterally declaring «deconfliction zones» for what are
de facto invasive forces.
A further nail to the American lie is exposed when the nature of the militant group is looked at more
closely. Unverified video footage showing the US-backed militants at Al Tanf
indicates that they are another brand of jihadist terrorism. The videos show Maghawir al
Thawra militants repeatedly shouting the jihadist slogan «allu akbar». They are also equipped
with the notorious top-of-the-range white Toyota land cruisers that other jihadist groups have obtained
through funding by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies.
Syrian sources have confirmed to this author that the group displayed in the videos is
indeed the Maghawir al Thawra and that they are unquestionably jihadist. Yet this is the same group that the US
has openly declared to be training at its military base at Al Tanf to «fight and defeat ISIS», and which the US
is supposedly «protecting» from advancing Syrian army units and their allies.
What’s more, it is reported that in addition to American forces at Al Tanf,
there are British and other NATO troops, as well as those from two other Arab states. This amounts to a
full-scale US-NATO intervention in the Syrian war – an intervention which seems to be clearly on the side of
jihadist terror groups.
After the shooting down of the Syrian warplane by American forces this week, Moscow noted pointedly that
Washington has openly taken sides with terror groups aiming to topple the sovereign government of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad. There can be no other pretense.
The bolstering of the US military footprint at the Al Tanf base near the Syrian-Iraqi border is another sign
of brazen American siding with terror groups. As the videos above show, the notion that these militants are
somehow «moderate rebels» who are combating ISIS does not bear scrutiny.
This US-led charade of supporting «moderate rebels» has been going on for
nearly six years in Syria. The mercurial «Free Syrian Army» and the «Syrian Defense Forces» are part of this
smoke and mirrors game designed to obscure the fact that the Americans and their NATO allies are using proxy
militant groups dominated by jihadist terror networks, for the objective of regime change. The plethora of
different names for these proxies – all whom are illegally armed groups – is just part of the cynical game to
conceal the fact that Washington and its allies are waging a criminal war against a sovereign
As independent investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley told this author: «The labelling by
the US of any extremist faction fighting in Syria as a Free Syrian Army division is nothing more than a cynical
marketing ploy to rebrand these group as ‘moderate’».
Beeley says that the Maghawir al Thawra militants whom the US claim to be protecting in a supposed campaign
to defeat ISIS is just another instance of Washington «rebranding terror groups as moderates».
Another giveaway to the real nature of this US-patronized group came from a Reutersreport in which one of the
Maghawir commanders was interviewed.
Maghawir al Thawra spokesman Abu al Atheer said the goal of the US forces was to take the eastern Syrian
city of Deir Ezzor. That city is already under the control of the Syrian government forces and their allies. If
the US and its militants were motivated to defeat ISIS, then why are they moving on Deir Ezzor?
The Maghawir commander also revealed his extremist ideological affiliations when he went on to talk about
Iranian-backed forces allied with the Syrian government. «The battle is not over and we will not allow the
Iranian Shi’ites to occupy our land. Our response to those who stand against us will be cruel», he told
Recall this is the same supposedly «moderate» group whom the US, British and Norwegian NATO troops are
training at Al Tanf and for which the US has installed long-range artillery batteries in «an act of
Events in Syria seem to be spiraling toward a bigger international war. This week Iran hit ISIS bases near
Deir Ezzor with medium range ballistic missiles fired from inside Iranian territory. Tehran says the action was
coordinated with the Syrian government. Meanwhile, the US is stepping up its direct assault on Syrian
Another telling development in the slide to wider war is that the US forces are moving towards blatantly
defending jihadists like Maghawir al Thawra from Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces who are the only ones
actually taking the battle to defeat jihadists. The US mask of hiding behind «moderate rebels» is slipping.
Washington is now seen to be increasingly at war in Syria. It seems only a matter of time before US forces come
into direct clash with Russian and Iranian military.
Finian Cunningham is a former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has
written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages
"The coalition is certainly not there to help the
Syrian people; it is there to help Saudi Arabia with its Wahhabi radical Islamic domination of the entire world
beginning with the countries close to it"
-- U.S. Senator Richard Black --
CALL TRUMP OUT ON HIS SUPPORTING
FIGHT THE REAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM BY DECRYING HIS
[Trump's Gross Hypocrisy & Shameful Genuflecting To
M.I.C.]Trump In Saudi
Arabia - 'Peace In Our Time?'
President Trump was in Saudi Arabia over the weekend, where he signed
the largest US arms sale ever, praised the country's history and record, and declared war on
Iran, Syria...and possibly Russia. Some first foreign trip...
& QATAR FUND ISIS...THEREFORE U.S. SUPPORTS ISIS WHEN WE SUPPLY THEM
In the second excerpt from the John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast
by RT on Saturday, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, Julian Assange accuses Hillary Clinton of
misleading Americans about the true scope of Islamic State’s support from Washington’s
Middle East allies.
An Update on Blocking The Saudi Arms Deal with Senator Rand
Streamed live on May 31, 2017
What's the latest on Trump's arms deal with Saudi Arabia? Senator Rand Paul
visits Texas to be a live guest on today's Liberty Report! We get an update on
Rand's bill to block the arms sale, as well as a thorough look of the U.S. government's
total lack of good judgement in providing arms to the world's leading
state sponsor of terror.
Hold Trump accountable; he is
supporting ISIS with weapons just like Obama, and builds our M.I.C. with the bloodmoney for a
never ending cycle of war. It can not be any clearer that all who oppose terrorism have been
betrayed for the war and surveillance profiteers - who all benefit from this blantanly obvious
manufactured war on
Take action and relentlessly call your senator to stop this crime.
Actively get this information to your family and friends, spread all relative vids, links and
articles, and call in to talk radio.
(ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND) Proxy War for Middle East
Control- Saudi Arabia vs
Yemen = USA vs IRAN -
Published on Apr 23, 2015
Jake Morphonios explains the background to the deadly conflict between Saudi
Arabia and Yemen. Included in this video are the following subjects: [click video title for
(ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND) The Truth About Yemen -
With Vanessa Beeley
Aug 17, 2017
More than two years after a Saudi-led coalition began attacking Yemen, the
country is a wasteland. Thousands of airstrikes, scores of children killed, epidemics,
misery. Who's really responsible and what can be done?
Daniel Mcadams - ronpaulinstitute.org - rightly asked,
"How many US service members may be killed by US weapons fallen into the wrong hands in places
like Syria and Iraq? What kind blowback might be ignited by Saudi genocide in Yemen made
possible by US-made weapons? Do we want the families of innocent victims of Saudi wars to see
"Made in America" on the weapons that killed their loved ones?"
WAR IS A RACKET
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to
Stop Arming Terrorists
Behind Tulsi Gabbard's 'Stop Arming Terrorists' bill
Published on Jan 13, 2017
Congresswoman, one of the first Democrats to meet with President-elect Trump,
explains her bill to stop the government from directly or indirectly arming, funding
terror groups who are enemies of US but would help overthrow the Syrian
[Trump betrayed her and us all]
continues to massively fund terrorism, including future attacks on American targets via the CIA and the Deep
(Quote from Article Below)
Trump Bows Deeply to Globalists,
Surrenders to Puppet Masters
In bowing and groveling before Saudi royalty and the all-powerful
Israeli regime and Washington-controlling Israeli lobby, President Donald Trump continues to demonstrate that
he is a puppet of globalist masters, the Deep State, and the existing international criminal political
In signing over the single largest arms deal in US history with
Saudi Arabia, “both the neo-cons in DC, as well as the all-powerful American Military-Industrial complex can
declare a truly unprecedented victory”. It is also a triumph for the CIA, and the CIA’s international
network of terror fronts, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This arms deal, globalism on super steroids, is on
top of already immeasurable military-industrial lucre, a mushrooming Pentagon budget, and a CIA black budget
that is uncounted as well as bottomless.
It is a promise that the existing criminal Anglo-American war and terrorism agenda—the
Bush-Obama-Clinton/New World Order blueprint for conquest—not only continues, but receives a super
escalation, towards regime change in Syria, as well as continuing aggression towards Iran.
Trump essentially continues to massively fund terrorism, including future attacks on
American targets via the CIA and the Deep State, while spewing nonsensical hot air about fighting terrorism.
His performance was tantamount to lecturing a den of chuckling mafia godfathers about the dangers of crime,
while paying them billions of dollars. Trump will do the same in Israel, where Jared Kushner, who is deeply
connected to Netanyahu and Israeli interests, will cut yet more power deals on behalf of Tel
Aviv. (Article Continues Below)
Keys to the Kingdom:
Trump visits Saudi Arabia first, signs $380bn deal
[ Including An Arms Deal
Worth $110Billion ]
Published on May 20, 2017
Donald Trump's received a lavish, royal welcome in Saudi Arabia, where he's kicking off his
first foreign tour as U.S. president. Trump's signed a number of defence and business deals totalling in
excess of $380bn, including an arms deal worth $110bn. Trump is the first American
president to make Saudi Arabia, or any Muslim-majority country, his inaugural stop overseas and he's pleased
with his progress so far. READ MORE: https://on.rt.com/8c79
Lee Stranahan is among many who is
alarmed by Trump’s 180 degree reversal from long-held views, and views pushed by Trump throughout his
“Here’s what you wrote about
Saudi Arabia in the past, POTUS. Your 180 on this subject is very distburbing.”Trump previously wrote:
“It’s the world’s
biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petrodollars, our very own money, to fund the
terrorists that seek to destroy our people while the Saudis rely on us to protect
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard also blasted Trump with a series of Twitter posts:
“Trump refuses to acknowledge Saudi Arabia remains world’s largest sponsor
of terror and Wahhabi Salafist ideology fueling al-Qaeda/ISIS.”
“Opening counter-terrorism center in Saudi is a farce; Saudi is #1 exporter of
Wahhabi Salafi jihadist ideology that fuels grps like ISIS/AQ”
Even Trump’s most ardent supporters are worried. Roger Stone was sickened by the sight of Trump
bowing to the Saudis, and posted:
“While I support our President, disturbing 2 see @realDonaldTrump embrace those who
financed 9/11 attack on America”
Alex Jones was similarly disturbed:
“The House of Saudi is the number one $ of terror. They better rollover after Trump bent
over or I am pissed!”
Trip itself is capitulation
Trump’s foreign junket amply demonstrates how little control Trump has over his own actions.
According to Mike Cernovich was forced to make the trip by the globalists who actually control the White
House, and who drive foreign policy: National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Deputy National Security
Advisor Dina Habib Powell (and here) and Chief Economic Advisor Gary Cohn (and see here).
This neocon Saudi lobby has co-opted the White House, along with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump
(Dina Habib Powell is Ivanka Trump’s advisor). This is the definition of an internal coup, and a continuing
political suicide that Trump himself has enabled, and seems unwilling and unable to recognize or combat.
The arms and nuclear weapons deal itself was orchestrated by McMaster, according to Cernovich,
all towards a ground war in Syria.
Powell is close to Hillary Clinton aide and Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin, Obama
senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, and others who are working to destroy Trump. Both McMaster and Habib Powell
are suspected of leaking anti-Trump stories to the Washington Post and New York Times.
Between his continuing foreign policy capitulations, the appointment of dangerous Bush neocon
and 9/11 fixer Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor to dog his presidency, and the looming appointment of
another political enemy (such as Joe Lieberman) as FBI director, Trump’s sabotaged, bleeding presidency
"This is the same Donald
Trump who on the campaign trail told Fox & Friends, “Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn't the
Iraqis, it was Saudi--take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents.” Now, instead of opening the documents
ON Saudi Arabia, Trump is opening the purse FOR Saudi Arabia." - Chuck
Globalists Using Donald Trump To Take
America Into War
Published: Thursday, May 25, 2017
(An Excerpt From The Article)
how Donald Trump killed more people in the month of March than all of the so-called terror states of the world
combined. And Trump only became a more proficient killer in the month of April. “The Airwars monitoring group
has compiled reports of 1,280 to 1,744 civilians killed by at least 2,237 bombs and missiles that rained down
from U.S. and allied warplanes in April (1,609 on Iraq and 628 on Syria). The heaviest casualties were in and
around Old Mosul and West Mosul, where 784 to 1,074 civilians were reported killed, but the area around Tabqa
in Syria also suffered heavy civilian casualties.”
This is the same Donald Trump who on the campaign trail told
Fox & Friends, “Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn't the Iraqis, it was Saudi--take a look at
Saudi Arabia, open the documents.” Now, instead of opening the documents ON Saudi Arabia, Trump is opening the
purse FOR Saudi Arabia.
What is it about Christians and conservatives that they can be so easily duped into supporting war? What is
it that makes them not only overlook and excuse wars of aggression but also enthusiastically endorse and
champion such wars? Nothing builds the size and scope of government like WAR; nothing creates socialist
government like WAR; nothing causes people to accept authoritarian government like WAR; nothing separates
families like WAR; nothing leaves children homeless and helpless like WAR; nothing fills the political swamp
like WAR; nothing empowers globalists like WAR; nothing destroys a country’s economy like WAR; nothing destroys
truth like WAR; and nothing sears the conscience of a people like WAR. Yet, professing Christians and
conservatives from Alex Jones to Jerry Falwell, Jr. to Mike Huckabee to Tony Perkins
continue to laud Donald Trump as a great “conservative” even as he prepares to take America into yet another
senseless, unconstitutional, and perhaps global WAR.
Newsweek has an articleout called
“When It Comes to Beheadings, ISIS has Nothing on Saudi Arabia”.
The article accurately illustrates that Saudi Arabia is
essentially anestablished version of ISIS; in fact it was established the
same way, which is also how Britain established its colonies like the USA, how US/Israel was, and is
being, established, how the Afghan Taliban wasestablishedin a joint
venture with the USA that lasted until 2001, and so on.
Newsweek details how the Saudis behead more people than ISIS (not to mention Saudis are big
supporters of ISIS, and, according to leaked 2009 US documents, are the world’s overall biggest supporters of
Sunni terror groups such as the formerly US-backed Taliban.)
The Saudi theocracy doesn’t just behead people or crucify people. They slice your head off in
public then crucify you.
…if you were accused of banditry or drug smuggling, like seven Yemenis who were beheaded last
year, your corpse will also be crucified.
There are different methods of crucifying the headless … while the headless corpse is mounted,
your head is placed in a plastic bag… Your head is then raised above your body and appears to be floating and
detached. Your corpse might be kept in that position for up to four days, as a grotesque warning to others of
what might happen if they stray outside the law.
The article documents how this is done to people accused of being “sorcerers”, adulterers, people who
plead not guilty to crimes (and, the article suggests, are likely innocent), and political dissidents (though
Israel has the most political prisoners in the region, and it should also be noted that the USA puts people in
cages for the rest of their lives for pretty crimes like shoplifting, while almost no one else does
Noam Chomsky pointed out in atalkthis month that Saudi Arabia
is the single most radical Islamic state, and makes Iran look moderate by comparison (even
though Iran also executes people; the top three countries for executing their own people are always Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and the USA. China’s numbers are likely higher, but unknown.) And Saudi
Arabia, exactly unlike Iran, has been pursuing, and has in fact obtained access to,
nuclear weapons, via adealwith nuclear
Pakistan, another Islamic fundamentalist US ally and distant runner up to Obama’s USA
forgreatest threat to worldpeace at the start of 2014.
Newsweek likewise points out that Iran has “a far more democratic political process than Saudi
Arabia.” Iran, like the USA, China, and others, has a kind of fake democracy wherein candidates must be
supported by religious authorities; in China, it is state authorities, and in the US, financial authorities,
Newsweek then documents how the USA demonizes and criticizes not Saudi Arabia, but rather the more
moderate and “democratic” country, Iran. When US politicians visit Saudi Arabia, as Kerry,
Obama,Hillary Clinton, and others regularly do, they “do not publicly
condemn the country”; human rights violations are “not mentioned”.
Indeed, though the USA cages more women than any other country in the world, Saudi Arabia is the only
country where women are not allowed to operate cars.
Newsweek then points out that this behavior – criticizing a relatively moderate country but not a far
more extremist ally – reveals a blatant double-standard by the US.
However, Newsweek then asks “why” the USA has this double-standard, and doesn’t explore the
question beyond offering a couple of incidental hints throughout the article.
Perhaps the Newsweek author doesn’t know, thinks the answer is unknowable, or has some other
motive for not exploring the topic further, but it should be pursued and the article presents a good
Again, the question is, why does the otherwise wonderful USA have this confusing and seemingly
nonsensical “double standard”, wherein it criticizes countries (like Iran) that are moderate compared to US
ally Saudi Arabia (not to mention scores of others)?
US Relationship with Saudi Arabia
“…starting in the 1930s, the Americans would come to displace the British as the chief ally of the
Saudis, especially after the American-aided discovery of vast reserves of oil in Saudi lands. [Murray]
Rothbard spelled out the military and crony
The Rockefeller interest and other Western Big Oil companies have had intimate ties with the
absolute royalties of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ever since the 1930s. During that decade and World War II,
King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia granted a monopoly concession on all oil under his domain to the
Rockefeller-control-led Aramco, while the $30 million in royalty payments for the concession was paid by
the U.S. taxpayer.
The Rockefeller-influenced U.S. Export-Import Bank obligingly paid another $25 million to Ibn Saud
to construct a pleasure railroad from his main palace, and President Roosevelt made a secret appropriation
out of war funds of $165 million to Aramco for pipeline construction across Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the
U.S. Army was obligingly assigned to build an airfield and military base at Dhahran, near the Aramco
Oilfields, after which the multi-million dollar base was turned over, gratis, to Ibn Saud.”
In the 1940s, US planners confirmed that the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia,
contained the greatest material prizes in world history, and set about ensuring that the US could control these
resources (just as the US had previously worked to control the formerly most important resource, cotton, in
order to bring Britain “to its knees”. Britain then was holding profitable colonies and enticing lands that
ambitious US slave-owning empire-builders were drooling over.)
In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower asked his staff, privately, the question asked again decades later,
publicly, by Bush Jr.: Why do people in the Middle East seem to hate us? His staff investigated and determined
that it was because the USA prevented democracy and supported repressive regimes in the Middle East so the US
could control the region’s energy resources, and that the US should continue doing that.
The cozy gift-based US relationship with Saudi Arabia continues up to today, under Obama, who brown-noses
the Saudis by, for example, sending them the biggest shipment of lethal weapons in US history, which Obama did
in 2013. The shipment included internationally banned cluster bombs, one of the personal favorite toys of
Obama, as well as the Boston
Professor Chalmers Johnson concludes from his extensive research that if Saudi Arabia were to become
too upset with the USA, stopped dealing its oil in dollars and switched to some other currency (as did Saddam
prior to the US invasion, after which the US switched Iraq back to dollars), then the entire US empire would
So, quite clearly, the USA refrains from criticizing Saudi Arabia because it is a cornerstone of the
extremely profitable (for people like the Rockefellers and Bushes)US empire, but that is only one
Trump's Reckless Unilateral
Actions Risk Millions of
There needs to be
diplomacy not casino brinksmanship
Is North Korea An 'Imminent Threat'?
- New hope for foreign policy -
US Practices 'Taking Out' Kim Jong-Un -- What Will Be The
Streamed live on Mar 22, 2017
North Korea continues testing missiles as the United States and South Korea
conduct military exercises to practice attacking North Korea. Is North Korea about to launch
an attack? Is it capable of being an existential threat to the US? Or is it possible that
the threat is only made worse by continued US meddling in the dispute?
Uploaded on Nov 7, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul proposes major changes to U.S. foreign policy. We caught up
with him in Iowa
Streamed live on Mar 14, 2017
The US is sending special forces, SEAL Team 6, drones, B-52s, etc to South
Korea. Military exercises will include practicing killing the North Korean leadership. Will
such exercises provoke a North Korean response? What happens next? What about the
What's Really Happening In North Korea
Eric Margolis: Tensions on the Korean
What You Need To Know About North Korea and Trump?
Published on Mar 9, 2017
In this video investigative journalists, Luke Rudkowski and James Corbett of
the Corbett Report discuss the disastrous geopolitical situation with Kim Jong-un of North
Korea. We go over the position of China, Russia, and the U.S in this situation. As missile
defense systems are being set up in South Korea which is causing a conflict between these
The Story of the Week: As the rhetoric between Pyongyang and Seoul escalates,
The Agenda looks at whether or not tensions on the Korean peninsula could spill into war.
Syndicated columnist Eric Margolis joins Steve Paikin for his perspective.
Published on Apr 11, 2017
In this video, we go over all the latest breaking news surrounding North Korea
and the inevitable action that the U.S and Donald Trump will take. China and Russia are also
involved in this international scenario and we give you break down and what previously
happened between these global forces.
Foal Eagle is a combined Field Training Exercise (FTX)
conducted annually by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces and the United States Armed Forces under the auspices
of the Combined Forces Command. It is one of the largest military exercises conducted annually in the world.
While defensive in nature and conducted primarily as a rear area security and stability training exercise, Foal
Eagle has been a source of friction with the government of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)
and domestic ROK critics.
FOAL EAGLE :
AN ANNUAL SOURCE OF FRICTION
-- SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT --
Americans must ask themselves how they would respond if drills like Foal Eagle were
being conducted by either the Russians or Chinese on America's borders...And if a quarter million Americans
had been killed by either nation in a prior war...And if at present, America had no nuclear weapons to
counter its opposition's arsenal of high tech nuclear weapons....How would America respond if, said nations,
had done what America has just recently done to Iraq, Libya, and its current attempts against
THE WAY THINGS ARE, THIS WILL INEVITABLY SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!...THERE MUST BE EMERGENCY
PEACE TALKS AND NEGOTIATIONS NOW, AND THE MADNESS OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TURNED ASIDE! KIM
JONG-UN IS A BONAFIDE TYRANT, BUT IF THE AFOREMENTIONED IS CONSIDERED, HE IS NO MORE "CRAZY" THAN THE
MSM, NEOCONS, AND FOOLS WHO ARE EXACERBATING THIS DILEMMA AND OTHER
CONFLICTS AROUND THE WORLD!...
...AN EXAMPLE :
All America's Wars Begin with False Flags (and WWIII Will Too)
This D.C. think tank jerk off blatantly admitted all of America's wars have traditionally
begun with false flag events, and they know they will need another one to get the war with Iran started that
they've been working on for so long.
This video is a few years old now, but it's more relevant today with what's going on in the
Middle East than ever. They don't teach you this in school, kids, but whatever happens over there, just
realize how absolutely manufactured all of it is.
---------->> AN ABSOLUTE MUST WATCH VIDEO!...PLEASE
My Response to Viewers Who Support War with North
---------->> AN ABSOLUTE MUST WATCH VIDEO!...PLEASE
Published on Mar 15, 2017
The Deep State is trying to manufacture support for a war with North Korea. The war
drums are beginning to sound. If you fell for the anti-Iraq war propaganda under George W. Bush - don't make
the same mistake again!
"[NORTH KOREA DILEMMA] The
moral responsibility and political responsibility are the people over there in that region...so we still
argue the case that for the American system and for our national security and for our financial reasons, it
is in our best interest to mind our own business; and I'll stick to my argument that it's time
toBRING OUR TROOPS HOME!"
A Foreign Policy of Freedom
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship is a 2007 compilation of
floor speeches to the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul. They covered a 30-year
period and addressed foreign policy. The book was published as an accompaniment to his campaign for the
presidency of the United States in the 2008 election. The first edition includes a foreword by Llewellyn H.
Rockwell, Jr. It is published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education of Lake Jackson,
Swords into Plowshares
Twelve-term US Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul reveals an intensely
personal side as he reflects on growing up during World War II. The book also provides a powerful critique
of the corruption and corrosion produced by a 20th century full of war and killing. Ever the optimist,
however, Paul leaves behind the ashes of a 20th century of war to finish with a stirring, liberating view of
the future we may choose if we turn from war and violence. This is the book we’ve all been waiting for, and
it has finally arrived!
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, PLEASE PRAY AND CALL
FOR COOLER HEADS TO PREVAIL!
NO ONE NEEDS ANOTHER KOREAN WAR [US estimates of war in Korea, made a decade ago,
suggest America would incur 250,000 casualties in a war that would cost one million Korean
by Eric Margolis
March 18, 2017
Panmunjom, the ‘peace village’ on the incredibly tense
demilitarized zone (aka DMZ) between North and South Korea, is one of the weirdest places I’ve ever visited.
Tough North Korean soldiers lurk about, watched by equally tough South Korean troops in one-way sunglasses and
an aggressive judo ‘warrior’ stance.
When I was filming at Panmunjom, we were warned to beware of North Koreans who could at any
moment rush into the main conference room and drag us into North Korea.
It was into this crazy house that the new, jet-lagged US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was
transported from turbulent Washington. After a quick look at the DMZ, Tillerson announced `no more Mr. Nice
Guy.’ The US had run out of `strategic patience’ with North Korea and will go to war to end North Korea’s
‘threat’ to the US, he warned.
Tillerson, formerly CEO of EXXON, is well-versed in world affairs but the Korean
peninsula’s complexities could be too much for him to quickly absorb. Immediately threatening war is no way
to begin a diplomatic mission. But Tillerson was obviously reading from a script written by his boss, Donald
Trump, whose knowledge of North Asian affairs makes Tillerson look like a Confucian scholar.
Welcome to Trump’s credo: tweet loudly and walk with a big stick.
What would war between the US and North Korea mean? A very grim scenario if it
The US has nearly 80,000 military personnel in South Korea and Japan, as well as more
war-fighting units in Guam, which the US conquered from Spain in 1898. The US 7th Fleet patrols the region,
armed with tactical nuclear weapons. US nukes are also based in South Korea and Guam. As we recently saw, US
heavy B-1 and B-52 bombers can fly from North America to Korea.
South Korea has a formidable, 600,000-man army equipped with state of the art weapons. I’ve
been up on the DMZ with the 2nd ROK division. As an old soldier, I was very impressed by their skill and
North Korea’s one million-man armed force is large, but obsolescent. Its great strength in
heavy artillery partly compensates for its totally obsolete, 1960’s vintage air force. Key combat elements
of the DPRK army are dug deep into the rocky hills just north of the DMZ, with thousands of heavy North
Korean guns facing south. In the event of war, the North claims it will destroy South Korea’s capitol,
Seoul, that is only 30km away and has 20 million residents.
US estimates of war in Korea, made a decade ago, suggest America
would incur 250,000 casualties in a war that would cost one million Korean deaths. That’s why the US has
shied away from direct attack on North Korea. Unlike Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Somalis, North Koreans
know how to fight back and are amply armed for a defensive war.
The US would certainly be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons against North Korean troops
and guns deeply dug into the mountainous terrain. Without them, air power, America’s usual trump card, would
lose much of its destructive potential. No doubt, all North Korea would be ravaged by US air power, as it
was during the 1950’s Korean War. South Korea plans massive air, missile and commando attacks on North
Korean military HQ and against leader Kim Jung-un’s hideaway.
US war plans call for amphibious landings along North Korea’s long, vulnerable coastline. This
threat forces the North to deploy large numbers of regular army and militia troops on both coasts.
North Korea’s air force and little navy would be vaporized on the first day of hostilities. But
it is likely that the DPRK would be able to fire a score or more of medium-ranged missiles at Japan. If the
war goes nuclear, Japan looks almost certain to suffer nuclear attack, along with Guam. Tokyo and Osaka are
North Korean forces might be able to push south to Seoul, but likely no further in the face of
fierce attacks by US and South Korean air power operating from bases further south. The North’s powerful
commando force of some 100,000 troops would attack key South Korean targets, including its vital air bases
shared with the US. Such raids would be highly disruptive but not decisive unless the DPRK used chemical
and/or biological weapons to shut down South Korea’s air bases and its ports at Busan and Inchon.
The US and South Korea could certainly win such a war but it would be very bloody and
expensive. There would be the threat of Chinese military intervention if it appeared the US was about to
occupy North Korea. Russia is right next door.
Secretary Tillerson, please leave war threats to the generals and
start practicing some active diplomacy with the North. If ever a war was not needed, it’s
Mass Movement in South Korea against THAAD Missile Deployment
Riot Cops Exert Excessive Use of Force
[The Defense Ministry reportedly told the South Korean media that it plans to transport
the remainder of the THAAD components into the deployment site by the end of this year.]
This is not Syria: Tens of
millions could die in Korean War II
By World Tribune on April 13, 2017
By Donald Kirk
POHANG – An array of heavy-duty,
sophisticated gear spread over the beaches here shows the incredible military might of the U.S. and South
Korea. Far offshore, way beyond the horizon, the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson leads a "strike force" of
Watching the display of U.S. strength on the beach in a wargame called Pacific Reach, one
realizes how easy it would be to decimate the North Koreans.
A U.S. Marine stands guard during the U.S.-South Korea joint Exercise Operation Pacific Reach in Pohang, South
Korea, on April 11. / Ahn Young-joon / AP
The purpose of this particular exercise is logistics ? to show the speed and agility with which
these forces can unload hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies anywhere on shore ? perfect for an attack
on the North. The South Koreans are in it too ? infinitely stronger than when the North Koreans rolled over
them in the summer of 1950.
None of this drama, however, appears to have had any impact on Kim Jong-Un as he intensifies
his own scare campaign against the U.S. and South Korea. If the U.S. wants to consider a preemptive strike
against his nuclear and missile facilities, his propaganda machine lets it be known, he’ll hit the U.S.
first with a nuclear warhead.
It’s hard to take such rhetoric seriously. Everyone knows it’s for dramatic effect, whether to
impress his own people or foreigners dumb enough to think North Korea’s nuclear program is really for
"defense." The point, however, is: might President Trump order a pre-emptive strike as he did against Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s murderous military machine?
Advocates of military force, impressed by what’s plain to see about U.S. military power, had
better not get their hopes up.
Sure, Trump could order an air strike on Assad as punishment for his use of deadly chemical
weapons on innocent civilians in a rebel-held town.
Similarly, a volley of cruise missiles, supplemented by air strikes, could take out the sites
from which Kim Jong-Un loves to order "tests" of his own missiles, including the long-range model with which
he threatens the U.S. More strikes might remove North Korea’s nuclear complex at Yongbyon from the map.
And then what? North Korea is not Syria. The Middle East is not the Korean Peninsula.
Thousands of American troops are not exposed to Assad’s war machine. Nor are millions of people
living and working in peace across a line 60 or so kilometers from Damascus.
No, the fact that the U.S. has enough sheer strength to wage war in Northeast Asia does
not mean that option should be on the table. The results of headstrong action, of attacking on gut instinct,
as some think Trump might do, would be unpredictable, to say the least.
The risks far outweigh the rewards. There’s no telling exactly
how North Korea would respond, or whether China and Russia would rush to Kim Jong-Un’s aid as they did for
his grandfather Kim Il-Sung, in the Korean War. For sure, however, millions would be in the line of fire if
the North Koreans deluged the South with artillery blasts and missiles - even if they haven’t figured out
how to "deliver" miniaturized nuclear bombs.
When the topic of a retaliatory strike came up during the 1994 nuclear crisis, Bill
Clinton, then in the White House, considered bombing North Korea’s nuclear complex. Kim Young-Sam, then
South Korea’s president, warned him 10 million Koreans could lose their lives in the ensuing
At the very least, the U.S needs to consult its Korean ally before giving a moment’s thought to
a preemptive strike. Would any South Korean president, liberal or conservative, say, sure, let’s do it, a
great "combined" exercise?
That’s not to say a preemptive strike might not bring a quick dividend by stopping the
North from launching missiles right away. After that immediate gain, however, holy hell could break out.
Nobody knows how many tens of millions might die.
The cruise missile strike in Syria should not serve as an example even if the sight of
American and Korean forces playing war games here with a panoply of awesome gear is impressive. No one knows
what magic formula or potion will resolve the Korean standoff, but one way not to resolve it is to open
Korean War II.Real war is not a war game.
There Is No Military Solution To
The North Korea Conundrum
"...the question of war on
the Korean peninsula is now “on the table,” as the national security wonks like to
say...It should be taken off the table,
Justin Raimondo Editorial Director, Antiwar.com
5:48 PM 04/14/2017
With North Korea launching ballistic missile tests with
disturbing regularity, and US officials openly talking about the possibility of a preemptive strike against the
Hermit Kingdom’s nuclear facilities, the question of war on the Korean peninsula is now “on the table,” as the
national security wonks like to say.
It should be taken off the table, pronto.
The reason is simple: a military confrontation with North Korean despot Kim Jong-un has a 100%
chance of ending in a nuclear conflagration. As retired Col. David Hunt, who served in Korea on the DMZ,
told Eric Bolling on Thursday, every war game simulating a war with North Korea has ended in a nuclear
conflict. For fifty years, the North Koreans have been preparing for a resumption of hostilities in a war
that never formally ended. Positioned in the heights just above the demilitarized zone is a massive array of
North Korean artillery pointed at Seoul, the South Korean capital, a city with 3 million inhabitants. Within
six minutes, that tremendous firepower would be unleashed, and the casualties would be massive.
Of course the South Koreans are fully aware of this, which is why they would never consent to a
US military strike. This is the one factor our talking heads — who blithely debate this “option” as if it
were just another foreign policy issue — always leave out. They can’ imagine that the South Koreans might
object to the obliteration of their country – or even that they might have a say in the matter.
Sponsored Links by
The reason for the supposedly irrational behavior of the North Koreans isn’t hard to
understand. Every year we conduct joint military exercises a few miles from the North Korean border, and
this year they simulated a full-scale military assault. Our nuclear-capable B-1B bombers and F-22 stealth
fighter jets – the world’s most lethal military aircraft — flew alongside South Korean fighters in a “mock”
air raid on North Korean positions. The USS Vinson, an aircraft carrier, the USS Columbus, a nuclear
submarine capable of landing special forces and hitting offshore targets, were deployed off the North Korean
coast. Twenty-thousand US military personnel joined with over 300,000 South Korean troops to enact a dress
rehearsal for a war Pyongyang has been preparing for since the last one ended in a truce.
Now the US is openly talking about ending that truce, with President Trump tweeting that if the
Chinese don’t do something about Kim Jon-un the United States will act.
Trump thinks he can get the Chinese to rein in Pyongyang – after all, aren’t they allies? Well,
no, they aren’t. The last time Beijing had any influence in Pyongyang was in 1956, when the pro-Beijing
faction within the ruling Korean Workers Party acted in concert with a pro-Soviet faction to remove supreme
leader Kim Il Sung from power at a meeting of the Central Committee. The attempt failed, and the dissidents
were purged and later executed. The latest manifestation of a pro-Beijing faction within the leadership was
centered around Kim Jong-un’s late uncle, Jang Song-thaek, Pyongyang’s liaison with Beijing via “free trade
zones” set up in coordination with the Chinese. He was charged with treason and recently executed, shot to
death with an anti-aircraft gun: his family was also killed.
There is no military solution to the problem of North Korea. Nor
is leaving it to the Chinese going to work. There’s just one way to avoid war on the Korean peninsula, and
that is by encouraging the process of North-South reconciliation that was begun some 16 years ago with the
“Sunshine Policy.” That’s when South Korea’s then President Kim Dae-jung opened up talks with the North,
and, in spite of US opposition, his successor traveled to the North, and met with Kim Jong-il: thousands of
South Koreans followed suit, crossing over to visit long-lost relatives. Trade increased, but the thaw
didn’t last long. Nixed by the Bush administration, and the coming to power in South Korea of right-winger
Lee Myung Bak, the sunset of the “Sunshine Policy” was ensured.
Recent political developments in South Korea hold out some hope. The impeachment of President
Park Geung-hye, daughter of cold war military dictator Park Chung-hee, means that the liberal opposition
will very likely come to power. The leading candidate, Moon Jae-in of the Democratic party, opposes a
preemptive strike and has said “The safety of South Korea is as important as that of the United States”:
he’d reopen negotiations with Pyongyang.
The Korean people are intensely nationalistic: they resent any sort of foreign interference in
their affairs, which is why meddling by Beijing and Washington is widely resented. There is a way out of the
Korean conundrum – if only the US will get out of the way.
“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we
So thundered President Donald Trump last week. Unfortunately, neither China nor North Korea
appeared intimidated by this presidential bombast or Trump’s Tweets.
What would ‘we will’ actually entail? This clear threat makes us think seriously about
what a second Korean War would be like. Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran
War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how
ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly
defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons
based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise
missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to
blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital,
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the
United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily
attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at
Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled
transporters and hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a
third of the world’s economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small
nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on
the first day of a war. But North Korea’s million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to
resist a US invasion. Pyongyang’s 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea’s
political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and
Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against
US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of
mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US
six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North
Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some
250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that
much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already
overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might
have to be re-introduced.
US war planners believe that an attempt to assassinate or isolate North Korean leader Kim
Jung-un – known in the military as ‘decapitation’- would cause the North Korean armed forces to scatter and
give up. I don’t think so.
My visits to South and North Korea have shown me that soldiers of both nations are amazingly
tough, patriotic and ready to fight. I’ve also been under the Demilitarized Zone in some of the warren of
secret tunnels built by North Korea under South Korean fortifications. Hundreds of North Korean long-range
170mm guns and rocket batteries are buried into the hills facing the DMZ, all within range of the northern
half of South Korea’s capital, Seoul.
North Korea is unlikely to be a pushover in a war. Even after US/South Korean forces
occupy Pyongyang, the North has prepared for a long guerilla war in the mountains that could last for
decades. They have been practicing for 30 years. Chaos in North Korea will invite
Chinese military intervention, but not necessarily to the advantage of the US and its
Is Commander-in-Chief Trump, who somehow managed to avoid
military service during the Vietnam War, really ready to launch a big war in Asia? Most Americans still
can’t locate Korea on a map. Will Congress tax every American taxpayer $20,000 to pay for a new Korean war?
Will Russia sit by quietly while the US blows apart North Korea? Does
anyone in the White House know that North Korea borders on Russia and is less than 200km from the key
Russian port of Vladivostok?
All this craziness would be ended if the US signed a peace treaty with North Korea ending the
first Korean War and opened up diplomatic and commercial relations. No need for war or missile
threats. North Korea is a horrid, brutal regime. But so is Egypt, whose tin pot dictator was wined and dined
by Trump last week.
But pounding the rostrum with your shoe is always much more fun than boring peace talks.
Given that the pretext for attacking Syria is
falling apart before the public's eyes [...at least it was back in 2013], why is the US preparing to
wage war on that country? Who benefits from the ongoing destabilization of Assad's government? What will the
Middle East look like if the Sunnis take over Syria? What is Israel's role in this? What do Turkey, Qatar and
Saudi Arabia have to gain from a war in Syria? And what does Bandar Bush have to do with all of this? Join us
today on The Corbett Report as we discuss these and other pressing issues as the world stands on the brink of
yet another US-led Middle Eastern military adventure.
Months after the events took place, Pulitzer prize winning journalists and others are
finally reporting about the lies and manipulations of the US government regarding the recent chemical weapons
attack in Syria. Far from shining a light on the true situation in the country, however, these reports continue
to avoid the underlying causes and explanations for what is happening in Syria, and the forces that are behind
it. This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.
On the 100th anniversary of the United States entry into World War I, President Donald Trump
targeted a Syrian air base, launching over 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles and destroying the facility. United
States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also alluded to an international coalition forcing the ouster of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. After campaigning on a foreign policy without entangling foreign wars and
nation-building, manyTrump supporters feel betrayed and angry.
Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you.
Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at:
Evidence Mounts Syrian WMD Attack Was False Flag
Published on Apr 6, 2017
The news has done nothing but push the total war agenda after the Syrian chemical attack, but
who really stands to gain from the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach
millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show
[S.P.] "The key issue is the public doesn't know we've got 500 Marines being put into Syria
in a war that can't be won, in a battle that was not even planned-out correctly in Raqqa...The generals have
failed in doing what they're supposed to do and the reason is very simple : they were there in the first Iraq
war they failed, in the second Iraq war they failed, they haven't won a war, they've been in battles but not
wars...[Alex Jones] "So they're ready to fight wars, they're not ready to use Intelligence to cut it off at the
head." [S.P.] "You got it...The basic premise of all wars is you win it by using the head not by using
guns...you put guns on the ground particularly with the Marines you get cannon fodder. I've got boys who've
just come back from Africa, they don't know what they were doing in Africa; they don't know why they were
shooting at certain people; they don't know why we have troops in...[Alex Jones] "No I know, I understand, so
you're saying it is literally just a defense contractor event...[S.P.] "It's the Military Industrial
Complex again! We don't need 58 Billion dollars more in a budget that's already bloated to 600
-- Dr. Steve Pieczenik --
"THIS IS A WARNING TO OUR GENERALS TO OUR PRESIDENT
AND TO ANYONE INVOLVED!..."
[A MUST WATCH VIDEO!]
Insider Warns Generals
Not To Trick America Into A War In Syria
Published on Apr 10, 2017
Steve Pieczenik joins the Alex Jones to break down why attacking Syria would be a
fatal mistakes for the Trump presidency and how it would put him into the hands of the
STEVE PIECZENIK MAR 18 17 ST 1
[A MUST WATCH VIDEO!]
Neo Cons Want To Destroy America/Gorsuch Is Dangerous And Can't Be
STEVE PIECZENIK ST CMD Mar 30 17 OPUS 2
[Middle East Disaster]
Published on Mar 21, 2017
Hear what I have to say about Military Spending. Cut the budget! Don't add to
it ! Please listen POTUS Trump.
Published on Mar 23, 2017
Dr. Steve Pieczenik explains how the Neo-Cons are attempting to destroy America
as well as what he thinks about Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Published on Apr, 2017
Hear me on two issues: Brexit will have an IMPACT on U.S. and plz Potus, get
out of ME. Its a disaster.
An independent agency of the United States government responsible for collecting and
coordinating intelligence and counterintelligence activities abroad in the national interest; headed by the
Director of Central Intelligence under the supervision of the President and National Security Council...There
has been considerable criticism of the CIA relating to security and counterintelligence failures, failures in
intelligence analysis, human rights concerns, external investigations and document releases, influencing public
opinion and law enforcement, drug trafficking, and lying to Congress. In 1987, the former CIA Station Chief in
Angola in 1976, John Stockwell, said the CIA is responsible for tens of thousands of covert actions and
destablization programs since it was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of
1947.At the time, Stockwell estimated that over 6 million people
had died in CIA covert actions.
SIR! NO SIR!
Featured Video #1
In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement
didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army
stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military
colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one
expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it had, in
the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement
against the war in Vietnam. http://www.sirnosir.com/the_film/synopsis.html
Ever since its inception there have been those who have
warned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, far from offering a simple "collective security" pact to
ensure the integrity of its member nations' borders, would in fact be used as an offensive tool of imperial
adventurism and conquest. Since the NATO-led Kosovo bombing campaign of 1999 at the very least, those fears
have appeared more and more justified.
Since that time, NATO has continued to take a lead role in more and more overtly
offensive campaigns of aggression in theatre after theatre. By now it is commonly understood to be an extension
of the Pentagon itself, a convenient international military instrument for Washington to wield whenever the
pretense of an international consensus cannot be achieved at the UN Security
Council. -- James Corbett
NATO is the first attempt in history to establish an aggressive
global military formation, one which currently includes a third of the nations of the world either as members
or partners, has members and partners on five continents and has conducted active operations on four, with the
potential to expand its reach into the remaining two where it has not yet officially intruded
itself...As NATO continues to expand across the
globe through a series of partnerships, initiatives and dialogues, what was once a collective security
agreement is increasingly becoming a global military strike force capable of bombarding, invading and
occupying countries anywhere in the world.
The Crime of Aggression is the most serious crime a nation can commit. The
condemnation of this crime is rooted in both Natural and Biblical Law. The preparation for committing this
crime almost caused David his kingdom. In judgment upon David for planning this crime, God destroyed tens of
thousands of David's fighting men, and had David not repented, the nation of Israel itself would have been
Sadly, almost no preacher even deals with this subject and almost no Christian has ever heard it
explained. Yet it is one of the most important laws dealing with nations in the entire Bible. The committing of
this crime constitutes much of the current crisis in America and the world today.
In this DVD, Dr. Baldwin explains this almost forgotten and extremely important
doctrine. This is a message you will likely hear nowhere else.
"Let's look at the track records, what kind of news source in the U.S. let's say in the past
fifteen years, twenty years, has the highest level of disseminating fake news? I'm talking about factual
grounds, I'm not talking about sensationalism or embellishment okay. What were the sources for the WMD (Weapons
of Mass Destruction) stories that were sold to the public, marketed on hourly basis, not even hourly on
minutely basis to the public?...Mainstream Media: NBC, NPR, CNN, all these sources. And now that we all know it
has been established that for example that WMD stories were all fake, they were lies, they were false...can you
recall any of these publications Mainstream Media publications: NBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, ever coming and issuing an
official formal retraction? Have you heard any of these channels coming and actually apologizing, and saying we
disseminated fake news. And we basically got us into the war by manufacturing consent from the public and that
caused tens of billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars in terms of dollar costs, and all these lives,
you know...People in Iraq and also American Soldiers died. So you're looking at criminal lie in this case, but
what kind of consequences those Mainstream Media channels have faced?"
Who You Are – Collected information includes names, addresses,
biometrics, social media accounts .
What You Do – Travel history, communications, financial transactions
and movement of physical assets.
Who You Know – Relational information including family, friends,
associates and organizations.
Context – Contextual data such as demographics, politics, cultural
norms and religion.
Acloser look at the
upcoming Jade Helm military exercise, specifically its “master the human domain” motto, reveals a larger agenda
in regards to domestic policy.
...“They’re building an infrastructure of tyranny,” stated Infowars David Knight.
“There’s a legal infrastructure with things like the NDAA, there’s a technical
infrastructure with things like the capability to do dragnet surveillance, and then of course there is going to
be a military and law enforcement infrastructure, and those are merging.”
While it may rate up there with the best in gaming, America's Army is not an exercise
in largesse towards the gaming community. It's essentially a propaganda tool funded to the tune of more than
$US10 million ($A11.1 million) of US taxpayers' money designed to attract young people to military
The US Army spends an estimated $US1.5 million annually to support the game, a drop in the $US583
million ocean of the army's recruitment advertising budget last year. But the modest expense is reaping big
dividends with 28 per cent of players clicking through to the US Army's recruitment site and about 40 per cent
of new US Army recruits in 2005 having played the game before signing up.
"We have arrived at a period in American and world history when being awake
is of utmost importance. Being in a position of leadership and yet asleep to critical issues at such a time
will certainly lead to the ‘disastrous results..." -- An excerpt from, Asleep At The Switch: An Open Letter to America's
Please note that this site is under construction so be sure to
refresh your browser often. Also, allow your video selection to play smoothly by pressing play and then
pause. After it buffers for a moment then resume to play for uninterrupted viewing.