Tag: WWII

Shale, Oil, Petro-Dollar and More – US Empire’s Strategic Future

In the grand scheme of things, and politicians and their masters, the elites, are always scheming, one has to wonder about the trajectory of the confederated united States of America (former British colonies in North America) –> United States of America (the republic) –> United States of America (the centralized federal government from Lincoln’s policies) –> the United States of America (democracy that embraced via 16th and 17th amendments to the US Constitution both federal income (direct) taxes on the people as well as popular election of senators vs. state appointed PLUS social security, the original welfare program and FDR’s decision to leave the gold standard) –> the US Empire that emerged post WWII that replaced the British Empire. Debts were still being paid by the nations that fought WWI and the Marshall Plan meant even more debt was to be incurred as a result of WWII for the US:

The UK/US effort with Middle East oil started in the late 1940s and early 1950s made it clear that the US imperialism was to be more covert and economic than the British effort. The CIA’s assassination of Iranian prime minister in 1953 signaled to the region that the US was dead serious about maintain control of oil production in the region to the US’s benefit.

By the 1970s, after the US totally severed all ties with the gold standard in 1971 under Nixon and his short-term efforts to deal with more war debt, this time from the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger setup the petro-dollar system to enable the US to incur even more debt than ever before as an article from Southfront’s Dr. Leon Tressell points out:

The Petro-dollar system set up by Kissinger in the 1970s underpins the American control of the global trading system and allows it to maintain a massively over bloated military the scale of which the world has not seen since World War 2.

With this backdrop that articulates an empire’s trajectory, from federated sovereign states to a global superpower empire, one can only wonder how long the US can fake it until it makes it time and again before the petro-dollar magic wears off.

To help unpack what is really happening in the oil world, one has to understand the initial promises of shale, the technology that allowed both Obama and Trump to brag that the US is now a net exporter of oil production and to leverage this “bubble” (no pun intended) to strong arm other nations not on the US Empire’s dependents list.

President Trump’s abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposition of sanctions on Tehran was based on the premise that the drop in Iranian oil exports would be made up for by U.S. shale oil production. Thus keeping down any inflationary pressures on the global oil market.

While Iran is definitely in the empire’s crosshairs, so is Russia:

Trump has also used the stick to force Europe away from Russian gas supplies. Under the terms of the misnamed ‘Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019, a sanctions law ironically written by oil and gas rich Texas Senator Ted Cruz,‘the U.S. has threatened EU countries with sanctions if they participate in helping with the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic sea.

The world’s bully continues to play cards like it has a full house, but it may be bluffing:

The EIA 2020 forecast is for shale oil production to peak in 2022 at 14 million barrels per day and continue at that level until 2050. The vast majority of this oil production is expected to come from the shale oil pays in just 3 states: Texas, New Mexico and North Dakota. The bulk of this oil production is expected to come from the world’s largest oil field in the Permian basin that runs across Texas and New Mexico.

There is the bluff. The US is treating shale like oil, and they are not the same. In the first half of the 1900s, oil wells put in place in this time-frame STILL makeup 50% of the global oil market. Shale is proving to have a much different curve:

The problem oil companies face is that the decline rate of shale oil wells are frighteningly rapid at a rate of 70% in the first year and 30% in the second year of operation. This means they have to keep pumping and drilling new wells like mad to just to keep up production levels.

Sounds like the EIA forecast may have been some “fake news”. Not cool.

Of greater concern are the reports warning that the Permian basin, the jewel in the crown of America’s fracking industry, is approaching peak production.

In 2018 Paul Kibsgaard CEO of Schlumberger, one of the oil industry’s largest service provider, warned, “We are already starting to see a similar reduction in unit well productivity to that already seen in the Eagle Ford, suggesting that the Permian growth potential could be lower than earlier expected.”

A respected scientist took the EIA projects and offered his own report:

David Hughes, a scientist who worked for 32 years with the Canadian Geological Survey, has carried out an exhaustive analysis of the EIA claims for U.S. shale production up to 2050. His 177 page report SHALE REALITY CHECK 2019 Drilling into the U.S. Government’s Optimistic Forecasts for Shale Gas & Tight Oil Production Through 2050 concludes that EIA forecasts through 2050 are,’extremely optimistic for the most part, and are therefore highly unlikely to be realized.’

This is not good news. This is the type of news the media will bury and the US government will ignore.

Maybe this is the reason Trump refuses to leave Syria’s eastern oil fields, or Iraq. Maybe this is why Trumps economic sanctions target Iran and Venezuela?

Oil production from countries that Washington designates as enemies, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will increase in importance on the global market as U.S. shale oil production starts to decline. This will give greater power and influence to OPEC and Russia when it comes to determining oil prices through production cuts/increases.

Maybe this is also why Trump has actually stepped up the Middle East warfare, buy dropping more bombs per day than O-bomb-a and taking the additional aggressive step of threatening assassination of Iraqi politicians that might strike new deals with China for Iraqi oil:

Nations from Iraq to Saudi Arabia are developing trade and infrastructure relations with China which the United States takes strong exception to. Take for example, the recent bombshell admission by Iraq’s caretaker Prime Minister that Trump threatened him with assassination if Iraq proceeds with an oil for infrastructure project with China. In the first phase of this deal Iraq will send 100,00 barrels of oil to China in return for a $10 billion credit. China would finish the building of the country’s electricity grid and other major infrastructure projects including its vital oil and gas sector.

A desperate empire/bully is no fun to be around, as someone is going to get hurt economically or with low yield nukes that are being placed on US Navy submarines.

Dr. Tressell wraps up by stating:

As U.S. shale oil production declines it will seek to maintain control over the regions oil production. China’s desire for growing amounts of Middle Eastern oil will intensify this clash for resources, influence and power in the region. Thus leading to greater geo-political and economic conflict.

So basically, for three decades, since the Cold War with the USSR ended, the USA has destabilized the Middle East, and now, blow-back will be a real thing and not just a CIA projection. The War of Terror costing $6T may have spawned a new season of global conflict.

So the US is in a “pre-War” period and we are already $23T(2020) in debt, usually all that debt piles up AFTER a war. This can’t end well especially if the petro-dollar status slips away.

So now what?

“… Jesus then left the Temple. As he walked away, his disciples pointed out how very impressive the Temple architecture was. Jesus said, “You’re not impressed by all this sheer size, are you? The truth of the matter is that there’s not a stone in that building that is not going to end up in a pile of rubble.” Later as he was sitting on Mount Olives, his disciples approached and asked him, “Tell us, when are these things going to happen? What will be the sign of your coming, that the time’s up?” Jesus said, “Watch out for doomsday deceivers. Many leaders are going to show up with forged identities, claiming, ‘I am Christ, the Messiah.’ They will deceive a lot of people. When reports come in of wars and rumored wars, keep your head and don’t panic. This is routine history; this is no sign of the end. Nation will fight nation and ruler fight ruler, over and over. Famines and earthquakes will occur in various places. This is nothing compared to what is coming…” – The Bible (The Message paraphrase) – Matthew 24:1-8

This might be another world war, or this might be a more final clash ..

“.. Staying with it—that’s what God requires. Stay with it to the end. You won’t be sorry, and you’ll be saved. All during this time, the good news—the Message of the kingdom—will be preached all over the world, a witness staked out in every country. And then the end will come…” The Bible (The Message paraphrase) – Matthew 24:13,14

One day at a time people .. stay the course!

-SF1

Trajectory of the State: What Happens When Statists Overplay their Hand?

It has been a good run for state worshipers. The 1800s gave more and more people the belief that the state could bring about a good utopia for all to enjoy. (Outside those who saw peril in the state, like those in the most southern seven US states in the “deep south” in 1860 and 1861)

By the end of the 1800s it seemed that the progressive movement was about to birth and bring about a century of peace. However, WWI and WWI PLUS all the genocides of the 20th century meant millions died during as well as outside of official wars.

By the end of the 20th century we saw two collectivist Communist states morph in various ways towards entities that pay more attention to well-being of the taxpayers. Russia emerged out of a God-less era to embrace family and Christianity in the 20th century. China backed off on the underground Church (that was thriving under persecution) to a degree where this is tolerated in this Communism version 2.X coupled with quite a capitalist friendly environment where regulations are minimized that allow entrepreneurship to thrive. While these states are not perfect, it does appear they have learned the lessons of the 20th century.

This brings us to the US state complex that is exceptional enough that it still believes there are no lessons to learn. However, if Lew Rockwell’s post “Working Around Leviathan” predictions are true, their days are numbered as they get less and less relevant in society as technology advances so much faster than the state can digest it.

Lew does a great job at balancing the forces at work in 2020, where he compares the US state apparatus:

Never before has a government in human history owned more weapons of mass destruction, looted as much wealth from a country, or assumed unto itself the power to regulate the minutiae of daily life as much as this one. By comparison to the overgrown behemoth in Washington, with its printing press to crank out money for the world and its annual $2.2 trillion dollars in largesse to toss at adoring crowds, even communist states were powerless paupers.

.. to the private commercial/business side:

At the same time — and here is the paradox — the United States is overall the wealthiest society in the history of the world. The World Bank lists Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway as competitive in this regard, but the statistics don’t take into account the challenges to mass wealth that exist in the US relative to small, homogenous states such as its closest competitors. In the United States, more people from more classes and geographic regions have access to more goods and services at prices they can afford, and possess the disposable income and access to credit to put them to use, than any other time in history. Truly we live in the age of extreme abundance.

Some will claim it is the government’s role that has made especially large corporations most successful and should receive credit for all they do. However, Lew is quick to point out a disclaimer to that effect, but not before sharing what both the so-called “right” and so-called “left” tend to think:

It seems that people on the right and left are quick to confuse correlation with causation. They believe that the US is wealthy because the government is big and expansive. This error is probably the most common of all errors in political economy. It is just assumed that buildings are safe because of building codes, that stock markets are not dens of thieves because of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), that the elderly don’t starve and die because of Social Security, and so on, all the way to concluding that we should credit big government for American wealth.

I do hope you chuckled as you read this. Only those in DC would take this seriously, most of the rest of us recognize sarcasm.

If we are looking for those that create value and wealth, do we think of government? Does on think of Obamacare, Amtrak or the United States Postal Service?

Government is not productive. It has no wealth of its own. All it acquires it must take from the private sector. You might believe that it is necessary and you might believe it does great good, but we must grant that it does not have the ability to produce wealth in the way the market does.

If you understand economics, or if you have ever spent time in a monopoly, you will find that they do not have any good feedback loop that helps them indicate what the market needs. Government is even more handicapped since no one in their bureaucracy is ever accountable for government action or inaction. They simply have no skin in the game and do not see the taxpayers as customers:

Economic law limits what the state can do. The state cannot raise wages for everyone. It cannot dampen prices that want to rise without causing shortages, or increase prices that want to fall without causing surpluses. It cannot predict the course of markets or human events. It can control surprisingly few forces that work in the world.

In all its central planning, government is forever declaring the major combat operations are over, whether in foreign or domestic policy, only to discover that its real struggles and battles last and last. A good example is in the area of foreign trade. If a good or service is more efficiently produced abroad, the logic of the market will reassign production patterns until they conform. An attempt to protect domestic industry can do nothing to change this reality. Instead, protection only increases prices for consumers, subsidizes inefficient firms, and brings about ever-increasing amounts of wasted time, work, and resources.

On the other hand are those that seek to truly bring value to the market and are rewarded with wealth that can be placed into capital improvements that can make the business even more productive, efficient and even adaptable to the changing market. This was seen by the 1700 and 1800 farmers all the way to the manufacturers of the 1800s that could accomplish this all without government involvement.

Lasting prosperity can only come about through human effort in the framework of a market economy that allows people to cooperate to their mutual advantage, innovate and invest in an environment of freedom, retain earnings as private property, and save generation to generation without fear of having estates looted through taxation and inflation. This is the source of wealth. This is the means by which a rising population is fed, clothed, and housed. This is the method by which even the poorest country can become rich.

I will only add one more quote and if you are interested, please read all of Lew’s words that at least to me, give hope for the generations to come:

But here I would like to concentrate on what I think is an explanation that is too often overlooked. It requires that we understand something about the extraordinary capacity of the human mind to overcome obstacles put in its path. In all the history of states and the history of reflection on social organization and economics, this component is the most underestimated because it is the least predictable and the most difficult to comprehend. Human beings are creative and determined, and, if they have a love of liberty, and cooperate through exchange, they can overcome seemingly impassable obstacles.

It is because of this power of human ingenuity and determination to improve the world around us, despite the state, that a vast gulf has come to separate the accumulated power of the nation-state from its effective power in the management and guidance of society and the world economy.

Yes, despite the state, human ingenuity can improve the world, as well as its parallel, despite religion, humans with God’s help and hope, can improve the world in loving those around them.

Praying that the future does see the archaic state fall by the wayside and that grassroots communities with free trade on a global basis can improve the lives of those all over the world.

One can dream can’t they?

Acts 2:17

Your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.

-SF1

The Gift of Truth – The Truth Will Set You Free

I hate lies. I love truth. Friends don’t let friends believe in lies .. but they also allow someone that process .. towards truth .. it is a different timeline for everyone .. everyone is unique and ultimately have to own their own beliefs, values, mission, etc.

Along these lines, once I found out what “Honest Abe” did to the much more honorable Robert E. Lee, I had my suspicions that Lincoln was not everything the state says he was, Father Abraham to the freed Blacks, a saint that ended slavery, and the list goes on and on to this deified man. The very fact that the “state” does this should make everyone suspicious!

I detest the way the Lincoln administration chose to bury their dead on an honorable man’s private property .. a man who had 100x the character of Lincoln himself when it came to principles. Lincoln’s words in 1848 about a very Jefferson idea about the consent of the governed would have been something that Robert E. Lee would have agreed with .. and when Lee acted on this belief, Lincoln made sure Lee could never return to his home.

16,000 Union solders buried in Lee’s garden

Obviously, Lincoln was all words (typical politician) and Lee was principles and character, not moved by conditions or time.

The quote Lee and Lincoln would agree to:

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.” ~ Lincoln January 12 1848, expressing the near-universally held Jeffersonian principle

Anyway, Jacob Hornberger at FFF (The Future of Freedom Foundation) shared this article a few years ago about Memorial Day, but I thought that as 2019 wrapped up it was good to reflect on the nation we find ourselves a part of, and its real history, including a good dose of truth!

Today, Memorial Day, Americans across the land will hear the same message: that U.S. soldiers who have died in America’s foreign wars and foreign interventions have done so in the defense of our rights and freedoms. It is a message that will be heard in sporting events, memorial services, airports, churches, and everywhere else that Memorial Day is being commemorated.

There is one big thing wrong, however. It’s a lie. None of those soldiers died protecting our rights and freedoms. That’s because our rights and freedoms were never being threatened by the enemy forces that killed those soldiers.

Yes, lets look at how the US military defended our rights and freedoms … it should not take long and you will see that it has been a LONG time since they actually did that:

Syria. The Syrian government has never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Syria was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

Niger. The Niger government has never invaded the United States and tried to take away our freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Niger was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

Iraq. The Iraq government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Iraq was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

Afghanistan. The Afghan government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Afghanistan was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms. Even al-Qaeda never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Its terrorist attacks, including the one on 9/11, were retaliation for U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.

Panama. The Panama government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Panama was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

Grenada. The Grenada government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Grenada was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

Vietnam. The North Vietnam government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Vietnam was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

Korea. The North Korean government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Korea was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

World War II.

The Japanese government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in the Pacific theater in World War II was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms. The Japanese attack on U.S. Naval forces on Hawaii was intended solely to prevent the U.S. Navy from interfering with Japanese attempts to acquire oil in the Dutch East Indies in response to President Roosevelt’s oil embargo, whose aim was to provoke the Japanese into attacking the United States so that the U.S. could get into the European part of war.

The German government never invaded the United States and try to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in the European theater in World War II was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms. Germany wasn’t even able to cross the English Channel to invade England, much less the Atlantic Ocean to invade the United States. In fact, the last thing that Germany wanted was war with the United States, as reflected by Germany’s refusal to react to President Roosevelt’s repeated provocations to get Germany to attack the United States. Germany only declared war on the United States after FDR successfully provoked the Japanese into attacking the U.S. Navy fleet at Pearl Harbor, in the hope that this would provide a back door to entry into the war in Europe.

World War I. The German government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in World War I was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms, especially given the ridiculous aims of U.S. intervention into the war: to “end all wars” and to “make the world safe for democracy,” a word that isn’t even in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is perversely ironic that it was U.S. interventionism into the conflict that contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II.

The Spanish-American War. The Spanish government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any soldier who died in the Spanish-American War was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.

I will add the following:

The War Against Southern Independence (of seven states originally, wrongly called a civil war, wrong because the southern states did not want any other territory, PERIOD).

The South Carolina militia in Dec 1860 to April 1861 never invaded the United States and try to take away the rights of those in other states. As a sovereign entity (reclaiming what it had before the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation) it said LEAVE US ALONE.

The Confederate States of America from Feb to April 1861 never invaded the United States and try to take away the rights of those in other states. While after the US Army detachment in Fort Moultrie violated the agreement in place since Dec 1860 when it agreed NOT to take any action in Charleston Harbor and remained at peace in what was now South Carolina territory (seceded from USA), Gen. Anderson, in the cover of night moved his troops to Fort Sumter. When Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort with provisions AND troops was when the forces around Charleston Harbor chose to fire on Fort Sumter .. KILLING NO ONE.

The Confederate States of America (now 11 states) from April – July 1861 never invaded the United States and try to take away the rights of those in other states.

So why celebrate Memorial Day when the reason for its existence is based on lies .. it is yet another government piece of propaganda that when repeated enough get into the heads of the sheep!

Bottom line is that while the defense of the United States in the War of 1812 was ‘honorable’, even that war was entered into under questionable circumstances and outright lies. Know that by 1814 the NORTH was ready to secede from the United States (peacefully) .. you might want to research the “Hartford Convention of 1814”

“… the Hartford Convention began a three-week debate about the relationship between the then 18 states and the federal government. The meeting was held in secret by New England members of the Federalist Party and there were nationwide fears that the Hartford Convention would call for New England’s secession from the Union …”

New Englanders were unhappy over political concerns that they were being badly treated by the Union. Since Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1800, the president had been a Southerner chosen by an electoral system that allowed the slave-holding Southern states to count each slave as 60 percent of a free person for their allocation of congressional seats and the number of presidential electors…”

Did the southern states invade the north to keep this from happening? No! As early as 1804, sensing that New England was not happy with things (this time it was the Louisiana Purchase, another time when secession was discussed in the North.):

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part.  Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

–Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804

So maybe the American Revolutionary War was really the last time the government’s troops fought for our freedom and for our rights. Think about that!

PS Also, if you think George Washington was really the tactical hero of Yorktown, just know that when the French general Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau told Washington to move his troops to Yorktown as the French fleet was coming to contain the British troops under Cornwallis there, Washington had a melt-down and at first refused the thought thinking as he had the last few years that the decisive battle HAD to take place against the British in New York harbor.

[Do your own research!]

-SF1

12OCT2019: Blog Post Trilogy Finale – Sedition Criminalization Back in Vogue

10 years after the Constitution was drafted, this act was signed by “patriot” John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

Just from my history education from the government, I know there were times in our history that one had to just agree with the government and not speak or write critically of their actions. Words like treason and sedition became mainstream.

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. – John F. Kennedy

From the “Copperheads” during the Civil War (those who called out the tyrant Lincoln) to those critical of entering the “Great War” (WWI), who had to content with Woodrow Wilson’s  U.S. Sedition Act of 1918, the act that made it a crime to ”willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.” Less than 25 years later aviation hero Charles Lindbergh would be criticized by FDR by not going along with his secret plan to get America involved in yet another world war. (WWII) From George Bush stating “you are either with us or against us” in his decision to invade Iraq to the same treatment when Barack Obama decided to attack Libya and back ISIS in Syria, it is the same song, different verse ad nauseum.

This is my 3rd post today, a trilogy of sorts, which:

  1. covered the unhealthy big-business/government alliance and its impact on regions of this nation.
  2. covered on a macro scale how there were two visions of the American Colonies “cause” for independence from the British Empire.
  3. covered on a micro scale, where what one individual says or writes is held against them as a crime against the government.

Pure Redcoat.

Pure Soviet Union circa 1950s/1960s.

It turns out, it is also Pure America in 1798!

Today, under Trump, this whole critical views of government has again gotten personnel. In the last few years, individuals have been banned from social media or experienced a demonetization of their work online because of their words. The attitude these days aligns with that of John Adams back in 1798 when he signed the Alien and Sedition Act as described by Robert Ringer nearly 10 years ago:

… which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government ”through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion.”

Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military, or the flag was made illegal. This by a group of men who themselves had escaped bondage only twenty-two years earlier!

It was an audacious move by the Federalist-controlled Congress to silence the Republicans, particularly regarding their support of the French Revolution. It was, of course, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, which clearly states, in the First Amendment, that ”Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.”

With the 21st century press looking more and more like the 20th century USSR mouthpiece “Pravda”, the only true “press” is the independent blogger, tweeter and friend of liberty that risks being the rebel in social settings both in the workplace/marketplace and in the neighborhood.

Daniel McAdams frames it nicely:

Are we agents of a foreign power for opposing the foreign policy of the US government? This is the way of thinking that dominated communist Europe for decades. The Party was always right, guided as it was by the inevitable and undeniable march of history. Any foreign policy position put forth by The Party was by definition the correct foreign policy. So anyone who disagreed was also by definition incorrect and a “wrecker.” When The Party is by definition correct, any deviationist must be punished and any deviation must be disappeared.

New interpretations by Trump’s Administration indicate that in its “Maximum Pressure” exercise with Iran have changed the rules to criminalize individuals who “associate” with Iranians. Originally intended to mean:

Responding to a query by a potential participant, an OFAC employee explained that ‘transaction’ and ‘dealing in transactions,’ as those terms are used by OFAC, are broadly construed to include not only monetary dealings or exchanges, but also ‘providing any sort of service’ and ‘non-monetary service,’ including giving a presentation at a conference.

So simple truth-telling about the US Empire’s sanctions that ban Iranian import of components to make medicine, there by indirectly causing unknown number of deaths in that nation, could subject one to fines and imprisonment.

We have all kinds of freedom in the USA today because of all the interventions around the world, especially in the Middle East, since 1990, NOT!

Pretty soon, your neighbors will be encouraged to “say something, if you hear something”, or maybe not, since your smartphone can report your words 24/7.

Sorry to end on a note like this, but there is a bright side, a silver lining if you will in the empire’s quest to silence us. A weakness.

Pride.

The myth of American Exceptionalism will help to unravel the powerful.

Pride will do 🙂

-SF!

Below: Script from the movie “The Patriot”:

MARTIN
	I've just been inside the mind of a
	genius.  Lord Cornwallis knows more
	about war than I could in a dozen
	lifetimes.

		BILLINGS
	Cheerful news to greet the morn.

		MARTIN
	His victories at Charleston and
	Camden were perfect, strategically,
	tactically, logistically.  But he
	has a weakness.

They all turn to Martin.

		MARTIN
	Lord Cornwallis is brilliant.  His
	weakness is that he knows it.

		GABRIEL
	Father?

		MARTIN
	Pride is his weakness.

The men consider that.

		DELANCEY
	Personally, I'd would prefer
	stupidity.

		MARTIN
	Pride will do.

War Can Be Avoided – Even for the US Empire! (Rarely) – Retro 1983

Service members pick through the rubble following the bombing of the USMC barracks in Beirut, Lebanon on Oct. 23, 1983. The terror attack resulted in the deaths of 220 Marines. File Photo by USMC/UPI

You can count on one hand the times that the United States of America refrained from its drive for war. While its third president said on 04MAR1801:

… peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none …

… in hindsight, presidents that followed Thomas Jefferson did not have those ideals and/or could not resist the unity that happens when the war path is decided on. War is good for the state as well, which statesmen back in the day and politicians today realize clearly. The state was meant for war.

However, there was a time in the early 1980s when the US backed off from the war path. It was tempting, but at the end of the day, cooler heads prevailed. As Kenny Rogers sang

He said, “If you’re gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

In this article, the details emerge from a time in 1983-1984 when the US Empire acted more like a man of character than that of a bully. Confident that knowing when “to hold them, and knowing when to run” displayed more meekness, power under control, than most Presidential administrations to date.

While Reagan’s administration piled on the debt more than Carter’s, engaged in the drug trafficking trade called the Iran-Contra Affair, and also ratcheted up “gun-control”, this event in Lebanon and the US response is something that needs to be remembered and admired.

Setting the stage:

In October of 1983, a truck filled with explosives leveled the four-story U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. The intelligence community laid responsibility for the act at the feet of Tehran’s mullahs, who’d tasked Hezbollah, their proxy in Lebanon, with pushing the U.S. (which had deployed the Marines as part of a multinational peacekeeping mission) out of the region. The incident (the largest non-nuclear explosion since World War Two, as we were told at the time), touched off a legendary internal Reagan Administration dispute over how, and whether, the U.S. should retaliate.

As today, there were members of the administration that were more war-hawk in nature, and others who have been in combat, and acutely know what the unintentional consequences might be in ordering a retaliation.

I do like Caspar Weinberger’s (US Army veteran of some intense Pacific fighting in WWII) angle:

Secretary of Defense [Weinberger] had opposed the deployment of the Marines to begin with, and had the support of the military. Colin Powell, Weinberger’s senior military assistant, spoke for many of the military’s leaders when he described the Lebanon deployment “goofy from the beginning.”

On the other side was Secretary of State George Shultz:

For Shultz, however, revisiting the deployment decision was a waste of time. In a series of knock-down-drag-outs that pitted him against Weinberger, the Secretary of State argued that “American credibility” (that old standby), was being tested and that, therefore, the deaths of 241 U.S. Marines was cause enough for a military escalation.

The kicker comes here where Weinberger’s wisdom is revealed:

Weinberger disagreed: “retaliation against who?” he asked. Slow-rolling the president, he argued that the U.S. needed better intelligence before deciding who to punish. Weinberger was adamant: the U.S. had just left one unwinnable conflict (in Vietnam), and shouldn’t be so quick to start another. He dug in.

I do wish that this effort could be made today. Instead of lashing out like a bully swinging wildly to and fro, connecting here, connecting there mainly with innocent people and missing the real culprits, can’t today’s US government ever take time and wisely ascertain what is really happening? No more “WMD’s in Iraq”, no more Colin Powell holding some “chemical weapon” in his fingers at the UN, no more stories of babies in incubators left to die. The CIA/MI6/Mossad deep state “evidence” needs to be compared to truly independent science, if one can every practically get there.

Maybe, just maybe today’s announcement that Sen. Rand Paul has been chosen to be a point of dialog with the regime in Iran, is a rare piece of good news that I myself have been waiting years if not decades for.

Back to 1983.

It seems that the Vietnam War was not too far in the rear-view mirror as men with war experience from WWII in the South Pacific, who started as PRIVATES, who have seen the elephant, could wisely speak into:

NOTE: “Weinberger was a Harvard-educated lawyer, his formative experience came in World War II, where he served as an infantry officer during the 1942 Battle of Buna—a fetid, leech-infested Japanese base on the rim of northern New Guinea. For those who survived, including Weinberger, the swamp-slogging battle was an unrelenting nightmare: at its end, the Japanese resorted to cannibalism and used the bodies of the dead to reinforce their defenses. ”

Staying strong:

The Shultz-Weinberger tilt dragged on until February of 1984, when Reagan decided to “redeploy” the Marines to U.S. ships on station in the Mediterranean. The “redeployment” was seen by Shultz as an ignominious retreat, a sign of American weakness. But, as capably rendered by Marine Colonel and historian David Crist in The Twilight War, that’s not the way the Pentagon viewed it.

Only the insecure thinks this is a loss. The mature and secure person can see better the big picture and risk the possibility of this reaction to be seen as week.

Then the truth is unearthed, something that the US Empire struggles with to this very day:

The problem with American policy in the Middle East, Koch implied, was American hypocrisy—and our selective use of the word terrorism: when our friends plant bombs we say it’s because they’re defending our values, but when our enemies do it, it’s terrorism.

The entangling alliances will always cause hypocrisy. We had been warned from over 200 years ago and we (especially our leaders) still don’t get it.

Over reaction to the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor, or to anything we might see in the Persian Gulf in the coming weeks and months is a recipe for a disaster that will over-shadow Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Things were very different even 5, 10, 15 and even 20 years ago. The world has changed, Russia and China have not only survived US sanctions and tariff wars, but they also have allies in other countries that have been bullied by the US Empire especially since the end of WWII.

.. striking back, killing who you can because you can (and simply to assuage your own anger) is not only “beneath our dignity”—it’s a signpost on the road to unwinnable wars.

Don’t we know it. The US Empire legacy lives on, and it ain’t a pretty sight.

-SF1