Traitor John McCain trusts globalist EU, worries about new world order under strain
(INTELLIHUB) — Noted anti-Trump globalist and Senator from Arizona John McCain reaffirmed his longstanding commitment to the European Union and NATO during a speech in Brussels Friday where he made clear which side he is on between the forces of populism and the powerful globalist organizations that stand against it.
Speaking at the Brussels Forum, McCain claimed that the world “cries out for American and European leadership” through the globalist controlled EU and NATO before going on to transparently shill for the un-elected bureaucracy that essentially runs most of Europe.
According to an article in the EU Observer, McCain said that the EU and US need further cooperation and “more connectivity” which is a code word for continuing to erode the very sovereignty of the country he is supposed to serve.
“I trust the EU,” McCain told the conference, making it clear that he stands directly against everything that President Trump has so far stood for. “We need to rely on NATO and have a NATO that adjusts to new challenges,” he continued.
Amazingly, McCain also admitted that the so-called new world order is under “enormous strain”, possibly alluding to the fact that millions of people across the world are beginning to wake up to the dangers of the globalist system as evidenced by the Brexit and the stunning election of Donald Trump.
These new statements by McCain, while newsworthy because they further reveal a globalist operative for who he really is, are simply par for the course when it comes to what McCain has been up too since the moment it became clear Trump was going to win the election.
On January 11th, I reported on the stunning fact that it was John McCain himself who took the widely discredited “dossier” on Donald Trump to the head of the FBI, a move that clearly signaled he was working against the President-elect.
“In the wake of the release of a disinformation dossier on President-elect Donald Trump, it has been revealed that none other than establishment Republican John McCain was responsible for passing the document to the highest reaches of the FBI.”
“McCain, of the apparent belief that this information was extremely important, actually passed the documents to FBI director James Comey last month, according to a report by The Guardian.”
A little over a month later, McCain was at it again, this time using yet another speech to the globalist elite to directly attack the agenda of a president from his own party.
“During a speech at the globalist Munich Security Conference in Germany, noted neocon and deep state puppet John McCain attacked the Trump “worldview” in a point by point argument now being hailed in the corporate controlled media,” Intellihub News reported in mid-February.
As the Washington Post so happily noted, “In his speech, McCain suggested the Western world is uniquely imperiled this year — even more so than when Barack Obama was president — and proceeded to question whether it will even survive.”
Just days later McCain was once again on the attack, this time in a wide-ranging interview with the liberal New York magazine where he revealed what amounted to a declaration of war against both Trump and his tens of millions of supporters.
“Shockingly, McCain even claimed that the admitted deep state disinformation concerning the election and Russia is actually more serious than terror attacks that have killed dozens of Americans.”
It is strikingly obvious at this point that John McCain is nothing more than an operative for the globalist establishment who is using his very real power to directly work against the elected President of the United States.
Infograph. The US military machine and its global presence in charts
Trump’s budget for 2018, proposes cutting lots of stuff, from the EPA to the NEA and even small cuts at NASA. One of the few departments that will not see any cuts was the US Department of Defense.
In 2015, Politico estimated that there are 800 U.S. bases abroad. The cots to maintain this massive military global footprint runs up to $100 billion annually.
The Visual Capitalist has summed up the huge US military machine the Infograph and accompanying charts below…
Via The Visual Capitalist..
If the proposed budget ultimately passes in Congress, the DoD would be allocated an extra $54 billion in federal funding – a 10% increase that would be one of the largest one-year defense budget increases in American History.
To put the proposed increase in context, the United States already spends more on defense than the next seven countries combined. Meanwhile, the additional $54 billion is about the size of the United Kingdom’s entire defense budget.
Internationally, there are under 200,000 troops that are stationed in 177 countries. Here are the top 20 countries they are stationed in…
US and European interests continue to portray the government and nation of North Korea as a perpetual security threat to both Asia and the world. Allegations regarding the nation’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs are continuously used as justification for not only a continuous US military presence on the Korean Peninsula, but as justification for a wider continued presence across all of Asia-Pacific.
In reality, what is portrayed as an irrational and provocative posture by the North Korean government, is in fact driven by a very overt, and genuinely provocative posture by the United States and its allies within the South Korean government.
During this year’s Foal Eagle joint US-South Korean military exercises, US-European and South Korean media sources intentionally made mention of preparations for a “decapitation” strike on North Korea. Such an operation would be intended to quickly eliminate North Korean military and civilian leadership to utterly paralyze the state and any possible response to what would most certainly be the subsequent invasion, occupation and subjugation of North Korea.
The Business Insider in an article titled, “SEAL Team 6 is reportedly training for a decapitation strike against North Korea’s Kim regime,” would report:
The annual Foal Eagle military drills between the US and South Korea will include some heavy hitters this year — the Navy SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden, Army Special Forces, and F-35s — South Korea’s Joon Gang Daily reports.
South Korean news outlets report that the SEALs, who will join the exercise for the first time, will simulate a “decapitation attack,” or a strike to remove North Korea’s leadership.
To introduce an element of plausible deniability to South Korean reports, the article would continue by stating:
Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross later told Business Insider that the US military “does not train for decapitation missions” of any kind.
Yet this is a categorically false statement. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, US policymakers, military planners and operational preparations focused almost solely on devising methods of “decapitating” the Soviet Union’s political and military leadership.
In more recent years, policy papers and the wars inspired by them have lead to documented instances of attempted “decapitation” operations, including the 2011 US-NATO assault on Libya in which the government of Muammar Qaddafi was targeted by airstrikes aimed at crippling the Libyan state and assassinating both members of the Qaddafi family as well as members of the then ruling government.
Similar operations were aimed at Iraq earlier during the 2003 invasion and occupation by US-led forces.
Regarding North Korea more specifically, entire policy papers have been produced by prominent US policy think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) devising plans to decimate North Korea’s military and civilian leadership, invade and occupy the nation and confound North Korea’s capacity to resist what would inevitably be its integration with its southern neighbor.
A 2009 report titled, “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea,” lays out policy recommendations regarding regime change in North Korea. It states in its description:
The authors consider the challenges that these scenarios would pose–ranging from securing Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal to providing humanitarian assistance–and analyze the interests of the United States and others. They then provide recommendations for U.S. policy. In particular, they urge Washington to bolster its contingency planning and capabilities in cooperation with South Korea, Japan, and others, and to build a dialogue with China that could address each side’s concerns.
Preparations for these documented plans which include provisions for invasion, occupation and the eventual integration of North Korea with South Korea have been ongoing for years with the most recent Foal Eagle exercises being merely their latest, and most blatant manifestation.
The aforementioned Business Insider article would also report:
Yet a decapitation force would fit with a March 1 Wall Street Journal report that the White House is considering military action against the Kim regime.
The SEALs boarded the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and should arrive in South Korea on Wednesday, Joon Gang Daily reports.
South Korea has also made efforts toward a decapitation force, and international calls for action have increased in intensity after North Korea’s latest missile test, which simulated a saturation attack to defeat US and allied missile defenses.
While US-European and South Korean media platforms continue claiming such preparations are being made in reaction to North Korean military programs, careful analysis of North Korea and South Korea’s respective economic and military power reveal immense disparity and North Korea’s military capabilities as solely defensive with any first strike against its neighbors almost certainly leading to retaliation and the nation’s destruction.
North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and its expanding ballistic missile capabilities serve then only to raise the costs of any first strike carried out against it by US and South Korean forces. Claims that preparations by US and South Korean forces to carry out these first strikes are in response to North Korean provocations mirror similar political deceit that surrounded and clouded debate and analysis regarding US aggression in North Africa and the Middle East over the past two decades.
Ultimately, regardless of what political leaders in Washington or Seoul claim, the historical track record of the United States and its allies speaks for itself. Its annual military exercises and its adversarial approach to negotiations and relations with North Korea serve only to further drive tensions on both the peninsula and across the wider Asia-Pacific region.
For the United States, the perpetuation of instability helps justify its otherwise unjustifiable presence in a region literally an ocean away from its own borders. And while Washington cites “North Korean” weapons as a pretext for its continued presence in South Korea, its decades-spanning policy of encircling and attempting to contain neighboring China serves as its actual purpose for remaining involved in Korea’s affairs.
Provocative policies coupled with equally provocative military preparations including these most recent exercises openly aimed at North Korea’s leadership, guarantee continued instability and thus continued justification for a US presence in the region.
Washington’s careful cultivation of tensions on the peninsula serve as just one of many intentionally engineered and perpetuated conflicts across the region. Knowing well that nations targeted by US subversion and provocations will make preparations to defend against them, and possessing the media platforms to portray these preparations as “provocations” in and of themselves, the US has persuaded entire swaths of both its own population and those in regions inflicted by instability it itself drives, that Washington alone possesses the ability to contain such instability with its continued, extraterritorial presence.
In reality, the true solution for establishing peace and prosperity in these inflicted regions is for the US to simply withdraw.
There are no circumstances under which Russia will go to war with Israel over Syria. Doing so would be wholly contrary to Russia’s policies and strategic interests.
The alternative media community, especially its social media iteration, is experiencing collective psychosis in hallucinating that “Israel” and Russia are on the verge of war with one another.
The prevailing narrative is that Israeli “Defense Minister” Lieberman’s threat to destroy Syria’s air defense systems is tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia, with the assumption being that Moscow is on a crusade against Zionism and has thus become Tel Aviv’s worst enemy.
There’s no diplomatic way to say this, but the presumptions on which such a crazy conclusion has been reached are absolutely and utterly wrong.
Far from being Israel’s hated nemesis like many in the alternative media community wishfully pretend that it is, Moscow is one of Tel Aviv’s closest allies, and this is entirely due to President Putin’s deliberate policies. Not only does he enjoy a very strong personal friendship with Netanyahu, but President Putin also sees a lot of opportunity to advance his country’s interests in Israel through the large Russian diaspora there.
Russia wants to compete with the US for influence in Israel for several interrelated reasons.
Firstly, Judaism is one of Russia’s four official religions as stipulated by the 1993 constitution, thus partially making Russia a “Jewish State” in the technical-legal sense. To be fair, though, Russia is also an Orthodox, Muslim, and Buddhist country too by the same measure.
Coupled with the Russian diaspora in Israel, Moscow seeks to leverage these religious-personal connections in order to acquire greater clout over the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which in turn would be expected to boost Russia’s global Great Power prestige (which is exceptionally important to its leadership).
As a “reward” for its positive involvement in helping to resolve this seemingly intractable issue, Russia might expect Israel to grant its state companies important contracts in building, servicing, and/or investing in any potential Eastern Mediterranean pipeline from the offshore Leviathan gas field to the EU, which would exponentially increase Moscow’s influence on the global energy market and consequently on world affairs in general.
To be absolutely clear, I respectfully disagree with this approach for principled reasons, though I understand why Russia has embarked on it, and what it hopes to reap from its multifaceted engagement with Israel.
Returning to the current context and topic of this article, there’s no way whatsoever that Russia would ever even consider lobbying a volley of nuclear missiles at Israel no matter what Netanyahu does in Syria, even if he delivers on his government’s threats to destroy the country’s air defense systems.
In such a frightful scenario, Russia would assuredly issue a sharp diplomatic rebuke against Israel and probably take symbolic measures to express its disapproval, but it won’t ever preemptively intervene and stop Israeli jets from bombing Syria because its mandate is strictly to fight terrorism, and not defend Syria’s borders from outside state aggression.
Moreover, it’s an open fact that Russia and Israel have established mechanisms to coordinate their military action in Syria so as to avoid inadvertent clashes, which is hardly the behaviour that anyone would expect from two parties on the brink of an all-out nuclear exchange against each other.
Let’s face it — Russia and Israel are high-level and comprehensive strategic allies with one another, though this by no means signifies that Moscow is incapable of “balancing” its relations between Tel Aviv and Damascus.
In fact, it’s this very tricky diplomatic “balancing act” which might actually be somewhat restraining Israel from taking more aggressive action in Syria, as it understands that there’s a certain limit to what it can do and “get away with” before it overly embarrasses Russia and negatively impacts on bilateral relationships.
Everyone knows that Russia has deployed S-400 air defense missiles in Syria, and this fact was reported on with much fanfare and enthusiasm in the alternative media community, both through its professional outlets and on social media. Many people naively assumed that this would put a stop to Israel’s occasional strikes in Syria, yet several high-profile ones have occurred in the time since, in spite of the presence of the S-400s.
This can only be interpreted as proof that Russia has no desire to overstep its anti-terrorism mandate and defend Syria’s external borders, nor would it even want that heavy responsibility if Damascus offered it.
In addition, the fact that these strikes happened without any noticeable interference from the Russian side can be taken as visible confirmation that the mechanisms earlier described between Moscow and Tel Aviv are working properly in avoiding any inadvertent clashes between the two sides.
This does not mean, however, that Russia condones Israel’s illegal military activity in Syria (especially its latest bombing), but just that it passively stands by and chooses time and again to avoid becoming involved in what Moscow sees as a strictly bilateral issue between Tel Aviv and Damascus.
Nevertheless, a blatant act of state-on-state aggression such as attempting to obliterate Syria’s nationwide anti-air defense systems wouldn’t be tolerated by Russia, and would probably compel President Putin to freeze relations with “Israel” due to the unacceptable diplomatic embarrassment that Netanyahu would have inflicted on Moscow.
Netanyahu, for his part, is keenly aware of the limits of what he can and cannot do in Syria without risking Russia’s genuine ire, so it is extremely unlikely that he will carry through on his Defense Minister’s threat. That being said, however, Israel — being the quintessential rogue state that it is — might backstab Russia by doing this anyhow so long as its leadership believes that the “cost-benefit” calculation “justifies” such action.
The only realistic scenario for that to happen would be if Israel was convinced — whether “rightly” or wrongly — that Iranian and Hezbollah activity in Syria posed an “imminent threat” to its interests that would surpass any perceived indirect negotiating/”balancing” benefits vis-a-vis these parties that Tel Aviv’s alliance with Moscow provides.
It’s been speculated that Russia is very understanding of Israel’s concerns about Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, and that Moscow might even be discretely pressing for Damascus to draw up a “face-saving” plan for ensuring these forces’ post-war withdrawal from the country, so if that’s the case, then Israel has no reason to further escalate its aggression against Syria under the false pretexts of combating these two Resistance actors.
The fact that Tel Aviv issued its latest threats, however, indicate that this speculation might not be entirely true, since it would logically follow that any successful Russian efforts on this front would negate whatever “reason” Israel might have for jeopardizing its mutually advantageous alliance with Moscow.
Another possible explanation might be that Syria doesn’t agree with Russia’s rumored suggestions in this respect and therefore isn’t going along with them, which from Tel Aviv’s perspective might cause it to recalculate that its alliance with Moscow is disposable because it has failed to bear fruit on one of its most important fronts.
Much more likely, however, is that there isn’t any secret Russian-Israeli understanding to conspire against Iran and Hezbollah’s post-war presence in Syria, and that Israel’s latest threat was issued independently of its relationship with Russia, though of course only time will tell what the truth really is.
To get back to the topical issue at hand, any large-scale state-to-state attack that Israel might launch against Syria probably wouldn’t be stopped by Russia, but it would definitely ruin the relationship between Moscow and Tel Aviv. Russia isn’t going to go to war against Israel for the sake of saving Syria and formally going beyond its specific mandate, no matter how much millions of people might wish that it would under those circumstances.
Even so, Russia is a proud and dignified civilization-state which won’t accept the global humiliation that would ensue from passively allowing such a massive aggression to occur under its watch, despite it legally not being Russia’s responsibility to protect Syria’s external borders or to prevent state aggression against its military, which is why it would be forced to freeze all ties with Israel in response.
In that scenario, Russia’s “balancing” policy would come to an abrupt end and Moscow might reactively realign its regional priorities with the Resistance Bloc of Iran and Hezbollah instead of remaining “impartial” like it currently is, though still taking care not to do anything which could be perceived as stoking Israel’s paranoia that Russia might also be in the process of becoming a “threat” to it too.
To wrap everything up, no realistic case can be argued that Russia is on the verge of war with Israel. Historical facts such as the unprecedented Russian-Israeli Strategic Partnership, the public existence of bilateral military coordination mechanisms in Syria, and the sincere personal friendship between President Putin and Netanyahu, categorically disprove any such claims.
While it might be “fashionable” to pretend that Russia is opposed to Israel, that’s simply not true at all, no matter how much people in the alternative media community might deeply wish for it to be so. Even in the disastrous event that Israel decides to launch an all-out conventional attack against Syria and escalate its presently ongoing Yinon Plan of divide-and-rule “Arab Spring” Hybrid War into something much larger, there’s no way that Russia would intervene, although it would clearly be displeased and would have to take appropriate diplomatic countermeasures in order to save its prestige.
The bottom line is that supporters of the Syrian Arab Republic mustn’t let their optimistic well wishing desires cloud their analytical judgment and objective appraisal of reality, because failure to do so will only result in the creation of an alternative universe totally divorced from the world in which we truly live.
And that, folks, leads to legitimately “fake news” such as the hysterical claims that Russia is about to go to war with Israel.
Bill would allow pit stops and overnight stays during travel with firearms
Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) introduced a bill to the Senate on March 14 that would institute new protections for gun owners who travel across state lines with their firearms.
The Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act, also introduced by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R., Va.) to the House of Representatives in January, would expand and clarify the interstate firearm transportation rules instituted under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. Under that law, Americans are allowed to transport firearms from one state where they can legally possess them to another so long as certain requirements are met, such as the firearms being unloaded and locked in a container not easily accessible to passengers.
The new bill would expand those protections to include stops along the interstate trip and even overnight stays. It would also require that the state pay attorneys’ fees for individuals who successfully defend themselves in court under the bill. It would further allow those who are illegally detained for transporting firearms in accordance with the law to sue the jurisdiction that detained them for damages.
Gun rights advocates have complained about abuses of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act for years. In one often-cited case, Utah resident Greg Revell was thrown in jail for 10 days in 2005 after his flight was delayed causing him to miss his connecting flight and become stranded in New Jersey with his unloaded firearm. Though the charges against him were eventually dropped, police did not return his firearm until 2008. Revell took his case to the highest court, but the Supreme Court declined to hear his argument.
Hatch said the bill is intended to protect the gun rights of those who’ve been arrested or delayed while traveling between states with their firearms.
“This bill safeguards our Second Amendment rights by strengthening federal protections for responsible gun owners travelling across state lines,” Hatch said in a statement. “By amending the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, this commonsense proposal puts an end to the harassment of upstanding citizens who happen to stay overnight, fuel up, or stop for an emergency during their travels in another state.”
Rep. Griffith said changing the law is necessary to ensure that states don’t disregard federal gun rights protections.
“I believe it is important to defend the Second Amendment right of law-abiding gun owners,” Griffith said in the same statement. “Current federal law or the Second Amendment of the Constitution should neither be misinterpreted nor ignored to prevent law-abiding, responsible gun owners from traveling throughout the country with firearms so long as they are in compliance with federal law while in transit.”
Gun rights proponents applauded the bill as an effort to push back on rogue jurisdictions that go after law-abiding gun owners from out of state.
“Too many jurisdictions have demonstrated a pattern of persecuting nonresident gun owners passing through their state,” Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon. “HR 538 will put an end to that persecution and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners traveling with legally owned firearms.”
Second state to do so this year, 14th overall
Republican governor Doug Burgum signed a bill legalizing permitless gun carry in North Dakota on Friday.
The bill allows anyone over the age of 21 who can otherwise possess a firearm to carry it concealed on their person without having to obtain a permit beforehand. It does require that anyone legally carrying a firearm also carry a valid ID and inform police that they are carrying if they are stopped. The state’s permitting process will remain in place for those who want to obtain one for carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements requiring a physical permit.
North Dakota’s new law comes on the heels of New Hampshire’s adoption of permitless carry in February. A dozen states have now passed some form of permitless carry in the last decade, 13 have adopted the policy since 2003. Including Vermont, which never restricted gun carry, there are now a total of 14 states that have passed some form of permitless carry.
Permitless carry, often called constitutional carry by proponents, remains the second most popular form of gun-carry policy in America. Eight states still have policies that allow government officials to deny citizens gun-carry permits regardless of whether they obtain the required training and pass a background check (currently the least popular policy). Another 28 states have policies requiring government officials to issue permits to citizens if they obtain the required training and pass a background check (currently the most popular policy).
The trend of states adopting permitless carry seems poised to continue in the coming years. The policy has been gaining favor among Republican lawmakers and gun-rights activists. Since Republicans control every branch of government in 25 states, many of which have not adopted permitless carry yet, activists are confident more states will soon be on board.
Gun-rights activists cheered the new North Dakota law as a step to leveling the playing field between the law-abiding and criminals.
“This new law gives North Dakota’s law-abiding citizens greater freedom to defend themselves and their families,” Chris Cox, head of the National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm, said in a statement. “Criminals carry guns, regardless of the laws. Permitless carry simply puts law-abiding gun owners on equal footing.
“This new law gives law-abiding North Dakotans greater flexibility to defend themselves, their homes, and their families.”
(New York Post) Sen. Chuck Schumer caused a scene at a Manhattan restaurant when he began yelling at a wealthy and well-connected Donald Trump supporter that the POTUS is “a liar.”
Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, lost his cool on Sunday night at Upper East Side restaurant Sette Mezzo, according to witnesses.
He was dining with friends when he encountered Joseph A. Califano Jr. — the former US secretary of health, education and welfare under President Jimmy Carter and domestic policy adviser to President Lyndon B. Johnson — and his wife, Hilary, who were having a quiet dinner.
Onlookers said Schumer was incensed that Hilary — the daughter of William S. Paley, the founder and chairman of CBS — had voted for Trump, even though her husband, Joseph, is a well-known Democrat.
One witness said of the restaurant rant, “They are a highly respected couple, and Schumer made a scene, yelling, ‘She voted for Trump!’ The Califanos left the restaurant, but Schumer followed them outside.” On the sidewalk, Schumer carried on with his fantastical filibuster: “ ‘How could you vote for Trump? He’s a liar!’ He kept repeating, ‘He’s a liar!’ ”
Hilary confirmed the confrontation, telling Page Six, “Sen. Schumer was really rude . . . He’s our senator, and I don’t really like him. Yes, I voted for Trump. Schumer joined us outside and he told me Trump was a liar. I should have told him that Hillary Clinton was a liar, but I was so surprised I didn’t say anything.”
Joseph didn’t return calls for comment….