Bridge: Schools, Universities Are Liberals’ Trojan Horse For New World Order Indoctrination

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

From NFL players ‘taking a knee’ during the national anthem, to preschoolers being brainwashed with the ideology of transgenderism, these left-leaning movements have one goal in mind, and that is to undermine and destroy the foundation of the Western nation state.

This month, the Liberal propaganda machine shifted into overdrive, publicizing yet another divisive scandal to forward their agenda of creating a New World Order.

Atlanta school Principal Lara Zelski clearly did not have her local community in mind when she informed parents and faculty that the morning recital of the pledge of allegiance would be eliminated, substituted with a pledge to “school family, community, country and our global society.”

“Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing to not stand and/or recite the pledge,” Zelski said. “There are many emotions around this and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner.”

Zelski never reveals any numbers to support what she means by “more and more of our community” who are purportedly snubbing the flag. This is how the proponents of a “global society” move forward with their destructive agenda. Using the Hegelian dialectic, they press some hot-button ‘issue’ – same-sex marriage, unisexual bathrooms, transsexual rights, Civil War statues in the public square, marijuana use, you name it – that is guaranteed to pit America’s two primary political ideologies fiercely against each other. Then they sit back and watch the fireworks display of their creation.

“Leftists must stay up nights thinking of ways to defame, attack, intimidate and bully the rest of us with their endlessly long lists of angry demands,” wrote Carol S. Benson, in a letter to the editor that perfectly summed up the frustration being felt by average Americans as the PC goon squads gradually take control. “We the little people just want to raise our families and be left alone by our ever-expanding draconian government.”

Although Zelski was forced to reverse course on her decision following severe criticism from parents and staff, the seeds of discontent, planted in the soil of febrile emotions, have already taken root in the public mind. Now, it will be the easy task of the compromised mainstream media – whose main function today is that of provocateur as opposed to purveyor of news and information – to sensationalize the issue, fanning the flames of this artificial crisis. Indeed, judging by the backlash, the actual number of students who refused to honor the flag every morning at this Atlanta school was negligible to none. Once the media imposes its false narrative on the public, however, it is then child’s play to keep the ball on the non-story moving forward.

Students in the United States have been proudly reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, hand over heart, without incident for decades. But these are radical new days. With the NFL ‘take a knee’ movement, first popularized by former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick as a sign of protest against police brutality, the game has changed. Popularized by a celebrity athlete, it will increasingly be considered ‘cool’ and rebellious for students to snub the national anthem in their taxpayer-supported public schools. And who’s to say how many educators with a hyper-Liberal bent of mind are working behind the scenes, playing games with our children’s minds on sociopolitical issues instead of doing their job, to ensure exactly such an outcome?

For those who believe that such protests – aimed at the very symbol of the country, the American flag – are some sort of grassroots’ movement, think again. After all, what would really motivate an elementary teacher from Atlanta to promote such a vague concept like “global society” as opposed to local and national initiative? Most likely the very same venomous ideology that has underwritten the NFL ‘take a knee’ protest, for example, and the Black Lives Matters campaign. Yes, you guessed it. Although it may sound overly simplistic to point the finger of blame at the billionaire ‘philanthropist’ George Soros every time some divisive issue further fragments the American commons, his name and organization has a strange tendency for being connected to every uprising.

But there are other significant factors at play, as this destructive wave of Cultural Marxism sweeps the nation, threatening to destroy any semblance of what it means to be truly American. The problem, as underscored by the Atlanta teacher’s attempt to ditch the morning salute to the flag, has its roots in the educational system, at all levels.

“People are being taught by ideologues, not by educators,” University of Toronto Psychology professor and author Jordan Peterson told Fox News in an interview. “And ideologues have a very simple way of looking at the world… they reduce it to a few principles like inequality and unfairness and power, those would be the fundamental principles at the moment that are operating on the radical left, and they’re on an ideological campaign.

According to Peterson, most Western institutions of education, at all levels, are “full of people who are radical.”

We have witnessed that radical behavior in full display on so-called liberal college campuses, where Liberal has come to mean ‘if you don’t support my particular worldview, you are a fascist’ and that gives me the right to violently shut down your freedom of speech.

The political battleground in the United States is not to be found on the streets and public squares, but inside of the classrooms, where dangerous ideologues are more concerned with indoctrinating impressionable young minds to their particular worldview, as opposed to creating an atmosphere conducive to the free dissemination of all opinions and ideas, which is exactly what our institutions of higher learning were meant to do.

It’s time to break the Liberal stranglehold on the American mind before the rot goes any further.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PnknVY Tyler Durden

Caught On Video: Syrian Convoy Heads For Idlib “Final Battle”

As speculation mounts that the Syrian army is preparing for a Russia-backed “anti-terror operation” in Idlib, dubbed by one army officer as “the final battle,” video has emerged of a convoy of Syrian Army troops heading towards the frontline.

As they passed through Maar Shahour village in Hama Governorate, soldiers rode on top of lorries carrying tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers.

One army officer said his troops were ready for the “final battle” against militants in Idlib province.

This clip comes as Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov warned/asked the West not to intervene:

“I hope our Western partners will not give in to (rebel) provocations and will not obstruct an anti-terror operation” in Idlib, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said at a press conference with his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir in Moscow.

Lavrov also said that there is “full political understanding” between Russia and Turkey, who support opposing sides of the Syrian civil war but are currently in intense negotiations to ensure Idlib does not become a breaking point in their alliance.

“It is necessary to disassociate the so-called moderate opposition from terrorists and at the same time prepare an operation against them while minimising risks for the civilian population,” Lavrov said.

“This abscess needs to be liquidated.”

Lavrov went on to accuse the West of “actively heating up” the idea of a “so-called planned chemical attack by the (Syrian) government.”

As we detailed previously, over the last week, Moscow has accused Syrian rebels of planning to stage a chemical attack in the northwestern province that would “provoke” Western strikes on its ally Damascus.

This month Syrian and Russian air attacks and shelling began targeting al-Qaeda held Idlib in what is likely a prelude to a full-scale ground offensive

The “rebel” coalition in control of this major “final holdout” is but the latest incarnation of al-Qaeda, calling itself Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and has held the province, the capital city of which is Idlib city, since a successful Western and Gulf ally sponsored attack on the area in 2015. 

The Russian MoD spokesman specifically identified HTS as the group planning to stage a chemical attack to blame in on Assad’s forces. 

Time is running out for any ‘false flag’ as the “final battle” looms.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2C2HcMQ Tyler Durden

Responding To The “Nothing To Hide” Argument In Support Of Mass Surveillance

via Alt-Market.com,

The following video was produced by Michael Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Whenever I talk about government surveillance, there is always “that guy” who claims if I’m not doing anything illegal I shouldn’t be concerned about it.

Well, I am concerned about it. I explain why in this short video.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NzEgIT Tyler Durden

Mexican Cartel Boss Takes Out $100,000 Assassination Contract On Breitbart Journalist

This week, a top boss of Mexico’s Los Viagras cartel, Sepulveda Arellano – A.K.A. “El Boto” or “El Marrueco” placed a $100,000 USD hit on Breitbart Texas journalist Jose Luis Lara – who Arellano accused of being a spy for the United States. 

The assassination order was posted on social media through various Facebook accounts. A similar threat was also spread via audio recording where El Boto declared Lara a spy for the United States. –Breitbart

Audio of the threat (can set subtitles to English translation): 

Arellano also posted the threat over social media through various Facebook accounts: 

100,000 dollars to the person who kills the spy (joe luis lara) since the senor does not want truce because as he goes fucking here the senor does not want truce because as he goes fucking here I leave my phone number 4531532680 … I AM FIRM AND READY” (translated). 

48 hours after El Boto issued the threats, however, the Mexican Army and Navy followed an anonymous tip to his hideout in Morelos and arrested him – causing members of Los Viagras to signal each other to social media to delete any Facebook accounts which may have contacted their captured leader

Earlier this year, Lara and the Cartel Chronicles project published an exclusive report on how members of Los Viagras are able to live in Michoacan and interact with government forces while illegally armed. Days later, the Mexican government arrested Yordi “El H” Oseguera aka “Jordi Villa Patricio,” one of the cartel bosses photographed with military forces. In response, Los Viagras deployed gunmen to set blockades on all the major highways in the state and torched dozens of vehicles to force El Yordi’s release, Breitbart Texas reported. –Breitbart

And while El Boto may be behind bars right now, we’re sure Jose Luis Lara must be a bit rattled at the moment. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2wuZv8f Tyler Durden

McMaken: You Can’t Be Both “Pro Military” And “Pro Second Amendment”

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

The phrase “pro-gun, pro-military” is used by some conservatives to describe themselves, as if the two go together seamlessly. For example, activist and political candidate Erin Cruz states she is both “Pro Second Amendment” and “Pro Military” in her promotional materials.

Another Republican candidate, Gregory Duckworth, advertises that he advances “pro-gun and pro-military initiatives.”

And last year, Donald Trump, Jr. – as part of a controversy over Keurig coffee pulling its advertising from Sean Hannity’s show — denounced Keurig and endorsed Black Rifle Coffee, which is advertised as a company with a “pro-gun and pro-military stance.”

And yet, there is an inherent conflict between the two positions. This becomes evident when we consider the words of US Senator Tom Coburn in 2013:

The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.

Given that the US military is one of the primary means by which the US government can exert its own coercive force, it seems a bit odd to think that one can simultaneously be “pro-military” while also being for gun rights designed to “balance a tyrannical force here.”

Even the left, which is prone to an especially high level of confusion when it comes to the gun issue, has identified the conflict with memes such as this:

After all, we hear constantly from “pro-military” advocates that the military suffers greatly from too little spending on its needs, that Barack Obama cut back military spending to the bone, and that, in general, the military is underfunded. Never mind, of course, that US military spending is larger than the next seven biggest spenders combined, or that

The US Navy is about ten times bigger than the next largest navy, which happen to be its close ally, the Royal Navy. The United States has four air forces, one for each service, and all very capable … the US Army has dozens of powerful brigade combat teams and dominates potential rivals in any form of conventional warfare. The US Marine Corps is much bigger than any comparable force. And US special operations forces are about the same size as all elements of the Canadian military.

If one is concerned about providing “balance” against abuse of government power, it would seem that pushing for a few more AR-15s in private hands isn’t really going to make a critical difference.

The Authors of the Second Amendment Were Anti-Militarists

The fact that many Americans today think it is possible to be both pro-Second Amendment and pro-military at the same time would have struck many Americans of the Revolutionary period as exceptionally odd.

After all, at the time of the ratification of the new Constitution — and the writing of the Second Amendment — Americans were notable for their opposition to a permanent and powerful military force — especially in the form of a so-called “standing army.”

Greatly distrustful of putting military power in the hands of the federal government, the authors of the Second Amendment advocated instead for a far larger decentralized and locally controlled militia. Thus, in the nineteenth century, both state and local militias greatly outweighed federal military power, and it was assumed that any large standing force would have to be composed of state units supplied by state governments. In practice — until the late twentieth century — state governments could veto these deployments. Even statemilitia power was suspect, if it was full-time and professionalized. Thus, the concept of the “unorganized” militiaretained significant support even into the early twentieth century. Today, however, these checks on federal power have been abolished, thus that which is “pro-military” is now necessary pro federal military.

Nor was this opposition to a national army unique to the Americans. The concept had already been well-established in English politics going back at least to the English civil war. At the time, opponents of unchecked monarchical power supported and obtained a decentralized non-professional militia system designed to partially supplant a standing army under the control of the king.

This later proved to be a significant issue during debates over the ratification of the new constitution, as many Americans felt the new reforms placed too much power in the hands of the federal military. As historian Anthony Peacock observed, “the anti-militarism of Americans during the founding period presented a significant problem for the federalists who wanted a larger, permanent army.”

Peacock was expanding on the views of Richard Kohn who also contended:

No principle of government was more widely understood or more completely accepted by the generation of Americans that established the United States than the danger of a standing army in peacetime. Because a standing army represented the ultimate in uncontrolled and controllable power, any nation that maintained permanent forces surely risked the overthrow of legitimate government and the introduction of tyranny and despotism.

In the US, as in England, the proper role of military power consisted only in protecting lanes of commerce and in a strictly defensive military. In their minds, this did not preclude a large and strong navy, but it did preclude any nationally-controlled military force capable of occupying cities and enforcing the will of the central government.

Consequently, Anti-Federalists and their allies fought for the adoption of the Second Amendment, which, contrary to many modern misconceptions, was not focused on simply allowing some private individuals to own rifles. It was focused on enhancing a decentralized militia system that would head off any attempts to create a large national and professional standing army. This was designed to provide a bulwark against federal centralization of military power. In other words, the Second Amendment was a key component in efforts by anti-militarists to prevent just the sort of permanent military establishment the US taxpayer now so generously funds. As noted by historical Leon Friedman:

the people organized in the state militias were regarded as a counterforce against the threat that the regular army could be used as an instrument of oppression and service in the militia was a right of the citizen that could not be transgressed by the federal government.

Put another way, the authors of the Second Amendment clearly had a very different conception of “balance” when it came to balancing out a potentially “tyrannical force.” For them, the non-federal fighting force was assumed to be armed with the same weapons as the federal military, and would exist in far greater numbers. This was even the vision of pro-federal James Madison who, in Federalist 46, estimated that an appropriate state of affairs would be one in which the US federal government could put approximately “twenty-five or thirty thousand men” in the field, while it could be opposed by “a militia of near half a million citizens …united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.” In other words, this much-larger and presumably equally-well-armed militia would be loyal not to the federal government, but to the individual states. In other words, this much-larger and presumably equally-well-armed militia would be under the command of — and loyal to — the individual states and not the federal government.

Thus, properly understood, the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with opposition to federal military spending and to limiting a standing army to a mere fraction of the size of the state-controlled militias. If modern pro-Second Amendment activists claim to support a Second Amendment as understood by its authors, they could conceivably still support naval forces and a very small fraction of the US’s standing army. Any consistency in supporting the Second Amendment as originally intended, would require drastic cuts to both the Army and the Marines, which combined make up more a standing army of more than 550,000 troops.

Needless to say, such a proposal is unlikely to gain much traction with many Americans who consider themselves defenders of freedom via the Second Amendment. Consequently, the ideology behind the “pro-military” mindset has destroyed the anti-militarist and decentralist vision of the Americans who fought for and won passage of the Second Amendment.

Long gone is the militia-dominated military force supported by the authors of the Second Amendment. The final death throes for the militia began with the Dick Act (the Militia Act) of 1903. And, as noted by David Yassky:

Statutes subsequent to the Dick Act have placed the National Guard under ever-greater federal control. Currently, anyone enlisting in a National Guard unit is automatically also enlisted into a “reserve” unit of the U.S. Army (or Air Force), the federal government may use National Guard units for a variety of purposes, and the federal government appoints the commanding officers for these units.3

This situation would be unrecognizable to a Patrick Henry or a George Mason who had advocated for a strong independent militia system to offset the power of the federal military.

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin came with the Montgomery Amendment which removed a state governor’s ability to veto the federal governments ability to federalize National Guard troops and send them overseas. Enraged by the idea that a state “militia” unit was able to act with any independence, pro-military Senator C.V. Montgomery authored and ultimately passed his amendment which removed the final remnants of state control over what were by then barely state militias at all.

This destruction of the militia system – a system going back to the Revolutionaries and the English libertarians before them – struck at the core of the Second Amendment. The Amendment still legally protected some private gun ownership, but gone are the foundations built on the premise of federalism and decentralization in military power. Instead, all that is left is the notion that some untrained civilians with non-military-grade weapons can offer a “counterforce” to the US military.

What private gun ownership there is, of course, is better than nothing, but thanks to the “pro-military” mindset of people also claiming to be “pro-gun” the Second Amendment is now a hollowed out shell of what it once was.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2LIahwt Tyler Durden

Bank of America Freezes Immigrant Bank Accounts

Bank of America has frozen the accounts of Saeed Moshfegh, an Iranian student getting his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Miami who has been in the country for more than a decade. To maintain the accounts, all he had to do was show proof of legal residency every six months, however, earlier this month, that all changed.

“I think it’s onerous, but I’d been doing it,” said Moshfegh, who has lived in Florida for the past seven years.

Earlier this month, Moshfegh went to his local branch in the South Miami district. He was instructed that the documentation this time could not be accepted. Bank officials insisted he produce different paperwork, according to Moshfegh.

Saeed Moshfegh at graduation (Source/ the Miami Herald)

Due to his current student status, he maintains the documentation he supplied was correct.

“This bank doesn’t know how the immigration system works, so they didn’t accept my document,” said Moshfegh.

Locked out of his account, Moshfegh could not pay his rent, living expenses, along with his credit cards were suddenly rejected. It was like he was removed from the system.

In recent months, Bank of America has been on a spree, freezing customers’ accounts after asking about their legal status in the US.

Last month, the Washington Post reported that a Kansas family had their assets frozen after Bank of America questioned their citizenship. Josh Collins and Jessica Salazar Collins, whose accounts were frozen, said they received an unusual-looking letter from the bank asking about citizenship status.

Josh Collins and his wife Jessica Salazar Collins were notified by Bank of America (Souce/ Inside Edition)

After Collins’ incident was first reported locally, others in the region reported that Bank of America questioned their citizenship and had their accounts suspended for weeks, the Post said.

Tennessee native David Lewis received the same letter as Collins. Lewis told the Miami Herald he had maintained an account with Bank of America for about three decades. In the letter, the bank asked for his citizenship, income, and social security number.

Disgusted, Lewis called Bank of America, who told him his account would be frozen if the forms were not filled out and sent in. In other words, Bank of America held Lewis’ assets for ransom. That phone conversation led him to cancel his account, he said. “One would think a national bank would be careful about looking stupid after Wells Fargo,” he said, referring to the Wells Fargo meltdown after it as accused of creating millions of fake accounts.

According to Stephanie Collins, a spokesperson for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal agency that supervises branch banking, US banks have not received any new instructions to collect more information about customers, nor the proof of citizenship to open an account.

The Miami Herald asked Bank of America spokesperson Carla Molina about the incidents. She said there had been no change in how the bank collects information from customers, including citizenship, since 2008. The bank attempts to contact customers before the status change of their bank accounts, she added.

Paulina Gonzalez, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, told the Herald she disagrees:

“We work with consumer groups and financial counselors in immigrant communities across [California] and the country,” she said in an email. “This is new. We have Bank of America customers who we’ve spoken to who have never been asked this before last year. If they have this asked of them before they can show us proof.”

In the last few months, her group has received numerous complaints about being asked for proof of citizenship; almost all have come from Bank of America customers, she said. An article in American Banker magazine also highlighted Bank of America as the one institution specifically facing backlash for its policies.

Gonzalez said the bank’s scrutiny has sent fear in immigrant communities already feeling pressure from the Trump Administration’s crackdown on foreign-born residents.

“Fear is gripping these communities,” Gonzalez said. “It’s like walking into a grocery store to buy milk and being asked for your citizenship at checkout—banking is one of the core aspects of daily life in this country. To be faced with this question in order to do banking seems as un-American as you can get.”  

Gonzalez recently launched a petition, “Tell Bank of America: Stand with immigrants,” that accuses the bank and the Trump administration of financial warfare, targeting immigrants by freezing their assets. The petition has received more than 61,600 signatures since August 30.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2N4KiUQ Tyler Durden

After The Failed Attempt At Syrian Regime Change, The Next Target Is Hezbollah

Authored by Elijah Magnier, Middle East based chief international war correspondent for Al Rai Media

After more than seven years of war with the goal of changing the Syrian regime, the target has now become Hezbollah. But the question remains: after the failure of the 2006 war, what can the enemies of this organization do to achieve their goal?

Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said in his most recent speech that “Hezbollah is stronger than the Israeli army”.

Israel responded by showing a drill of the Golani brigade and the 7thArmoured Brigade, in the presence of Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, simulating war against Hezbollah. This drill took place after routine ground forces exercises of the 36th Division to “improve coordination and readiness in case of war”.

In a message indicating that it will not distinguish civilians from militants, Israel has constructed a new training base in the occupied Golan Heights, the Snir facility, to simulate Lebanese villages. These mock Hezbollah villages are meant to be of the type Israeli soldiers might face in combat situations if an invasion of Lebanon is ordered.

Likewise, Hezbollah has constructed mock Israeli villages on the Lebanese-Syrian borders for combat training to prepare for war. Sayyed Nasrallah has promised to move the battle beyond the Lebanese borders and has asked his men to prepare to fight on “enemy ground” if war is imposed on Hezbollah.

Israel’s ongoing repetitive threats against Lebanon and Hezbollah are nothing new to Sayyed Nasrallah, who doesn’t give undue weight to these continuous menaces. In fact, he keeps himself informed about all news related to Israel, the Middle East and the world events of interest to him. A special team made of tens of translators and media experts collect daily all the news from open sources and keep the Hezbollah leader informed, as do his intelligence services, represented in various countries, and his own private contacts with allies he regularly meets.

He is not unfamiliar with reservist Major General Yitzhak Brik, the Israeli Army commissioner for the rights of soldiers, who talks of a serious crisis in an army that has become a “mediocre organization suffering from overburdening and exhaustion”.

Brik said top officials sell a false image (of the Army) that does not correspond to reality. “We have become a group of cowards. There is a serious crisis of motivation among young officers”.

Israeli Defense Forces conducting tactical maneuvers and exercises. 

The former head of the Israeli special service Nativ, Yaakov Kedmi, said that “the motivation to serve in the military has been reduced. Israeli society is no longer willing to grant privileges to the army”.

Sayyed Nasrallah did not mean that his organization has an air force (it has none, of course) stronger than that of Israel. Nor does Hezbollah receive financial support from Iran equivalent to that provided by the US to Israel, including “US forces ready to die for Israel”. Sayyed Nasrallah counts on a group of experienced young men, with strong ideology and a high level of training, not looking for death but also not afraid of it. Hezbollah’s goal is to stand against Israel and its allies who aim to eradicate the group: it is a matter of survival.

Hezbollah has proven its combat capability against the ISIS (Daesh) organisation in Lebanon and Syria, as well as against al-Qaeda and other jihadist Takfiri groups. The Lebanese group lost only one battle over the last six years of war, a battle on the hill of el-Eiss in April 2016. This defeat resulted from a lack of coordination between allied forces.

That day the military plan was for allied forces to occupy the el-Eiss hill surrounding the city of el-Eiss; the city itself was to be liberated by Hezbollah. The allies withdrew from the hill without informing the forces in the city. This lack of communication caused the death of 28 Hezbollah members whose bodies are still unrecovered and buried on the battlefield.

But this military setback did not affect the performance of the party, which was able to conduct both guerrilla battles on its own against different groups, and other battles alongside classical armies (Syrian and Russian). Together with its allies and the Syrian Army, Hezbollah managed to liberate territories at least 14 times bigger than Lebanon (the size of Syria is around 180,000 sqkm, while Lebanon is 10,453 sqkm).

Hezbollah has proven its fidelity to Syria, whose President Bashar al-Assad rejected a recent offer from Saudi Arabia to rebuild everything the seven years of war has destroyed and to remain as president – with US backing – on the condition that he give up on Palestine and Hezbollah. Assad rejected the “generous” but poisoned offer – as he has described it in private.

The years of war taught Assad to distinguish between allies and countries such as Saudi Arabia who invested much to remove him from power at the cost of destroying the country: “An ideological ally (Hezbollah) is better than the richest of all countries because this real ally did not and would never abandon him, and has no ambitions in Syria but to see stability in the Levant and to prevent Takfiri Jihadists – supported by Arab and western countries – from creating a failed state”, Assad repeats often to his visitors.

Indeed, Hezbollah has given orders to evacuate its military units from all Syrian cities and villages, without exception: no Hezbollah military forces are to remain in urban areas. They (military) will be present only on the borders between the two countries.

Hezbollah is now on focusing its military attention on the border with Israel, preparing for a war that may happen tomorrow, or that may never happen.

A writer affiliated with a western think tank recently asked the West to “wake up“, claiming that Hezbollah is expanding into Europe and trading drugs to secure resources because Western pressure on Tehran threatens its sources of funding. Many other writers call for the elimination of Hezbollah as a threat to Lebanon. These articles reflect western ignorance about Hezbollah’s thinking, its work, power, funding and goals.

Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese army and all the Lebanese security forces combined. Nevertheless, it would never consider capturing, dominating or otherwise controlling Lebanon for many reasons unrelated to its superior combat capability.

The party is aware that Lebanon is a multi-ethnic country (with 18 sects and religions) and that an “Islamic republic” is unattainable because its conditions are currently unfavourable. Hezbollah does not want to and indeed cannot meet the demands of a state and the well-being of its entire population because it does not have the resources of a state. The group is not in a position to manage a country with little resources, a country receiving and dependent on foreign (Arab and western) aid and wealth, a country that cannot permit itself to be isolated from the world as it would be if ruled by Hezbollah.

Moreover, Hezbollah has agreed on an interior minister (Sunni), a political foe and friend of its greatest political enemy (Saudi Arabia), because it does not want to be responsible for the internal security of the country. Nor does the organization want to be accused of sectarianism, corruption or bribery, or of arresting Sunni jihadists on a sectarian basis.

Hezbollah believes it can continue to exist indefinitely only if the local population, and especially the Shiites in Lebanon, embrace the group and offer a safe environment for its operation.

This is the key: Hezbollah’s militants, families and supporters make up around 25% (Shia are estimated above 30% of the total sects and religion in Lebanon) of the Lebanese population.

Since 1945 the Lebanese state neglected the Shiite community, who lived for decades in worse conditions than residents of Palestinian refugee camps spread out all over Lebanon. When the opportunity arose for them to bear arms and build an identity, the community did not hesitate to take it.

Israel strengthened its raison d’être with its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah arose first to fight Israel, and then to liberate Lebanese territory in a second phase.

It then moved on to supporting the “axis of resistance” in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Today, the Shiites of Lebanon are no longer in need of the Taqiya (concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger) and shall not give up their arms in the face of any danger to their existence, domestic or international. No matter how seriously Israel and the US may threaten Shiite areas in Lebanon, they will not surrender the power, dignity and status they have achieved in Lebanon.

Hezbollah today employs tens of thousands of Shiites – in the military and social activities – who positively contribute to the shaky Lebanese economy. These tens of thousands working in the ranks of “Hezbollah” did not come to Lebanon from another planet, country, or continent. They are the people of the Lebanon, the people of the southern suburbs, Beirut, Jubail, Saida, Tyre, Bekaa, Baalbek, Hermel, and all parts of Lebanon.  Thus, those who demand the abolition of Hezbollah are in effect calling for the destruction of an intrinsic and significant part of the population of Lebanon.

The US has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to counter Hezbollah in Lebanon and distort its image to no avail.

Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri asked in a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (intercepted by US forces in Iraq on the 9thof July 2005), when he was targeting Shi’ites instead of the occupier during the first years of the US occupation of Iraq: has any Islamic State in history ever been successful in eliminating the Shiites?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2C4eEml Tyler Durden

Trump Says Google, Facebook In “Very Antitrust Situation”

Responding to reports that Silicon Valley social media platforms are censoring conservatives, President Trump stepped up his criticism of technology firms – telling Bloomberg in a wide-ranging interview that they may be in a “very antitrust situation,” while repeatedly censoring himself over whether or not the companies should be broken up.

I won’t comment on the breaking up, of whether it’s that [Google] or Amazon or Facebook,” Trump said in an Oval Office interview Thursday with Bloomberg. “As you know, many people think it is a very anti-trust situation, the three of them. But I just, I won’t comment on that.”

Trump has been levying accusations against social media giants for weeks – while ratcheting up his rhetoric in recent days. 

On Tuesday, Trump doubled down on his threats against Facebook, Twitter and Google with new comments from the Oval Office, saying the social media platforms are “treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful.

I think Google has really taken advantage of a lot of people and I think that’s a very serious thing and it’s a very serious charge,” Trump told reporters following a meeting with the president of FIFA. “They better be careful because they can’t do that to people.

Earlier Tuesday, Google responded to an accusation by Trump over Twitter that they’re “rigging” search results against him, providing as evidence a “Trump News” search which showed predominantly “left” media publications popping up in the search results.

To which Google replied “Search is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology

“Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users’ queries. We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment”

As we noted on Teusday, however, maybe Google can explain why Trump’s picture is just about the only thing that appears when one does a Google image search for the word “idiot” vs. DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo

President Trump on Wednesday renewed his attacks on technology companies and platforms, including Twitter, Facebook Inc and Google, saying they were “trying to silence” people and suggesting that their activities – i.e., shadowbanning, censorship and bias – may be illegal.

“I think that Google and Facebook and Twitter … treat conservatives and Republicans very unfairly,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

“I think it’s a very serious problem because they’re really trying to silence a very large part of this country, and those people don’t want to be silenced. It’s not right. It’s not fair. It may not be legal, but we’ll see. We just want fairness,” Trump added.

Then, in doubling-down on his attacks on what he called Google bias, Trump tweeted a short video that showed Google promoting president Obama’s State of the Union on its homepage, in the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, but when Trump took office Google stopped, the video claims.

Google responded, saying that it did publicize Trump’s 2018 State of the Union address, and adds that Trump’s 2017 address was not a SOTU, it was an address to Congress, so they didn’t publicize it (just as they didn’t publicize Obama’s address to Congress in 2009.)

In any event, between Trump’s personal battles with Silicon Valley and large swaths of conservatives across social media complaining of censorship, it appears that Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg have a fight on their hands. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PjCsUM Tyler Durden

ING CEO Warns Trade War Starting To Hit His Clients

ING CEO Ralph Hamers said his clients are starting to feel the impact from global trade tariffs, with production lines being changed – something we discussed yesterday in the context of Brazil’s growing logistical nightmare – and profit warnings being issued, CNBC reported citing an interview at the Handelsblatt banking conference in Frankfurt.

“We see clients looking to reorganize their value chains. We are making sure that either they are not caught by higher tariffs or moving their production or basically rerouting value chains through which they make their products,” Ralph Hamers told CNBC.

According to the CEO, some customers have “indicated their sales will go down, their costs will increase and therefore their products may not be as competitive.”

“It is very clear that a trade war is not good for producer confidence to invest and for consumer confidence to consume. It already has (had) a negative impact on economic growth.”

And yet it keeps pushing the S&P into record territory. Go figure.

While investors have been mostly focused on the trade war between the US and China, especially the likely escalation next week when another $200BN in tariffs on Chinese exports to the US is tacked on, other risk factors such as Brexit — the U.K.’s vote to exit the European Union — have also kept investors cautious, especially the uncertainty surrounding the timing and nature of the deal.

Hamers, however, reassured that at the moment there doesn’t seem to be any detrimental effects from Brexit.

“(The) U.K. economy is growing pretty well, employment is also improving there. (The) European economy is also growing pretty well. Clearly, probably closer to the deadline, maybe some volatility coming but I truly hope that there is common sense with the politicians in order to get the deal.” Hamers said.

Full clip below

ING CEO: Trade war already having negative impact on economic growth from CNBC.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PoATFj Tyler Durden

Trump Legal Team Preparing Counter-Report Which Will “Delegitimize” Mueller Investigation

President Trump’s lawyers are preparing a rebuttal to any negative report issued by special counsel Robert Mueller following the DOJ’s probe into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, reports the Daily Beast following an interview with Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. 

Part of the rebuttal, says Giuliani, would focus on whether the “initiation of the investigation was…legitimate or not.” 

According to Giuliani, the bulk of the report will be divided into two sections. One section will seek to question the legitimacy of the Mueller probe generally by alleging “possible conflicts” of interest by federal law enforcement authorities. The other section will respond to more substantive allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russian government agents to sway the 2016 election, and obstruction of justice allegations stemming from, among other things, the president’s firing of former FBI director James Comey. –Daily Beast 

The latter section of the rebuttal will focus on Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein’s mandate when he ordered the Mueller’s investigation – though Giuliani admits he has no idea what the final report will consist of. 

Since we have to guess what it is, [our report so far] is quite voluminous,” Giuliani said, claiming that he would spend much of this weekend “paring it down” and that he was editing the document created by the “whole team.”

“The first half of it is 58 pages, and second half isn’t done yet…It needs an executive summary if it goes over a hundred” –Daily Beast 

In other words, Mueller has fair warning that the Trump administration intends to fight this tooth and nail. 

The Weekly Standard‘s Eric Felton offered this last month:

Appellate and constitutional lawyers David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley recently made a compelling case that the political bias among the FBI agents working on “Crossfire Hurricane” renders illegitimate everything flowing from that investigation. If “Crossfire was politically motivated then its culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint,” Rivkin and Foley wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “All special-counsel activities—investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fruit of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process.” Rivkin and Foley add: “That Mr. Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire’s origin offers no cure.” –Weekly Standard

In June, David Rivkin opined on the “Fruit of the poisonous tree” argument against Mueller in the Wall Street Journal

Given the paucity of evidence, it’s staggering that the FBI would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically biased staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI sincerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the proper response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his campaign and the country.

Suffice to say, if Mueller tries to take Trump out, Trump will go down swinging. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NCnnxr Tyler Durden