thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-10--ALEC Behind Mandatory Vaccinations Agenda

As Big Pharma and even President Donald Trump advance the idea of mandatory vaccines for everyone , one has to wonder where the idea is coming from .
Of course , it is come from a plethora of organizations , but among them is the American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC ) .
That ’ s right , ALEC is pushing the notion that every American should be vaccinated , and at least one outler , and not another , is willing to tell you whey they are behind this agenda .
For those who may not be familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , the council is considered a “ non-profit organization ” made up of Conservative state legislators and corporate private sector “ partners.
” This mixture of government officials and corporate agents then meet regularly , replete with funding from major corporations all across the world to discuss , plan , write , and submit legislation that is beneficial to the corporations .
In one sense , ALEC is a massive corporate lobbying firm .
In another , however , ALEC is much more , since much of the legislation submitted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator or Representative by the agents of the organization .
It is an organization that provides funding and direction ( marching orders ) for Congressmen , particularly those at the state level .
While slimy billionaires like George Soros act as the guiding force behind much of the American left , ALEC and KOCH Industries tend to fill the same void for the right ; although , in truth , most of the corporations that make up ALEC are those who also fund Democratic candidates .
Presentation , however , in a carefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is paramount .
As Alan Greenblatt describes the organization in his article for Governing , Brendan Greeley of Bloomberg Business describes ALEC in a similar fashion .
He writes , For three decades , the American Legislative Exchange Council , the meeting ’ s host , has brought together corporations ( including Pfizer ( PFE ) , AT & T ( T ) , and ExxonMobil ( XOM ) ) and state legislators to write what it calls model bills–pieces of legislation the industries would like to become law .
Often this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations at bay .
ALEC has also approved model bills on social issues , including gun control and voter registration .
The bills then get passed around among the 1,800 mostly Republican legislators who are ALEC members .
They introduce the model bills about 1,000 times a year in state capitols around the country , the group says .
About 200 become law .
ALEC pays for the meetings through membership fees ( called donations ) that corporations pay .
The legislators receive travel stipends ( called scholarships ) to attend the meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a nonprofit that provides a public service , not as a lobbyist that seeks to influence .
This offers two benefits : Corporate members can deduct yearly dues , which run up to $ 25,000–more if they want to sponsor meetings ; and ALEC doesn ’ t have to disclose the names of legislators and executives who attend .
That ’ s important , because if ALEC operated with complete openness it would have difficulty operating at all .
ALEC has attracted a wide and wealthy range of supporters in part because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed doors .
Membership lists were secret .
The origins of the model bills were secret .
Part of ALEC ’ s mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work .
If this were to become clear to everyone , there ’ d be no reason for corporations to use it .
While ALEC has pushed a number of bills regarding divisive wedge issues ( it has to keep up its conservative veneer ) , it focuses mostly on economic issues promoting free market , Austrian school , deregulation , free trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks and corporations .
But ALEC is also a major pusher of laws regarding medical issues – not merely in the context of the American healthcare system , but also in the context of personal choice .
Despite all the rhetoric of ALEC and its puppets in Congress , the position of the organization and its puppets is not necessarily in favor of personal choice .
This much has been made clear in the form of mandates and force of law , particularly in the area of vaccination .
This should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pharma members .
While the organization is made up of a plethora of major corporations Big Pharma makes up a sizable portion of its ranks .
Below are a very small few of pharmaceutical companies that are part of ALEC ’ s operations .
These names are only a small few of the myriad of pharmaceutical companies , vaccine manufacturers , and other interested parties who are listed as members of ALEC .
Many of these companies are concealed even further by a veil of umbrella “ organizations ” acting as front operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major pharmaceutical companies amidst ALEC ’ s ranks , it should come as no real surprise that ALEC would be one of the driving forces behind the recent spate of “ mandatory vaccine bills ” popping up all across the country .
Indeed , its motto should be “ Personal Choice For Corporations .
Government Enforced Mandates For People.
” Remember , it was ALEC that crafted the “ model ” legislation “ Immunization of Minors On TANF , ” legislation that would have required parents on TANF assistance to require proof that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ recommended ” levels .
If those families did not show proof of their child ’ s vaccination , those families would lose their TANF benefits .
While exemptions were left intact in this “ model ” legislation , ALEC has stepped up its attack on parental rights by going after the exemption status in later bills .
For instance , consider the attempt to remove Vermont citizens ’ rights to a philosophical exemption to vaccination known as SB 199 , a bill that caught many in Vermont by complete surprise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the key players and possible motivations , it becomes more obvious as to how this bill came to be and why .
SB 199 was submitted in the Senate by ALEC ’ s Vermont Chair Senator , Kevin Mullin , and in the House by a notorious vaccine pusher and vaccine damage denier .
As Barbara Loe Fisher writes for National Vaccine Information Center , Edward Kentish seconded Fisher ’ s criticism in his op-ed for VTDigger.com when he wrote , One might be tempted to argue that the vaccine bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is , one would be tempted to make this argument if the Vermont bill was the only such bill submitted and supported by ALEC and its members .
In California , the infamous and fascist SB 277 which unfortunately became law was introduced by another vaccine fanatic and high priest of the religion of scientism , Richard Pan .
Ben Allen , however , the second State Senator to introduce the legislation into the California state Senate is himself connected to ALEC .
As Maureen Cruise of LA Progressive wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oberndorf , the ALEC big wig , is a major donor of Allen .
Cruise also points out that a sizable portion of Allen ’ s campaign contributions come directly from pharmaceutical interests .
A similar story is discovered in North Carolina , where notoriously arrogant and corrupt Senator Jeff Tarte – in between fits of whining and rage – introduced a bill that would have removed all vaccine exemption rights ( except for medical exemptions ) from parents and children , including homeschool children .
As if his last name did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of the main sponsors of the NC bill SB 346 , a bill that would have eliminated the “ religious exemption ” clause in the recommended vaccine schedule for children entering NC public schools .
He was also a main contender for the title of worst public relations interaction with a constituent in the state of North Carolina in the last several years .
In keeping with the trend of recent events , however , Tarte is also a member of the ALEC organization , a feather in his cap that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his weekly newsletter .
Tarte not only is a member , but an active participant taking part in speaking events and even a seat on the ALEC Education Council .
Now , for those who may not be familiar with the argument , the problem is that if vaccines work , then those who are vaccinated have absolutely nothing to worry about from those that are no vaccinated .
So , what ’ s the problem ?
Well , on the one hand there is the issue of population control .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body , which was given to you by your Creator and is supposed to be protected under the Fourth Amendment .
However , in today ’ s climate with people questioning whether there is a Creator and whether or not your rights come to your from government or not , it seems clear that America is about to face a very serious issue of whether or not they will submit to the beast system in America or whether they will refuse and cite the laws of nature and of nature ’ s God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is simple .
Green Med Info sums it up like this : “ The goal of forced vaccination has been in existence for quite some time , going back to a number of elite think tanks decades ago and the halls of pharmaceutical companies .
Major pharmaceutical companies , for many obvious ( or should be obvious ) reasons would also like to mandate vaccination .
Increased profits from the vaccine sales and the treatment of resulting disease , as well as the cover-up of vaccine risks by a population free of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons such corporations are supporting the vaccine mandates.
” They add , “ The entire vaccine debate can scarcely even be labeled a debate .
It is an exercise in social shaming , shouting down opposing views , and religious devotion to television and anyone wearing a lab coat or claiming to be an expert .
With the culprit behind the recent mandatory vaccine/eliminate exemption push now revealed , it is time to begin working toward repealing these laws and making sure that no similar bill is ever politically viable.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on a time where if you reject mandatory vaccines because you actually think freely about the lies you are being told , you will be considered an enemy of humanity .
Well , consider me that then , even if it isn ’ t true .
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

As Big Pharma and even President Donald Trump advance the idea of mandatory vaccines for everyone, one has to wonder where the idea is coming from. Of course, it comes from a plethora of organizations, but among them is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
That’s right, ALEC is pushing the notion that every American should be vaccinated, and at least one outlet is willing to tell you why they are behind this agenda.
Green Med Info reports:
For those who may not be familiar with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the council is considered a “non-profit organization” made up of Conservative state legislators and corporate private sector “partners.” This mixture of government officials and corporate agents then meet regularly, replete with funding from major corporations all across the world to discuss, plan, write, and submit legislation that is beneficial to the corporations.
In one sense, ALEC is a massive corporate lobbying firm. In another, however, ALEC is much more, since much of the legislation submitted by the attentive congressman is actually written for the Senator or Representative by the agents of the organization. It is an organization that provides funding and direction (marching orders) for Congressmen, particularly those at the state level.
While slimy billionaires like George Soros act as the guiding force behind much of the American left, ALEC and KOCH Industries tend to fill the same void for the right; although, in truth, most of the corporations that make up ALEC are those who also fund Democratic candidates. Presentation, however, in a carefully crafted political theatre like the United States, is paramount.
As Alan Greenblatt describes the organization in his article for Governing,
For decades, the American Legislative Exchange Council has been a force in shaping conservative policies at the state level. Today, its impact is even more pervasive. Its legislative ideas are resonating in practically every area of state government, from education and health to energy, environment and tax policy. The group, which brings together legislators with representatives from corporations, think tanks and foundations to craft model bills, has rung up an impressive score. Roughly 1,000 bills based on ALEC language are introduced in an average year, with about 20 percent getting enacted.
Brendan Greeley of Bloomberg Business describes ALEC in a similar fashion. He writes,
For three decades, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the meeting’s host, has brought together corporations (including Pfizer (PFE), AT&T (T), and ExxonMobil (XOM)) and state legislators to write what it calls model bills–pieces of legislation the industries would like to become law. Often this means protecting favored tax treatment or keeping regulations at bay. ALEC has also approved model bills on social issues, including gun control and voter registration. The bills then get passed around among the 1,800 mostly Republican legislators who are ALEC members. They introduce the model bills about 1,000 times a year in state capitols around the country, the group says. About 200 become law. ALEC pays for the meetings through membership fees (called donations) that corporations pay. The legislators receive travel stipends (called scholarships) to attend the meetings. ALEC is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit that provides a public service, not as a lobbyist that seeks to influence. This offers two benefits: Corporate members can deduct yearly dues, which run up to $25,000–more if they want to sponsor meetings; and ALEC doesn’t have to disclose the names of legislators and executives who attend. That’s important, because if ALEC operated with complete openness it would have difficulty operating at all. ALEC has attracted a wide and wealthy range of supporters in part because it’s done its work behind closed doors. Membership lists were secret. The origins of the model bills were secret. Part of ALEC’s mission is to present industry-backed legislation as grass-roots work. If this were to become clear to everyone, there’d be no reason for corporations to use it.
While ALEC has pushed a number of bills regarding divisive wedge issues (it has to keep up its conservative veneer), it focuses mostly on economic issues promoting free market, Austrian school, deregulation, free trade, and other policies supported by major banks and corporations.
But ALEC is also a major pusher of laws regarding medical issues – not merely in the context of the American healthcare system, but also in the context of personal choice.
Despite all the rhetoric of ALEC and its puppets in Congress, the position of the organization and its puppets is not necessarily in favor of personal choice. This much has been made clear in the form of mandates and force of law, particularly in the area of vaccination.
This should not be surprising considering ALEC’s many Big Pharma members. While the organization is made up of a plethora of major corporations Big Pharma makes up a sizable portion of its ranks.
Below are a very small few of pharmaceutical companies that are part of ALEC’s operations.
Astellas Pharma Inc.
Bayer
Dupont (Dupont Merck Pharmaceuticals)
Eli Lilly
Endo Pharmaceuticals
Express Scripts
GlaxoSmithKline
Hoechst- Roussell Pharmaceutical Corporation
Hoffman La-Roche
Imperial Chemical Industries Pharmaceuticals
Johnson & Johnson
Mylan Pharmaceuticals
Novo Nordisk
Pharmacia and UpJohn
Purdue Pharma
Pfizer
Solvay Pharmaceutical
Takeda Pharmaceutical
TEVA Pharmaceuticals
TogetherRX Access ( made up of ABBVIE, GSK, Janssen, Lifescan, Pfizer, Stiefel, Viiv Healthcare, Vistakon Pharmaceuticals)
ABBVIE, GSK, Janssen, Lifescan, Pfizer, Stiefel, Viiv Healthcare, Vistakon Pharmaceuticals) The UpJohn Co.
These names are only a small few of the myriad of pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers, and other interested parties who are listed as members of ALEC. Many of these companies are concealed even further by a veil of umbrella “organizations” acting as front operations.
ALEC And Vaccines
With such a massive list of major pharmaceutical companies amidst ALEC’s ranks, it should come as no real surprise that ALEC would be one of the driving forces behind the recent spate of “mandatory vaccine bills” popping up all across the country. Indeed, its motto should be “Personal Choice For Corporations. Government Enforced Mandates For People.”
Remember, it was ALEC that crafted the “model” legislation “Immunization of Minors On TANF,” legislation that would have required parents on TANF assistance to require proof that their children were fully vaccinated according to the “recommended” levels. If those families did not show proof of their child’s vaccination, those families would lose their TANF benefits.
While exemptions were left intact in this “model” legislation, ALEC has stepped up its attack on parental rights by going after the exemption status in later bills.
For instance, consider the attempt to remove Vermont citizens’ rights to a philosophical exemption to vaccination known as SB 199, a bill that caught many in Vermont by complete surprise. Of course, when one takes a look at the key players and possible motivations, it becomes more obvious as to how this bill came to be and why.
SB 199 was submitted in the Senate by ALEC’s Vermont Chair Senator, Kevin Mullin, and in the House by a notorious vaccine pusher and vaccine damage denier. As Barbara Loe Fisher writes for National Vaccine Information Center,
S199 was introduced in the state Senate by Kevin Mullin, who is VT chair of the Pharma-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and was introduced in the state House by Representative George Till, M.D., at the request of Harry Chen, M.D., Vermont’s Health Commissioner. Dr. Chen, who was a Vermont state representative and former chair of the Vermont House Health Care Committee for four years, has publicly downplayed vaccine risks. S199 was supported by the VT Dept. of Health and state government supported institutions, such as the University of Vermont, as well as medical trade associations that receive money from pharmaceutical corporations selling vaccines in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), March of Dimes, Every Child by Two and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Other organizations endorsing elimination of the philosophical exemption included the Vermont Academy of Family Physicians, Fletcher Allen, Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Voices for VT Children, Vermont Pharmacists Association, Rutland Medical Center, and Vermont Medical Society.
Edward Kentish seconded Fisher’s criticism in his op-ed for VTDigger.com when he wrote,
Here ALEC’s Vermont chairman, Republican Sen. Kevin Mullin, introduced S.199, a bill seeking to end the “philosophical exemption” in the childhood vaccine laws. A Republican introducing a health care bill, one that removes a parent’s rights, one that obliges all children to participate in a health care plan. … An ugly duckling if ever there was one! Just doesn’t look like all the rest. The duckling looks even uglier in the light of Vermont’s exemplary health statistics. We rank right up there on general health, low incidence of infectious diseases, and low child mortality. What’s the problem, what motivates such a bill? Well, several corporations have recently publicly cut their ties with ALEC over ALEC’s Stand Your Ground gun laws, underscoring the reality that ALEC is funded by corporations, and we may guess has their interests at heart more than your child’s well-being.
One might be tempted to argue that the vaccine bill submitted in Vermont was merely an anomaly. That is, one would be tempted to make this argument if the Vermont bill was the only such bill submitted and supported by ALEC and its members.
In California, the infamous and fascist SB 277 which unfortunately became law was introduced by another vaccine fanatic and high priest of the religion of scientism, Richard Pan. Ben Allen, however, the second State Senator to introduce the legislation into the California state Senate is himself connected to ALEC. As Maureen Cruise of LA Progressive wrote in regards to Allen’s funding,
Among other wealthy conservative donors are William E. Oberndorf, a California billionaire investor who funds conservative causes such as the privatization of education which he promotes via the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). He has contributed to the Karl Rove PAC and to Jeb Bush and the GW Bush Foundation. The Fisher Family of Gap and a dozen other corporations are fans of privatization of the public sector and charter schools.
Oberndorf, the ALEC big wig, is a major donor of Allen.
Cruise also points out that a sizable portion of Allen’s campaign contributions come directly from pharmaceutical interests.
A similar story is discovered in North Carolina, where notoriously arrogant and corrupt Senator Jeff Tarte – in between fits of whining and rage – introduced a bill that would have removed all vaccine exemption rights (except for medical exemptions) from parents and children, including homeschool children.
As if his last name did not accurately describe his disposition, Senator Tarte was one of the main sponsors of the NC bill SB 346, a bill that would have eliminated the “religious exemption” clause in the recommended vaccine schedule for children entering NC public schools. He was also a main contender for the title of worst public relations interaction with a constituent in the state of North Carolina in the last several years.
In keeping with the trend of recent events, however, Tarte is also a member of the ALEC organization, a feather in his cap that he was not shy in advertising in his weekly newsletter. Tarte not only is a member, but an active participant taking part in speaking events and even a seat on the ALEC Education Council.
Now, for those who may not be familiar with the argument, the problem is that if vaccines work, then those who are vaccinated have absolutely nothing to worry about from those that are no vaccinated. So, what’s the problem?
Well, on the one hand there is the issue of population control. On the other hand is the violation of your body, which was given to you by your Creator and is supposed to be protected under the Fourth Amendment.
However, in today’s climate with people questioning whether there is a Creator and whether or not your rights come to your from government or not, it seems clear that America is about to face a very serious issue of whether or not they will submit to the beast system in America or whether they will refuse and cite the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
Personally, I think the choice is simple.
Green Med Info sums it up like this: “The goal of forced vaccination has been in existence for quite some time, going back to a number of elite think tanks decades ago and the halls of pharmaceutical companies. Major pharmaceutical companies, for many obvious (or should be obvious ) reasons would also like to mandate vaccination. Increased profits from the vaccine sales and the treatment of resulting disease, as well as the cover-up of vaccine risks by a population free of a control group are but a few of the reasons such corporations are supporting the vaccine mandates.”
They add, “The entire vaccine debate can scarcely even be labeled a debate. It is an exercise in social shaming, shouting down opposing views, and religious devotion to television and anyone wearing a lab coat or claiming to be an expert. With the culprit behind the recent mandatory vaccine/eliminate exemption push now revealed, it is time to begin working toward repealing these laws and making sure that no similar bill is ever politically viable.”
Bertrand Russell pointed out:
Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .
He was right and we are closely moving in on a time where if you reject mandatory vaccines because you actually think freely about the lies you are being told, you will be considered an enemy of humanity.
Well, consider me that then, even if it isn’t true.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-10--Whoops!  New Photos Surface Showing Bill Clinton With Ghislaine Maxwell & Jeffrey Epstein On “Lolita

Whoops !
New Photos Surface Showing Bill Clinton With Ghislaine Maxwell & Jeffrey Epstein On “ Lolita Express ” Along With Young Girls Well , for all those who have tried to cover up the relationship , the documented relationship , with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton , now there are new pictures that have surfaced showing the former President and long-time philanderer Bill Clinton alongside Epstein , his mistress Ghislaine Maxwell and even Esptein ’ s young girl masseuse on Epstein ’ s private jet dubbed “ The Lolita Express.
” It was the US Sun that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Slick Willy alongside Maxwell at the door of the jet .
A little further shot on the 2002 trip to Africa .
In another image he has his arm round Epstein ’ s personal masseuse and sex slave Chauntae Davies – who had been ordered to wear a ‘ pilot ’ shirt to look professional .
Other never-seen-before images show Clinton traveling on the infamous Boeing 727 jet while playing cards and chomping on a cigar .
Now , for the first time , Chauntae Davies has revealed the extraordinary details of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa with Maxwell and a number of other celebrities .
The star-studded group – which included actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker – visited Ghana , Nigeria , Rwanda , Mozambique , Johannesburg and Cape Town in a five-day humanitarian trip .
There is no suggestion Clinton , Spacey , 60 , or Tucker , 48 , did anything wrong during the tour , or knew of Maxwell ’ s alleged activities on Epstein ’ s behalf , or the abuse Chauntae suffered at his hands .
However , it will further raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most famous and powerful people were drawn into Epstein ’ s circle at a time when he was committing horrific sex crimes .
Then here ’ s Clinton getting comfy with a stogie on the flight .
You ’ ll notice in each of these that Clinton is dressed differently indicating numerous flights .
For instance , here he is on a humanitarian trip to Africa and who knows who this is apparently singing to him .
At the time , Davies was 222 and claimed , “ Clinton was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied any improper behavior .
In a previous statement issued by Clinton ’ s office , he stated that he was unaware of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein : “ President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty to in Florida some years ago , or those with which he has previously been charged in New York.
” “ In 2002 and 2003 , President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein ’ s airplane : one to Europe , one to Asia , and two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection with the Clinton Foundation.
” “ Staff , supporters of the Foundation , and his Secret Service detail traveled on every leg or every trip.
” Yeah , right .
And you never had sex with that woman , Ms. Lewinski too , right Mr. Clinton ?
Again , it wasn ’ t just Clinton , but people like actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker .
Spacey has obviously had his own issues with accusations of sexual assault .
• Netflix Pulls Plug on “ House of Cards ” After Kevin Spacey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Worked On Film Project Says Spacey Sexually Assaulted Him And while no claims have been made against Chris Tucker , is there anyone who actually believes that these men knew nothing of underage girls on these flights ?
Come on !
I ’ m not saying that Spacey and Tucker engaged in anything here , but pointing out that they were on the flight , but it ’ s clear that Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein were a lot closer than he leads on .
In fact , Bill Clinton flew on Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 26 times !
• Epstein May Be Going Back to Prison – 26-Time Lolita Express Flyer Bill Clinton Isn ’ t Worried .
Here ’ s Why And far be it from Bill Clinton to just stand of being accused of rape by women in the past .
Clinton also stands accuse of being raped as a boy by Bill Clinton .
I wonder when the Trump administration will eventually get around to stop policing the world and bring some justice to the Clintons , which he promised the American people before telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gratitude they owed to Hillary .
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Whoops! New Photos Surface Showing Bill Clinton With Ghislaine Maxwell & Jeffrey Epstein On “Lolita Express” Along With Young Girls
Well, for all those who have tried to cover up the relationship, the documented relationship, with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton, now there are new pictures that have surfaced showing the former President and long-time philanderer Bill Clinton alongside Epstein, his mistress Ghislaine Maxwell and even Esptein’s young girl masseuse on Epstein’s private jet dubbed “The Lolita Express.”
It was the US Sun that exclusively obtained these photos.
Take a look.
Here’s Slick Willy alongside Maxwell at the door of the jet.
A little further shot on the 2002 trip to Africa.
The Sun reports:
In another image he has his arm round Epstein’s personal masseuse and sex slave Chauntae Davies – who had been ordered to wear a ‘pilot’ shirt to look professional.
Other never-seen-before images show Clinton traveling on the infamous Boeing 727 jet while playing cards and chomping on a cigar.
Now, for the first time, Chauntae Davies has revealed the extraordinary details of Clinton’s long distance flight to Africa with Maxwell and a number of other celebrities.
The star-studded group – which included actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker – visited Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique, Johannesburg and Cape Town in a five-day humanitarian trip.
There is no suggestion Clinton, Spacey, 60, or Tucker, 48, did anything wrong during the tour, or knew of Maxwell’s alleged activities on Epstein’s behalf, or the abuse Chauntae suffered at his hands.
However, it will further raise concerns about how some of the world’s most famous and powerful people were drawn into Epstein’s circle at a time when he was committing horrific sex crimes.
Then here’s Clinton getting comfy with a stogie on the flight.
You’ll notice in each of these that Clinton is dressed differently indicating numerous flights.
For instance, here he is on a humanitarian trip to Africa and who knows who this is apparently singing to him.
At the time, Davies was 222 and claimed, “Clinton was a perfect gentleman on the flight” and denied any improper behavior.
In a previous statement issued by Clinton’s office, he stated that he was unaware of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein:
“President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has previously been charged in New York.”
“In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the Clinton Foundation.”
“Staff, supporters of the Foundation, and his Secret Service detail traveled on every leg or every trip.”
Yeah, right. And you never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski too, right Mr. Clinton?
Again, it wasn’t just Clinton, but people like actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker.
Spacey has obviously had his own issues with accusations of sexual assault.
And while no claims have been made against Chris Tucker, is there anyone who actually believes that these men knew nothing of underage girls on these flights? Come on!
I’m not saying that Spacey and Tucker engaged in anything here, but pointing out that they were on the flight, but it’s clear that Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein were a lot closer than he leads on.
In fact, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet no less than 26 times!
And far be it from Bill Clinton to just stand of being accused of rape by women in the past. Clinton also stands accused of being raped as a boy by Bill Clinton.
I wonder when the Trump administration will eventually get around to stop policing the world and bring some justice to the Clintons, which he promised the American people before telling them how much of a debt of gratitude they owed to Hillary.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-10--As Expected, Trump DOJ Let’s Hillary Off The Hook:  “Finds Nothing”

Just remember , America , you owe Hillary a debt of gratitude for her service to our country , she ’ s “ good people ” and she and Bill are Trump ’ s “ friends.
” Now , it ’ s all coming to fruition .
Though the American people know Hillary is crooked and a criminal , the Trump Department of Justice has said they have “ found nothing of consequence ” after a two-year investigation into corruption .
A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything .
John Huber , the U.S. attorney in Utah , was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton ’ s time as secretary of state , when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his review , Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation , people familiar with the matter said .
Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers , these people said .
It ’ s just a coincidence their donations have plummeted since Hillary ’ s defeat in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play going on , folks !
The effective conclusion of his investigation , with no criminal charges or other known impacts , is likely to roil some in the GOP who had hoped the prosecutor would vindicate their long-held suspicions about a political rival .
Trump , though , has largely shifted his focus to a different federal prosecutor tapped to do a separate , special investigation : U.S. attorney in Connecticut John Durham , who Attorney General William P. Barr assigned last year to explore the origins of the FBI ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign and Russia .
That FBI investigation was being supervised by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in late 2017 , when Trump and his supporters were pressuring senior law enforcement officials to appoint a second special counsel to pursue Clinton .
It ’ s amazing how those Q-Anon believing folks still think mass prosecutions are just around the corner .
While it ’ s technically possible John Durham could find some sort of malfeasance , so far Barr seems to just be running down the clock .
Barr claimed in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ perfect storm of screw-ups ” and the evidence showed he hanged himself .
Barr ’ s father also gave Epstein , who was a 20-year-old college drop out with no credentials , his first job teaching at the prestigious Dalton School .
My money is on the system being rotten to the core and thoroughly compromised by the Epstein network .
Furthermore , I ask you , America , who is more of a threat to you and has been a threat to the American people ?
The Clintons or Soleimani ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
But somehow , we can be led to believe that he had to be eliminated without a declaration of war , and yet , the good friend that President Donald Trump called “ crooked ” and “ guilty as Hell ” can ’ t seem to have any justice dished out to her .
In fact , you owe her a debt of gratitude , America , according to President Trump .
Menahan concludes , “ Not only is the evidence overwhelming but you ’ ll find your predictions are a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operating assumption.
” Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Just remember, America, you owe Hillary a debt of gratitude for her service to our country, she’s “good people” and she and Bill are Trump’s “friends.” Now, it’s all coming to fruition. Though the American people know Hillary is crooked and a criminal, the Trump Department of Justice has said they have “found nothing of consequence” after a two-year investigation into corruption.
The Washington Post reports:
A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.
John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.
As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.
Chris Menahan adds:
It’s just a coincidence their donations have plummeted since Hillary’s defeat in 2016!
There was absolutely no pay to play going on, folks!
The effective conclusion of his investigation, with no criminal charges or other known impacts, is likely to roil some in the GOP who had hoped the prosecutor would vindicate their long-held suspicions about a political rival. Trump, though, has largely shifted his focus to a different federal prosecutor tapped to do a separate, special investigation: U.S. attorney in Connecticut John Durham, who Attorney General William P. Barr assigned last year to explore the origins of the FBI’s 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. That FBI investigation was being supervised by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in late 2017, when Trump and his supporters were pressuring senior law enforcement officials to appoint a second special counsel to pursue Clinton.
It’s amazing how those Q-Anon believing folks still think mass prosecutions are just around the corner. While it’s technically possible John Durham could find some sort of malfeasance, so far Barr seems to just be running down the clock.
Barr claimed in November that Jeffrey Epstein died due to a “perfect storm of screw-ups” and the evidence showed he hanged himself.
In a new interview, Attorney General William Barr said Jeffrey Epstein's suicide resulted from "a perfect storm of screw-ups" and that evidence ultimately shows he hanged himselfhttps://t.co/lhCxD16q4Q — The New York Times (@nytimes) November 22, 2019
Barr’s father also gave Epstein, who was a 20-year-old college drop out with no credentials, his first job teaching at the prestigious Dalton School.
Bill Clinton poses with Epstein’s ‘pimp’ Ghislaine Maxwell and a sex slave on board private jet the ‘Lolita Express’ – The Sun US https://t.co/v0Qu6r795b — Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 8, 2020
My money is on the system being rotten to the core and thoroughly compromised by the Epstein network.
Mine too, Chris.
Furthermore, I ask you, America, who is more of a threat to you and has been a threat to the American people? The Clintons or Soleimani? That’s really easy, ok?
But somehow, we can be led to believe that he had to be eliminated without a declaration of war, and yet, the good friend that President Donald Trump called “crooked” and “guilty as Hell” can’t seem to have any justice dished out to her. In fact, you owe her a debt of gratitude, America, according to President Trump.
You were played.
"Qanon" pushes for regime change in #Iran, mirroring long held CIA, Mossad and neocon goals. pic.twitter.com/C70T1T7BNF — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 25, 2018
Menahan concludes, “Not only is the evidence overwhelming but you’ll find your predictions are a lot more accurate if that’s your operating assumption.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-10--Black America Before LBJ: How the Welfare State Inadvertently Helped Ruin Black Communities

The dust has settled and the evidence is in : The 1960s Great Society and War on Poverty programs of President Lyndon Baines Johnson ( LBJ ) have been a colossal and giant failure .
One might make the argument that social welfare programs are the moral path for a modern government .
They can not , however , make the argument that these are in any way effective at alleviating poverty .
In fact , there is evidence that such aggressive programs might make generational poverty worse .
While the notion of a “ culture of dependence ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circles , there is evidence that this is indeed the case – that , consciously or not , the welfare state creates a culture where people receive benefits rather than seeking gainful employment or business ownership .
This is not a moral or even a value judgment against the people engaged in such a culture .
Again , the claim is not that people “ choose to be on welfare , ” but simply that social welfare programs incentivize poverty , which has an impact on communities that has nothing to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 years into the development of the Great Society and the War on Poverty .
It is time to take stock in these programs from an objective and evidence-based perspective .
When one does that , it is not only clear that the programs have been a failure , but also that they have disproportionately impacted the black community in the United States .
The current state of dysfunction in the black community ( astronomically high crime rates , very low rates of home ownership and single motherhood as the norm ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community in the United States , but closely tied to the role that social welfare programs play .
Or as Dr. Thomas Sowell stated : Here ’ s a peek into how black America has been a victim of LBJ ’ s Great Society and War on Poverty .
Defining Terms : What Is the Great Society and the War on Poverty ?
Before going further , we must define the terms “ Great Society ” and “ War on Poverty.
” These are two overlapping , but somewhat distinct terms that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same as “ welfare ” as a whole .
The “ War on Poverty ” refers to one part of the Great Society , namely the part focused specifically on poverty .
When the War on Poverty was started in 1964 , the poverty rate in America was 19 percent .
Seeing an opportunity to recreate the same New Deal magic that had propelled President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the White House in four successive elections 30 years earlier , Johnson pushed his War on Poverty .
It ’ s worth noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boast in terms of lifting some extremely poor communities , particularly those in the rural South , out of grinding forms of poverty .
This was through , for example , mass electrification and other similar campaigns , which radically redefined the experience of the poor in the United States .
One can argue about the ethics of redistributive wealth programs , but one can not argue about whether or not , for example , the electrification of the Tennessee Valley elevated people out of crushing and abject poverty – it did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ War on Poverty : • The Economic Opportunity Act : This was the flagship effort of the War on Poverty .
It created the Community Action Program , Volunteers in Service to America ( VISTA ) and Job Corps .
• The Food Stamp Act of 1964 : This created a food stamp program that remained largely in place until President Bill Clinton “ ended welfare as we know it.
” At this time , food stamps were open-ended and could , in theory , be a means of feeding a family for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act of 1964 : This is known as the most sweeping legislation impacting education passed by the United States Congress .
It sought to level an alleged “ achievement gap ” in public education .
It has been reauthorized by both Democratic and Republican presidents under the names Improving America ’ s Schools Act of 1994 , No Child Left Behind Act of 2004 , and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 .
• Social Security Act of 1965 : Created both Medicare and Medicaid .
The Economic Opportunity Act , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave broad leeway to create programs without Congressional approval or oversight .
An example of this is the Head Start program , which is shown to have only extremely limited and short-term effects on the ability of children to succeed in public schools .
The Great Society refers to a far broader set of programs , some of which still exist today , others of which were casualties of both the massive budget for the Vietnam War , LBJ ’ s other pet project , as well as the passage of time and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to summarize the Great Society as a whole , precisely because its scope was so broad .
Education , health , welfare , culture ( the Corporation for Public Broadcasting , for example , is a product of the Great Society ) , transportation , the environment , housing , labor and rural development were all areas where the Great Society had some hand .
Whereas the New Deal has demonstrably impacted communities with crushing and severe forms of poverty , the Great Society has demonstrably not only not “ worked ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also created a negative impact , most severely felt in the black community in the United States .
This article will make the case that the Great Society is the greatest disaster to befall America ’ s black community since slavery .
What Were the Goals of the Great Society ?
Some discussion of the goals of the Great Society and its historical context are in order .
The Great Society was seen by LBJ as nothing less than the completion of the New Deal as pioneered by his predecessor and mentor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically this : The New Deal proved that government intervention could have some impact on poverty .
As we stated above , there is some truth to this , albeit in a limited sense .
The New Deal was able to lift incredibly poor people out of what were effectively Third World conditions in the United States .
Because Johnson had at his disposal “ the best and the brightest , ” he believed that all he needed to do was apply their technocratic acumen to the problem of poverty and it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and immediate differences between the New Deal ( where it was successful ) and the Great Society was the definition of poverty .
Poverty , the kind the New Deal was effective at reducing , was largely an objective condition .
For example , people without electricity or running water in their homes .
For the Great Society programs , however , poverty was largely defined in subjective , albeit quantifiable , terms like educational attainment and income level .
Here ’ s the problem with defining poverty in those terms : We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming majority of people who wish to get one can obtain a college degree .
All this has done is devalue the college degree and saddle people with both unmarketable skill sets and a high level of nondischargeable debt .
A college degree simply doesn ’ t mean much anymore because anyone who wants one can have one .
Similarly , consider income in real terms – the ability to buy things .
The poorest people in America now have access to more computing power in their pocket than NASA used to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are plentiful , even for people with very low incomes – part-time minimum wage jobs , for example .
Poverty , defined as “ making much less than rich people ” or even “ struggling to get by ” simply means one is at the bottom of the economic ladder .
The bottom of the economic ladder will always exist as long as there is one .
Grinding , Third-World-style poverty – in the vast overwhelming majority of cases – is a thing of the past .
The United Nations puts the percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 .
A report estimated that 1.6 million Americans lack access to “ clean ” water , “ clean ” here being a weasel word that is undefined .
Even if we took the 1.6 million figure at face value ( which we should not ) , this means that approximately 0.48 percent of all Americans ( i.e.
, less than half of one percent ) do not have access to “ clean ” water .
In the absence of significant poverty conditions to attack , the “ War on Poverty ” was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defined as “ having less than some other people.
” Despite the best intentions ( to which , it should be noted , “ the road to hell is paved with ” ) , the Great Society was bound to fail simply because there were no clear targets .
In this sense , the War on Poverty prefigured other government wars on abstract concepts , such as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror .
The failure , of course , is seen by big government advocates as a sign that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the War on Poverty began , $ 15 trillion has been spent , with negligible impact on lifting people out of poverty .
For context , the Apollo program cost $ 25.4 billion , $ 146.1 billion in 2019 dollars .
Put simply , for the cost of the War on Poverty , America could have funded almost seven Apollo programs .
Unlike the War on Poverty , the Apollo program was a resounding and verifiable success .
The Breakdown of the Black Family The biggest problem resulting from the Great Society is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a sensitive subject , but one that must be broached to fully understand the devastating impact that the Great Society has had on the black community in the United States .
In 1965 , when the Great Society began in earnest following the massive electoral landslide reelection of LBJ , the out-of-wedlock birthrate among the black community was 21 percent .
By 2017 , this figure had risen to a whopping 77 percent .
In some cities , this rate is as high as 80 percent , with most of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented extensively in our article on the death of civil society in the United States the negative effects of the single-parent household on child development and outcomes .
The black community is now entering its third generation of single parenthood as the norm , something that rose astronomically with the advent of the Great Society .
To provide some historical context , the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the black community was already rising before the Great Society .
In 1938 , that rate stood at 11 percent .
Still , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and steady increase of 1938 to 1965 , and the explosive growth from 1965 until the present day .
In any event , black women were more likely to be married than white women as late as 1950 .
It ’ s also worth looking at single parenthood over time : In the 1950s , 52 percent of all black children lived with both parents until the age of 17 .
By the 1980s , that number had plummeted to 6 percent .
In addition to outcomes , there is also a wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in poverty when there is a father present .
Among married black families , the poverty rate is 8 percent .
Among black households headed by a single mother , that rate jumps to 37 percent .
And again , while we outline a number of negative consequences resulting from single-parent families , it ’ s worth pulling one out in relation to the destruction of the black family in America : There is no better predictor of male criminality than being raised in a fatherless home .
70 percent of all juvenile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fatherless homes .
This includes 60 percent of all rapists , 72 percent of all murderers , and 70 percent of long-term inmates .
There is another statistic that is significant when it comes to evaluating the role of the Great Society in the destruction of the black family and , by extension , black society : participation in the labor market .
This is an important metric for a very simple reason : Few would argue that it ’ s better to not work than to work .
Data provided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that black Americans were just as active – and sometimes more – in the labor market than their white counterparts .
In 1900 , for example , black unemployment was 15 percent lower than white unemployment .
In 2017 , it was 30 percent higher .
If the conventional narrative on black American poverty and general social dysfunction were correct – that this was caused by the legacy of slavery , Jim Crow , and private discrimination – wouldn ’ t we expect to see a decline in black unemployment rather than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the labor market is not the only metric of economic activity .
Another is business ownership .
The years between 1900 and 1930 are known as “ the Golden Age of Black Entrepreneurship.
” By 1920 , there were tens of thousands of black businesses in the United States , the overwhelming majority of them very small , single proprietorship .
This in no way diminishes the importance of this sector of the black economy .
People who had , in many cases , started their lives as slaves were now , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income , freer than many of their white counterparts who worked for wages .
There was also a social aspect to this period of black entrepreneurship .
Black insurance companies and black-owned banks represent the apex of the economic pyramid in the black community .
While the black community was comparatively poorer than its white counterparts , money spent by black Americans could stay within the black community .
Thus , the black community could enrich itself from the bottom of the ladder all the way up to the top .
This concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The idea is that money spent at black businesses not only purchased goods for the consumer , but also played a role in advancing the black race in America .
This , and not government handouts , was seen as the primary means of achieving , if not a perfect equality with whites , a social parity with them .
Another aspect of why black entrepreneurship was so important in the black community was that national businesses tended to ignore the black market entirely .
This , however , began to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much greater extent , by the dawn of the next decade .
No one forced national businesses to begin marketing their products to black America .
National businesses simply saw that there was an emerging black middle class with money to spend and didn ’ t want to get cut out of the market .
Today , black business ownership is in a state of “ collapse ” according to Marketplace.org .
This can not entirely be laid at the foot of the Great Society .
For example , the unlikely culprit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the black business districts began to fall apart .
For example , once the biggest burger joint in town would serve black people , there was no reason to go to “ the black burger joint ” anymore .
Still , it ’ s impossible to separate the end of the thriving black business districts from the Great Society .
These were once centers of the community , in addition to being centers of commerce .
Now they are virtually extinct .
While other factors are in play , it ’ s difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise of the welfare state through the Great Society , the overall decline in the black community ’ s civil society anchored by the black business community , and black business ownership in general .
Another area where the impact of Great Society policies is seen is in statistics on black homeownership .
The black homeownership rate is basically the same today as it was 50 years ago .
There was a spike in black homeownership during the Bush years .
However , these were largely a function of subprime mortgages being given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really afford them .
Few places saw the hand of government on the scale more than housing .
One of the final policy initiatives of the Great Society was the Fair Housing Act , which banned discrimination in housing sales ( but not in lending practices ) .
This effectively meant an end to “ restrictive covenants , ” which allowed a homeowner to specify that their house could not be sold to a black family , not just for an individual sale , but in perpetuity .
As a brief aside , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the Great Society , an egregious attack on freedom of association , property rights , and ability to transact and dispose of one ’ s property in a manner of one ’ s own choosing .
Which Way Forward for the Black Community It ’ s difficult to ignore that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party , who champion the policies of the Great Society , which have largely destroyed the black family and black civil society .
Why is this ?
There are a number of factors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party has little incentive to provide innovative solutions for such a loyal voter bloc .
Black Americans have voted at over 80 percent for Democratic Party candidates since 1964 .
In several elections ( 1964 , 2000 , 2008 and 2012 ) they voted over 90 percent for the Democratic Party candidate .
The highest share of the black vote received by the Republican Party since 1964 was 15 percent , achieved by Richard Nixon in 1968 and Gerald Ford in 1976 .
While Donald Trump ’ s performance among black voters has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received only 8 percent of the vote , reversing a trend where the black vote dropped as low as 4 percent in 2008 .
Despite the much-touted “ Blexit , ” 2018 saw no significant exodus from the Democratic Party on the part of black voters – a scant 9 percent voted for Republicans .
The flip side of this is that there is not much incentive on the part of Republicans to court black voters .
While the Nixon “ Southern Strategy ” is slightly distorted when presented , the core of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with various strategies for victory , Nixon chose to appeal to northern , union Catholic workers and Southern Protestant conservatives , both of whom were white .
This is simple math : A large increase in the black vote doesn ’ t represent a whole lot of votes , but a minor increase in the white vote moves the needle significantly .
The so-called “ Sailer strategy , ” named after Steve Sailer , exploits this math : Spiking the rural white vote to record levels while effectively ignoring all other voting blocs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The point here is that neither party is incentivized to offer solutions to black Americans .
But black Americans are also not demanding solutions from either political party , as evidenced by the lockstep voting for Democratic Party politicians , despite failing to deliver anything of value in 50 years .
One historical example that might represent a way forward is the National Black Independent Political Party .
Formed in 1988 , it had virtually no impact on electoral politics .
However , its model might represent something of value for black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-party duopoly and demand actual policy solutions from Washington .
The purpose of the NBIPP was not to obtain power in its own right , but rather to form black America into a political voting bloc that could act as kingmaker in elections .
This is in the broader tradition of self-reliance in the black community .
Whatever the way forward is , one thing is clear : Social welfare programs ostensibly designed to help the black community have done little more than put the boot of government on the neck of black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black community , these programs have acted to – despite whatever their intentions might be – destroy the black family , the black business community , and black social solidarity .
What might “ work ” depends on what the goal is .
However , the evidence is in and the Great Society ’ s War on Poverty has been a resounding failure .

“We waged a war on poverty and poverty won.” President Ronald Reagan, 1988 State of the Union Address
The dust has settled and the evidence is in: The 1960s Great Society and War on Poverty programs of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) have been a colossal and giant failure. One might make the argument that social welfare programs are the moral path for a modern government. They cannot, however, make the argument that these are in any way effective at alleviating poverty.
In fact, there is evidence that such aggressive programs might make generational poverty worse. While the notion of a “culture of dependence” is a bit of a cliché in conservative circles, there is evidence that this is indeed the case – that, consciously or not, the welfare state creates a culture where people receive benefits rather than seeking gainful employment or business ownership.
This is not a moral or even a value judgment against the people engaged in such a culture. Again, the claim is not that people “choose to be on welfare,” but simply that social welfare programs incentivize poverty, which has an impact on communities that has nothing to do with individual intent.
We are now over 50 years into the development of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. It is time to take stock in these programs from an objective and evidence-based perspective. When one does that, it is not only clear that the programs have been a failure, but also that they have disproportionately impacted the black community in the United States. The current state of dysfunction in the black community (astronomically high crime rates, very low rates of home ownership and single motherhood as the norm) are not the natural state of the black community in the United States, but closely tied to the role that social welfare programs play. Or as Dr. Thomas Sowell stated:
“If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state. In other words, we could compare hard evidence on “the legacy of slavery” with hard evidence on the legacy of liberals.”
Here’s a peek into how black America has been a victim of LBJ’s Great Society and War on Poverty.
Defining Terms: What Is the Great Society and the War on Poverty?
Before going further, we must define the terms “Great Society” and “War on Poverty.” These are two overlapping, but somewhat distinct terms that are, in any event, not the same as “welfare” as a whole.
The “War on Poverty” refers to one part of the Great Society, namely the part focused specifically on poverty. When the War on Poverty was started in 1964, the poverty rate in America was 19 percent. Seeing an opportunity to recreate the same New Deal magic that had propelled President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the White House in four successive elections 30 years earlier, Johnson pushed his War on Poverty.
It’s worth noting that the New Deal has some success to boast in terms of lifting some extremely poor communities, particularly those in the rural South, out of grinding forms of poverty. This was through, for example, mass electrification and other similar campaigns, which radically redefined the experience of the poor in the United States. One can argue about the ethics of redistributive wealth programs, but one cannot argue about whether or not, for example, the electrification of the Tennessee Valley elevated people out of crushing and abject poverty – it did.
There are four primary initiatives of the War on Poverty:
The Economic Opportunity Act, in particular, was insidious in that it gave broad leeway to create programs without Congressional approval or oversight. An example of this is the Head Start program, which is shown to have only extremely limited and short-term effects on the ability of children to succeed in public schools.
The Great Society refers to a far broader set of programs, some of which still exist today, others of which were casualties of both the massive budget for the Vietnam War, LBJ’s other pet project, as well as the passage of time and subsequent Republican administrations. It’s difficult to summarize the Great Society as a whole, precisely because its scope was so broad. Education, health, welfare, culture (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for example, is a product of the Great Society), transportation, the environment, housing, labor and rural development were all areas where the Great Society had some hand.
Whereas the New Deal has demonstrably impacted communities with crushing and severe forms of poverty, the Great Society has demonstrably not only not “worked” by any available metric, it has also created a negative impact, most severely felt in the black community in the United States.
This article will make the case that the Great Society is the greatest disaster to befall America’s black community since slavery.
What Were the Goals of the Great Society?
Some discussion of the goals of the Great Society and its historical context are in order. The Great Society was seen by LBJ as nothing less than the completion of the New Deal as pioneered by his predecessor and mentor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The thinking was basically this: The New Deal proved that government intervention could have some impact on poverty. As we stated above, there is some truth to this, albeit in a limited sense. The New Deal was able to lift incredibly poor people out of what were effectively Third World conditions in the United States. Because Johnson had at his disposal “the best and the brightest,” he believed that all he needed to do was apply their technocratic acumen to the problem of poverty and it would be solved.
One of the glaring and immediate differences between the New Deal (where it was successful) and the Great Society was the definition of poverty. Poverty, the kind the New Deal was effective at reducing, was largely an objective condition. For example, people without electricity or running water in their homes. For the Great Society programs, however, poverty was largely defined in subjective, albeit quantifiable, terms like educational attainment and income level.
Here’s the problem with defining poverty in those terms: We now live in a world where the overwhelming majority of people who wish to get one can obtain a college degree. All this has done is devalue the college degree and saddle people with both unmarketable skill sets and a high level of nondischargeable debt. A college degree simply doesn’t mean much anymore because anyone who wants one can have one.
Similarly, consider income in real terms – the ability to buy things. The poorest people in America now have access to more computing power in their pocket than NASA used to go to the moon. Cheap consumer goods are plentiful, even for people with very low incomes – part-time minimum wage jobs, for example.
Poverty, defined as “making much less than rich people” or even “struggling to get by” simply means one is at the bottom of the economic ladder. The bottom of the economic ladder will always exist as long as there is one. Grinding, Third-World-style poverty – in the vast overwhelming majority of cases – is a thing of the past. The United Nations puts the percentage of Americans with access to electricity at 100.
A report estimated that 1.6 million Americans lack access to “clean” water, “clean” here being a weasel word that is undefined. Even if we took the 1.6 million figure at face value (which we should not), this means that approximately 0.48 percent of all Americans (i.e., less than half of one percent) do not have access to “clean” water.
In the absence of significant poverty conditions to attack, the “War on Poverty” was largely about hitting a moving target subjectively defined as “having less than some other people.”
Despite the best intentions (to which, it should be noted, “the road to hell is paved with”), the Great Society was bound to fail simply because there were no clear targets. In this sense, the War on Poverty prefigured other government wars on abstract concepts, such as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
The failure, of course, is seen by big government advocates as a sign that not enough has been done. Since the War on Poverty began, $15 trillion has been spent, with negligible impact on lifting people out of poverty. For context, the Apollo program cost $25.4 billion, $146.1 billion in 2019 dollars. Put simply, for the cost of the War on Poverty, America could have funded almost seven Apollo programs.
Unlike the War on Poverty, the Apollo program was a resounding and verifiable success.
The Breakdown of the Black Family
“The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.” Thomas Sowell
The biggest problem resulting from the Great Society is the breakdown of the black family. This is a sensitive subject, but one that must be broached to fully understand the devastating impact that the Great Society has had on the black community in the United States.
In 1965, when the Great Society began in earnest following the massive electoral landslide reelection of LBJ, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among the black community was 21 percent. By 2017, this figure had risen to a whopping 77 percent. In some cities, this rate is as high as 80 percent, with most of the unwed mothers being teenagers. We have documented extensively in our article on the death of civil society in the United States the negative effects of the single-parent household on child development and outcomes. The black community is now entering its third generation of single parenthood as the norm, something that rose astronomically with the advent of the Great Society.
To provide some historical context, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the black community was already rising before the Great Society. In 1938, that rate stood at 11 percent. Still, it’s worth noting the difference between the slow and steady increase of 1938 to 1965, and the explosive growth from 1965 until the present day. In any event, black women were more likely to be married than white women as late as 1950. It’s also worth looking at single parenthood over time: In the 1950s, 52 percent of all black children lived with both parents until the age of 17. By the 1980s, that number had plummeted to 6 percent.
In addition to outcomes, there is also a wide divide between the percentage of black families in poverty when there is a father present. Among married black families, the poverty rate is 8 percent. Among black households headed by a single mother, that rate jumps to 37 percent.
And again, while we outline a number of negative consequences resulting from single-parent families, it’s worth pulling one out in relation to the destruction of the black family in America: There is no better predictor of male criminality than being raised in a fatherless home. 70 percent of all juvenile offenders in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes. This includes 60 percent of all rapists, 72 percent of all murderers, and 70 percent of long-term inmates.
Black Participation in the Labor Market
There is another statistic that is significant when it comes to evaluating the role of the Great Society in the destruction of the black family and, by extension, black society: participation in the labor market.
This is an important metric for a very simple reason: Few would argue that it’s better to not work than to work. Data provided by every census between 1890 and 1954 shows that black Americans were just as active – and sometimes more – in the labor market than their white counterparts. In 1900, for example, black unemployment was 15 percent lower than white unemployment. In 2017, it was 30 percent higher.
If the conventional narrative on black American poverty and general social dysfunction were correct – that this was caused by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and private discrimination – wouldn’t we expect to see a decline in black unemployment rather than the opposite?
Black Business Ownership
Of course, participation in the labor market is not the only metric of economic activity. Another is business ownership. The years between 1900 and 1930 are known as “the Golden Age of Black Entrepreneurship.” By 1920, there were tens of thousands of black businesses in the United States, the overwhelming majority of them very small, single proprietorship. This in no way diminishes the importance of this sector of the black economy. People who had, in many cases, started their lives as slaves were now, even when “poorer” in terms of income, freer than many of their white counterparts who worked for wages.
There was also a social aspect to this period of black entrepreneurship. Black insurance companies and black-owned banks represent the apex of the economic pyramid in the black community. While the black community was comparatively poorer than its white counterparts, money spent by black Americans could stay within the black community. Thus, the black community could enrich itself from the bottom of the ladder all the way up to the top.
This concept was known as “double duty dollars.” The idea is that money spent at black businesses not only purchased goods for the consumer, but also played a role in advancing the black race in America. This, and not government handouts, was seen as the primary means of achieving, if not a perfect equality with whites, a social parity with them.
Another aspect of why black entrepreneurship was so important in the black community was that national businesses tended to ignore the black market entirely. This, however, began to change in the 1950s and, to a much greater extent, by the dawn of the next decade. No one forced national businesses to begin marketing their products to black America. National businesses simply saw that there was an emerging black middle class with money to spend and didn’t want to get cut out of the market.
Today, black business ownership is in a state of “collapse” according to Marketplace.org. This cannot entirely be laid at the foot of the Great Society. For example, the unlikely culprit of integration is one of the reasons that the black business districts began to fall apart. For example, once the biggest burger joint in town would serve black people, there was no reason to go to “the black burger joint” anymore.
Still, it’s impossible to separate the end of the thriving black business districts from the Great Society. These were once centers of the community, in addition to being centers of commerce. Now they are virtually extinct. While other factors are in play, it’s difficult to not notice the overlap between the rise of the welfare state through the Great Society, the overall decline in the black community’s civil society anchored by the black business community, and black business ownership in general.
The Decline in Black Homeownership
Another area where the impact of Great Society policies is seen is in statistics on black homeownership. The black homeownership rate is basically the same today as it was 50 years ago. There was a spike in black homeownership during the Bush years. However, these were largely a function of subprime mortgages being given out to people who couldn’t really afford them.
Few places saw the hand of government on the scale more than housing. One of the final policy initiatives of the Great Society was the Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination in housing sales (but not in lending practices). This effectively meant an end to “restrictive covenants,” which allowed a homeowner to specify that their house could not be sold to a black family, not just for an individual sale, but in perpetuity.
As a brief aside, this is, as are many other parts of the Great Society, an egregious attack on freedom of association, property rights, and ability to transact and dispose of one’s property in a manner of one’s own choosing.
Which Way Forward for the Black Community
It’s difficult to ignore that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, who champion the policies of the Great Society, which have largely destroyed the black family and black civil society. Why is this?
There are a number of factors in play here. First, the Democratic Party has little incentive to provide innovative solutions for such a loyal voter bloc. Black Americans have voted at over 80 percent for Democratic Party candidates since 1964. In several elections (1964, 2000, 2008 and 2012) they voted over 90 percent for the Democratic Party candidate. The highest share of the black vote received by the Republican Party since 1964 was 15 percent, achieved by Richard Nixon in 1968 and Gerald Ford in 1976. While Donald Trump’s performance among black voters has been touted for its strength, he received only 8 percent of the vote, reversing a trend where the black vote dropped as low as 4 percent in 2008. Despite the much-touted “Blexit,” 2018 saw no significant exodus from the Democratic Party on the part of black voters – a scant 9 percent voted for Republicans.
The flip side of this is that there is not much incentive on the part of Republicans to court black voters. While the Nixon “Southern Strategy” is slightly distorted when presented, the core of this narrative is true – when presented with various strategies for victory, Nixon chose to appeal to northern, union Catholic workers and Southern Protestant conservatives, both of whom were white. This is simple math: A large increase in the black vote doesn’t represent a whole lot of votes, but a minor increase in the white vote moves the needle significantly. The so-called “Sailer strategy,” named after Steve Sailer, exploits this math: Spiking the rural white vote to record levels while effectively ignoring all other voting blocs is what delivered Donald Trump the presidency.
The point here is that neither party is incentivized to offer solutions to black Americans. But black Americans are also not demanding solutions from either political party, as evidenced by the lockstep voting for Democratic Party politicians, despite failing to deliver anything of value in 50 years.
One historical example that might represent a way forward is the National Black Independent Political Party. Formed in 1988, it had virtually no impact on electoral politics. However, its model might represent something of value for black Americans looking to break free of the two-party duopoly and demand actual policy solutions from Washington. The purpose of the NBIPP was not to obtain power in its own right, but rather to form black America into a political voting bloc that could act as kingmaker in elections. This is in the broader tradition of self-reliance in the black community.
Whatever the way forward is, one thing is clear: Social welfare programs ostensibly designed to help the black community have done little more than put the boot of government on the neck of black Americans. Rather than raising up the black community, these programs have acted to – despite whatever their intentions might be – destroy the black family, the black business community, and black social solidarity.
What might “work” depends on what the goal is. However, the evidence is in and the Great Society’s War on Poverty has been a resounding failure.
Article posted with permission from Ammo.com


thewashingtonstandard--2020-01-10--A Dubious Official Story Masks the True Motives Behind the Soleimani Assassination

BAGHDAD — The recent assassination of Iran ’ s most popular and well-known general , Qassem Soleimani , has stoked fears that a new war pitting the U.S. and its allies against Iran could soon become a devastating and deadly reality .
The airstrike that killed Soleimani , conducted by the U.S. in Baghdad , was conducted without the authorization or even prior notification of the U.S. Congress and without the approval of Iraq ’ s government or military , making the attack flagrantly illegal on multiple levels .
The attack also killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq … and the liquidation of leading Iraqi figures or those from a brotherly country on Iraqi soil is a massive breach of sovereignty , ” Iraq ’ s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said of the attack , adding that the assassination was “ a dangerous escalation that will light the fuse of a destructive war in Iraq , the region , and the world.
” Notably , the assassination of Soleimani comes just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kill the Iranian general failed and amid a well-documented and decades-long push by U.S. neoconservatives and Israeli officials for a U.S.-led war with Iran .
While the illegality of the assassination has been noted by many since news of the attack first spread , less attention has been given to the oddities of the Trump administration ’ s official reasoning and justification for the attack that has brought with it renewed tension to the Middle East .
Per administration officials , the attack was aimed at “ deterring future Iranian attack plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rocket attack at the K1 military base near Kirkuk , Iraq on December 27 .
That attack killed one U.S. military contractor and lightly wounded several U.S. soldiers and Iraqi military personnel .
Yet , the details of that attack — even per mainstream U.S. sources that often support U.S. militarism — are incredibly murky , and the name of the American killed and the identity of the company he or she was working for have not been released .
Some media reports have referred to the contractor as a “ Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term “ civilian contractor , ” leading some to speculate that the contractor might have been a private mercenary in the employ of the Pentagon .
In addition , no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack and media reports have noted that the attack could just as easily have been conducted by remnants of the Islamic State as by the Iraqi Shia militia ( Kataib Hezbollah ) that was officially blamed by U.S. officials .
An official investigation into the incident , being conducted by the Iraqi military , has yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. previously claimed it had compelling evidence to blame Iran for attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last June , only to have staunch U.S. allies in the region claim that alleged U.S. evidence of Iranian involvement was insufficient .
Furthermore , the U.S. had already responded to the death of the contractor , launching five different attacks in Iraq and Syria in late December , killing an estimated 25 and motivating Iraqi protesters to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as many of those killed by those airstrikes were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani seems like overkill for the official justification of avenging the death of one American .
Given the above , the question then becomes — is the Trump administration basing its assassination of a top Iranian general in Iraqi sovereign territory in clear violation of international law on the death of a single individual that the government will not even name ?
Even when five strikes were already launched to allegedly avenge that same individual ?
Risking a regional war to allegedly avenge the death of an individual who was already avenged raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for re-election .
The United States claims that the assassination was also intended to act as a “ deterrent ” against potential , future Iranian attacks , yet it is hard to justify the murder of a top general of a foreign power on foreign soil as a preemptive and preventative measure as opposed to one that would invite escalation .
This is particularly true given that those that have most often sought an escalation in tensions between Iran and the U.S. and its Middle Eastern allies do not live in Tehran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Tel Aviv .
Much has been written by MintPress and other outlets about the long-standing efforts by prominent neoconservatives in the U.S. as well as the Israel lobby and Israeli government to prod the U.S. into a major war with Iran .
Neoconservative efforts at regime change in Iran have been decades in the making and the current presidential administration has several notable Iran hawks in prominent positions .
Furthermore , both President Trump and his foremost ally in the Middle East , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , are facing domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are facing fresh elections , giving both leaders incentive to ratchet up tensions abroad to distract from their own domestic conflicts .
Yet , the current pressure facing both Trump and Netanyahu in their respective policies is only the latest factor that has pushed both administrations into a renewed and increasingly desperate push to satisfy the decades-old effort of Iran hawks in both countries to stoke war and “ reshape ” the Middle East in favor of the U.S.-Israel axis .
Given the recent assassination of Soleimani , however , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airstrike targeting the Quds Force leader came just a few months after Israel tried but failed to assassinate the general .
Indeed , the most recent of these failed attempts was slated to occur early last October and , per The Times of Israel , Israel ’ s government did not comment on the alleged plot , though it is notable that the plan to dig below a Muslim holy site and plant a bomb has been attempted by Israeli extremist groups in the past , groups which have a major foothold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged attempt by Israel to kill Soleimani came after claims that , in 2018 , the Trump administration had given Israel a “ green light ” to assassinate the general .
The report claimed that “ there is an American-Israeli agreement ” that Soleimani is a “ threat to the two countries ’ interests in the region ” and was published by the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida , which is widely considered to be “ an Israeli platform for conveying messages to other countries in the Middle East , ” according to Israeli media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general as a means of provoking war with Iran , which Netanyahu was actively promoting last February .
At the time , Newsweek reported that “ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his desire to go to war with Iran , and said he was meeting with dozens of foreign envoys , including those from the Arab world , in order to push the initiative forward.
” Yet , with Israel ’ s closest ally having done the deed , Israel has kept relatively quiet about the incident , though Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani was jointly conducted by the U.S. and Israel .
Though the official yet dubious justifications for the strike have been given , the most likely result of the death of Soleimani is that it will “ light the fuse of war , ” as recently stated by Iraq ’ s Prime Minister .
Whether Soleimani ’ s death alone will be enough to push the U.S. , Iran and their respective allies to war remains to be seen , but what is certain is that the Trump administration seems content to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both long-standing ambitions of career war hawks as well as a release for quickly building domestic pressure ahead of the 2020 election .

BAGHDAD — The recent assassination of Iran’s most popular and well-known general, Qassem Soleimani, has stoked fears that a new war pitting the U.S. and its allies against Iran could soon become a devastating and deadly reality. The airstrike that killed Soleimani, conducted by the U.S. in Baghdad, was conducted without the authorization or even prior notification of the U.S. Congress and without the approval of Iraq’s government or military, making the attack flagrantly illegal on multiple levels. The attack also killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was an advisor to Soleimani.
“The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq … and the liquidation of leading Iraqi figures or those from a brotherly country on Iraqi soil is a massive breach of sovereignty,” Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said of the attack, adding that the assassination was “a dangerous escalation that will light the fuse of a destructive war in Iraq, the region, and the world.”
Notably, the assassination of Soleimani comes just a few months after an alleged Israeli attempt to kill the Iranian general failed and amid a well-documented and decades-long push by U.S. neoconservatives and Israeli officials for a U.S.-led war with Iran.
While the illegality of the assassination has been noted by many since news of the attack first spread, less attention has been given to the oddities of the Trump administration’s official reasoning and justification for the attack that has brought with it renewed tension to the Middle East. Per administration officials, the attack was aimed at “deterring future Iranian attack plans” as well as a response to a rocket attack at the K1 military base near Kirkuk, Iraq on December 27. That attack killed one U.S. military contractor and lightly wounded several U.S. soldiers and Iraqi military personnel.
Yet, the details of that attack — even per mainstream U.S. sources that often support U.S. militarism — are incredibly murky, and the name of the American killed and the identity of the company he or she was working for have not been released. Some media reports have referred to the contractor as a “Pentagon contractor” while others have used the term “civilian contractor,” leading some to speculate that the contractor might have been a private mercenary in the employ of the Pentagon.
In addition, no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack and media reports have noted that the attack could just as easily have been conducted by remnants of the Islamic State as by the Iraqi Shia militia (Kataib Hezbollah) that was officially blamed by U.S. officials. An official investigation into the incident, being conducted by the Iraqi military, has yet to be concluded. Notably, the U.S. previously claimed it had compelling evidence to blame Iran for attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last June, only to have staunch U.S. allies in the region claim that alleged U.S. evidence of Iranian involvement was insufficient.
"There are about 5,000 American troops in Iraq. The number of civilian contractors is far more difficult to track." That's journalistic malpractice. Trump is going to war to avenge a contractor's death. We have a right to know who he or she is. https://t.co/x60ngAwtBe — Tim Shorrock (@TimothyS) January 3, 2020
Furthermore, the U.S. had already responded to the death of the contractor, launching five different attacks in Iraq and Syria in late December, killing an estimated 25 and motivating Iraqi protesters to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as many of those killed by those airstrikes were Iraqis. The subsequent airstrike that killed Soleimani seems like overkill for the official justification of avenging the death of one American.
Given the above, the question then becomes — is the Trump administration basing its assassination of a top Iranian general in Iraqi sovereign territory in clear violation of international law on the death of a single individual that the government will not even name? Even when five strikes were already launched to allegedly avenge that same individual?
Risking a regional war to allegedly avenge the death of an individual who was already avenged raises questions, especially for a President standing for re-election. The United States claims that the assassination was also intended to act as a “deterrent” against potential, future Iranian attacks, yet it is hard to justify the murder of a top general of a foreign power on foreign soil as a preemptive and preventative measure as opposed to one that would invite escalation. This is particularly true given that those that have most often sought an escalation in tensions between Iran and the U.S. and its Middle Eastern allies do not live in Tehran and Baghdad, but instead in Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv.
Failed assassination plots and domestic woes
Much has been written by MintPress and other outlets about the long-standing efforts by prominent neoconservatives in the U.S. as well as the Israel lobby and Israeli government to prod the U.S. into a major war with Iran. Neoconservative efforts at regime change in Iran have been decades in the making and the current presidential administration has several notable Iran hawks in prominent positions. Furthermore, both President Trump and his foremost ally in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are facing domestic efforts aimed at removing them from office and are facing fresh elections, giving both leaders incentive to ratchet up tensions abroad to distract from their own domestic conflicts.
Yet, the current pressure facing both Trump and Netanyahu in their respective policies is only the latest factor that has pushed both administrations into a renewed and increasingly desperate push to satisfy the decades-old effort of Iran hawks in both countries to stoke war and “reshape” the Middle East in favor of the U.S.-Israel axis.
Given the recent assassination of Soleimani, however, it is essential to point out that the U.S. airstrike targeting the Quds Force leader came just a few months after Israel tried but failed to assassinate the general. Indeed, the most recent of these failed attempts was slated to occur early last October and, per The Times of Israel,
The assassins planned to dig under a religious site associated with Soleimani’s father and set off an explosion under the building when he was inside, and then try to deflect blame so that it ignited an interfaction[al] religious war. The assassins prepared some 500 kilograms to use for the bomb.”
Israel’s government did not comment on the alleged plot, though it is notable that the plan to dig below a Muslim holy site and plant a bomb has been attempted by Israeli extremist groups in the past, groups which have a major foothold in Israel’s current government.
This alleged attempt by Israel to kill Soleimani came after claims that, in 2018, the Trump administration had given Israel a “green light” to assassinate the general. The report claimed that “there is an American-Israeli agreement” that Soleimani is a “threat to the two countries’ interests in the region” and was published by the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida, which is widely considered to be “an Israeli platform for conveying messages to other countries in the Middle East,” according to Israeli media.
Israel may have planned to assassinate the general as a means of provoking war with Iran, which Netanyahu was actively promoting last February. At the time, Newsweek reported that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed his desire to go to war with Iran, and said he was meeting with dozens of foreign envoys, including those from the Arab world, in order to push the initiative forward.” Yet, with Israel’s closest ally having done the deed, Israel has kept relatively quiet about the incident, though Iranian officials have claimed that the assassination of Soleimani was jointly conducted by the U.S. and Israel.
Though the official yet dubious justifications for the strike have been given, the most likely result of the death of Soleimani is that it will “light the fuse of war,” as recently stated by Iraq’s Prime Minister. Whether Soleimani’s death alone will be enough to push the U.S., Iran and their respective allies to war remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the Trump administration seems content to continue to escalate the situation in pursuit of both long-standing ambitions of career war hawks as well as a release for quickly building domestic pressure ahead of the 2020 election.
Article posted with permission from MintPress News