|US Secretary of State John Kerry told Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday that “the world is facing a critical time”, citing tensions on the Korean peninsula, Iran’s nuclear program and the conflict in Syria.
“Mr. President, this is obviously a critical time with some very challenging issues,” Kerry told Xi in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
“Issues on the Korean peninsula, the challenge of Iran and nuclear weapons, Syria and the Middle East, and economies around the world that are in need of a Boost,” Kerry said.
The US secretary of State had arrived from South Korea earlier to press Beijing, North Korea’s major ally, to help defuse nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula ahead of an expected missile launch by the North.
In contrast, the Chinese president did not refer to the issued raised by Kerry, but rather stated that US-China relationship was “at a new historical stage and has got off to a good start”.
Category Archives: War on Iran
Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 7) Franklin Lamb: International Law Is Overwhelmingly on the Side of Iran Friday, March 29, 2013
Iran Review Exclusive Interview with Franklin Lamb
By: Kourosh Ziabari
It’s less than 10 days that the Iranian New Year has started. People across the country are celebrating the arrival of spring and the commencement of New Year. The past year has been a very difficult and tough year for the Iranian nation. The United States and its European allies, under the guise of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, imposed a set of harsh and backbreaking sanctions on Iran. The sanctions were decried by conscientious and independent thinkers, scholars, authors and politicians. However, the U.S. and its European partners callously defied the international calls to lift the sanctions and mitigate the pains of the Iranian people.
The Iranian people, however, withstood the pressures and learned how to manage their life in the face of the economic warfare being unleashed on them by the West. In order to discuss the different aspects of the anti-Iran sanctions and their legal basis, Iran Review has started to do interviews with world-renowned political commentators, university professors, writers and scholars who are willing to present their opinions on the sanctions.
Today, we are joined by Dr. Franklin Lamb, a well-known progressive international lawyer and researcher with the University of Beirut. Lamb is a former Assistant Counsel of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law, Portland, Oregon. He is currently based in Beirut and Damascus. He is also the director of Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Washington D.C.-Beirut.
What follows is the text of our interview with Dr. Franklin Lamb who has weighed in on the legal aspects of the anti-Iran sanctions, their accordance with the international law and the legal procedures to lift them. Parts of the interview were conducted when Dr. Lamb was in Iran last year, and the rest was done when he returned to Beirut, where he is based.
Q: Over the past years, the U.S. officials have been repeatedly claiming that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that it should be prevented from acquiring them. However, the sanctions imposed on Iran on this basis now have nothing to do with nuclear disarmament and simply target the daily life of the ordinary Iranian citizens through banning medicine, foodstuff and consumer goods. What does the international law say in this regard?
A: I think that’s absolutely right. Mr. Stephen Cohen is the head of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control which is the most active agency of the United States government that creates, applies, monitors and follows up on the sanctions. So the sanctions which have been imposed on Iran over the past years, but throughout the history, come out of that office at the Treasury Department. There are others, but that’s the main source. In fact the OFAC has existed since 1812, so we have a history of sanctions, not only on Iran but in the international level. He [Stephen Cohen] advocated economic sanctions as an alternative to a hot war. In those days, it was considered a peaceful idea and that carries forward even the restrictions which were applied on the Islamic Republic in a serious way first in 1979 after the revolution, and as you know, they recently increased and became layer upon layer and most recently, two days ago, Steve Cohen again announced yet another regime of sanctions which has targeted the whole media network, the IRIB, and also the so-called cyber-police that monitors internet. That’s the latest set of sanction. The political motives [of the sanctions] are pretty complicated but in a sense predictable.
Our interest is ending the sanctions. An international team of lawyers which has been based in Syria for the last three months, including some names which you may know such as Francis Boyle, is examining the international legal aspect of the sanctions. It’s a long, long story short; a complicated story short. The sanctions are overwhelmingly illegal from every international humanitarian law concept you can come up with; the rights of children, rights of women, proportionality, collective punishment, Geneva Conventions, etc. You can’t target a civilian population. Particularly, you cannot target a civilian population for political reasons in that way: regime change! That’s exactly what’s going on here, and exactly what’s going on in Syria. So, from the point of view of international law, the sanctions are absolutely illegal, morally indefensible, and arguably not even effective politically. We don’t care about political issues, we care about law. So our project is to get the sanctions lifted on the basis of law which we can talk about more in details if you want. But the hypocrisy and fallacy of the recent sanctions were reminded and reiterated by the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton when she announced that she hoped the Iranian people will get the message. That is as much a confession to a criminal act and as former lawyer who had gone to a law school she had to know it better that she confirmed that her government is involved in criminality. She admits the targeting of a civilian population, and she hopes that they get the message. She hopes that there are some riots over the rise of the price of automobiles and consumer goods, and the argument is that they might break with the government and push the clerics out. That’s what they talk about, but it’s nonsense as we know; sanctions don’t work that way. In Syria where I spent three months, it was very clear that the government there, whatever you think of it, is using this argument against the opposition and their allies and Americans, and they’re actually gaining support, I’ll submit, among the population on this issue. Obviously, there’s a lot of evidence of riots in this country over that, and in certain cases, such as chicken fees, the government steps in and tries, through subsidies and grants, to reduce the effect of those sanctions. I’m here to study that problem. I need to know more about that. Maybe you can help me with that.
You mentioned the legal aspects [of the sanctions]. You need two things, of course. You need the law on their side, and both Iran and Syria have the law overwhelmingly on their side; and then you need the facts. You got to give the facts. That’s why I’m digging down here, and that’s the reason I’m here. Some people ask, isn’t the international law a politicized Western tool? No, it’s not! 95% of international law works great; EKO, air transport, telecommunications, thousands of bilateral treaties, maritime, aviation, etc. all of these things works great. 5% of the time, it’s a problem. Because that’s when the international law becomes politicized and used by those who have the political, military power to use it for their own so-called national interests and self-interests. For example, the United Nations had become really politicized at the Security Council. 72 resolutions on behalf of Israel were vetoed by the Americans. It’s a matter of fact. I don’t say it because I’m here in Iran. So, there are two possibilities for legally putting the sanctions aside. One is that you go to a U.S. federal district court in the District of Columbia. Then you bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Americans who are Iranians. Iranian-Americans are considered as much American as the others. You’ll be asked whether you have been paid the compensatory and punitive damages done by the sanctions, and your family and relatives who happen to live here or there. Then you’ll have over 20 plaintiffs. There will be countless numbers of your family members and friends who are victimized by the sanctions. When you do that, you go the court and immediately file a motion. And what’s the motion? You say that, your honors, my clients are suffering and we need interim measures of protection. What’s that? That’s a provision involved in the international law and municipal law, meaning domestic law, where the court grants interim relief which is in this case the lifting of the sanctions. Lifting the sanctions until when? Until the court makes the final determination. For how long will the freeze last? We don’t know; maybe two years or more. You see they will grant this, and in this case it is the duty of the Iranians and the Syrians to freeze the sanctions. It makes it more and more politically difficult for the U.S. government and its allies to bring the sanctions back. And why does the court do that? As a practical matter, the court does it when the law is on the side of the plaintiff, and in this case, it’s overwhelmingly on the side of the plaintiffs.
Q: While the process of passing on Iran’s nuclear dossier to the Security Council was illegal, do the resolutions issued on this basis have a legal warranty?
A: Yes they do. Even if the ancillary and preliminary process was arguably flawed, as your question assumes, the alleged defect (s) must be timely challenged at the level of the UN Security Council. The reason is that when the United Nations was founded following World War II, the powers who agreed to it established the Security Council as the final arbiter of international issues, for “the maintenance of International Peace and Security.” In short, this means that what the Security Council decides becomes instant binding International Law. This may not always be just but UN Security Council Resolutions are binding and enforceable under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter
Q: Don’t you think that focusing the sanctions on basic staples and goods, especially medicine, is tantamount to a continued and systematic violation of the human rights?
A: Absolutely. Binding international law on the subject of targeting civilian populations, whether by armed force or economic sanctions constitute crimes against humanity and are in violation of the norms of international humanitarian law as evidenced by the Geneva Conventions as well as the massive body of settled conventional and customary international law. The U.S.-led sanctions, in their predictable effects, target the civilian population of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The sanctions are also illegal under American law which outlaws the targeting civilian populations.
Q: It seems that the sanctions are not simply aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program; rather, the main objective of the sanctions is seemingly to create social unrest in Iran which can finally lead to a regime change. So, what’s the message which the sanctions impart? Diplomacy or conspiracy?
A: The message from Washington is regime change as part of the strategic imperative, from the viewpoint of the Obama Administration, seeking a restoration of American hegemony project in the Middle East which has suffered serious setbacks following a series of challenges and setbacks from Iraq and Afghanistan to Egypt and Syria. Ultimately, the sanctions are designed to thwart the rise of any Resistance power in the region that would challenge American domination and undermine Israeli hegemony. Another message of the sanctions is to the domestic audience, i.e. to build support from the American public, for example, via the sanctions by demonstrating that there must be something dangerous about the governments and countries being targeted by U.S. sanctions and also it makes it easier to build support among the public for harsher measures against “perceived enemies of America” including the “all options on the table” rhetoric.
Q: Would you please touch upon the legal aspect of unilateral sanctions, not necessarily those which are imposed against Iran, as stipulated by the documents of the United Nations? Can the unilateral sanctions be categorized as part of the punitive measures foreseen in the Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter?
A: Unilateral sanctions can be categorized as part of the punitive measures foreseen in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter but only if supported by an agreed to United Nations Security Council Resolution. This has been the case with some of the sanctions initiated by the American government and its allies and approved by the fifteen member state Security Council in recent years.
However, unless the Security Council passes, by a majority vote of its 15 members, a UNSC Resolution relating to the application of sanctions the Resolution is not binding on member states. Any of the five powers, China, France, America, Russia or the United Kingdom can veto any UN Security Council Resolution which act immediately renders it null and void.
Q: Along with the expansion of sanctions, the resistance of the Iranian nation has increased, as well. Why haven’t the sanctions had the effects the West desires, whether in the political or social level?
A: The resistance of the Iranian people and the government of the Islamic Republic reflect the widespread international rejection of acts that clearly have the affect of harming a civilian population. Big powers like the U.S. have used economic sanctions for centuries in order to cause a population to pressure its government. America’s record since the War of 1812 against the British and more than 53 years of sanctions targeting the civilian population of Cuba, and those against China, Vietnam and Iraq are only a few examples.
Past and current civilian targeting sanctions fail on the political and social level because civilian populations blame those who impose the sanctions and not their own governments who, in the case of Iran and Syria for example, work with their societies to lessen the impact of these hostile and foreign imposed sanctions. Civilian populations have consistently understood the motives of the outside-imposed sanctions and have tended to rally alongside their government to defeat them. For these reasons, the history of sanction failure is likely to be repeated in the future.
Q: It seems that the most important objective which Israel seeks through issuing repeated war threats against Iran is to persuade the U.S. and EU to intensify the sanctions against Iran. How much accurate is this analysis in your view?
A: I think this is indeed part of the equation. For domestic political reasons which include keeping its population focused, even obsessed, with the claimed danger from Iran, it detracts from growing domestic problems within Israeli society. These include, among many others, growing domestic doubts about Zionism, growing international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, expanding global condemnation of Zionist crimes against humanity, the increased international rejection of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.
Key Words: Anti-Iran Sanctions, International Law, Nuclear Disarmament, UN Security Council, Human Rights, Diplomacy or Conspiracy, Lamb
*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 6) Dan Kovalik: Unilateral Sanctions Are Disallowed UN Charter
*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 5) James H. Fetzer: Anti-Iran Sanctions Violate International Law
*Anti-Iran sanctions (No. 4) Thierry Meyssan: Western Nations Suffer from the Anti-Iran Sanctions
*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 3) E. Michael Jones: Sanctions Show US Foreign Policy Hypocrisy
*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 2) Mike Gravel: Sanctions Are Illegal and Ineffective
*Anti-Iran Sanctions (No. 1) Kenneth O’Keefe: US Sanctions on Iran Tantamount to Collective Punishment
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
If the lies about Iraq taught us anything, it is that we must pay attention to the massive campaign of lies about Iran
(TheBricsPost) – The BRICS just became impossible to ignore. At the close of the Fifth annual BRICS Summit in Durban, South Africa last week, there was little question that this group of five fast-growing economies was underwriting an overhaul of the global economic and political order.
The eThekwini Declaration issued at summit’s end was couched in non-confrontational language, but it was manifestly clear that western hegemony and unipolarity were being targeted at this meeting.
The BRICS hit some major western sore spots by announcing the formation of a $50 billion jointly-funded development bank to rival the IMF and World Bank. Deals were signed to increase inter-BRICS trade in their own currencies, further eroding the US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
A series of unmistakable challenges were dealt to old world leaders: reform your institutions and economies – or we’ll do it ourselves.
Intent on filling a leadership void in global economic and financial affairs, the BRICS also began to draw some firm political lines in the sand.
For starters, the summit was focused on development in Africa – a resource-rich continent where competing economic interests have drawn increasingly polarized geopolitical battle lines in the past few years. The BRICS were invited to the African table via their newest member state, South Africa, and have used this opportunity to fully back the African Union (AU).
The AU has been Africa’s attempt to integrate and unify the continent economically – via the establishment of a single currency and development fund that could bypass the very punishing IMF – and militarily – via the establishment of security/defense organizations and joint military forces, among other things.
AU success would necessarily mean less old-style western imperialism in the region, reducing exploitative foreign economic activities and excluding foreign forces like the US military’s African Command (AFRICOM) from engaging in the African military theater.
At the heart of the Summit’s agenda lies the BRICS’ determination to anchor any emerging global order in “multilateralism” – whether by demanding permanent seats within the UN Security Council, forging alternative economic constructs that will shift the balance of power their way, or proactively influencing outcomes in global conflict zones.
Syria and Iran
The Durban summit therefore was not going to ignore the two most prominent issues on UN Security Council’s docket – Syria and Iran.
Last week, the BRICS collectively rejected any further militarization of these problems, advocated political solutions negotiated through diplomatic initiatives, expressed concern over unilateral sanctions and warned against infringement on the “territorial integrity and sovereignty” of these nations.
The eThekwini Declaration says about Iran:
“We believe there is no alternative to a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. We recognize Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international obligations, and support resolution of the issues involved through political and diplomatic means and dialogue.”
And on Syria, the BRICS fully backed the Geneva principles as the framework for resolving the two-year conflict:
“We believe that the Joint Communiqué of the Geneva Action Group provides a basis for resolution of the Syrian crisis and reaffirm our opposition to any further militarization of the conflict. A Syrian-led political process leading to a transition can be achieved only through broad national dialogue that meets the legitimate aspirations of all sections of Syrian society and respect for Syrian independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty as expressed by the Geneva Joint Communiqué and appropriate UNSC resolutions.”
The BRICS positions on Iran and Syria cannot, however, be viewed solely within the parameters of the summit’s declaration. For starters, the statement is nothing new – the BRICS have been advocating these points in some form or another since they issued their first foreign policy communiqué in November 2011.
To understand the depth and breadth of commitment behind these Mideast stances, one needs to look beyond the sanitized, diplomat-speak of the summit environment. India, Brazil and South Africa, for instance, don’t offer up much commentary on Syria and Iran – they leave that to their UNSC permanent-member colleagues in Russia and China, who are the BRICS’ front-men on these issues.
Earlier in March, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Moscow on his first foreign trip as head of state, and told audiences there: “We must respect the right of each country in the world to independently choose its path of development and oppose interference in the internal affairs of other countries.”
A clear warning against aggressive western interventionism, Xi’s visit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin emphasized the importance of their “strategic partnership” in geopolitical affairs.
On Syria, in particular, Russia has taken the BRICS lead with the blessing of its fellow members – including China – so Moscow’s view of the situation is a critical one to analyze.
The Russians have recently released a concept paper on the importance of their participation in the BRICS – a view that is likely to reflect similar priorities at the highest levels of fellow member states.
BRICS drawing red lines
|Putin and Xi say the one way to end the Syrian
crisis is through dialogue [Xinhua]
For all the BRICS, financial and economic considerations are the driving momentum behind the formalization of this strategic coalition. There is, say the Russians, “a common desire of BRICS partners to reform the obsolete international financial and economic architecture which does not take into account the increased economic power of emerging market economies and developing countries.”
But for fundamental economic shifts to take place, a simultaneous rebalancing of political power worldwide must also occur.
Moscow believes that the BRICS “can potentially become a key element of a new system of global governance primarily in the financial and economic areas. At the same time, the Russian Federation stands in favor of positioning BRICS in the world system as a new model of global relations, overarching the old dividing lines between East and West, and North and South.”
It’s a bold new world, but there’s real value in some of the old ways. For one, the BRICS are big proponents of the Rule of Law in global affairs, concepts the West often tosses around, but rarely adheres to in pursuit of its own strategic interests, i.e. interventionism, regime-change, militarization of conflict.
For the Russians, an absolute BRICS priority is “building on the commitment by the participating states to the rule of law in international relations, to progressively expand the foreign policy cooperation with BRICS partners in the interests of peace and security with due respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states and non-interference in their internal affairs.”
The BRICS are backing the UN model to help achieve these basic principles. For them, the vehicle is not what is broken – the problem lies with its drivers. And in particular, the notion that regime change, sanctions and military intervention are acceptable tools in international affairs.
The BRICS, according to Moscow, can “enhance in every possible way interaction within the UN as well as to preserve and strengthen the UN Security Council’s role as a body bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security; to prevent the use of the UN, first of all the Security Council, to cover up the course towards removing undesirable regimes and imposing unilateral solutions to conflict situations, including those based on the use of force.”
As an aside, it’s hardly a coincidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad sent a widely-reported letter to the BRICS during the Summit. Here, after all, was the head of state of a sovereign nation requesting the help of the newly-ascendant BRICS in protecting the territorial integrity of Syria by rebuffing ”blatant foreign interference” in contradiction of the ”UN Charter.”
That letter hit all the BRICS soft spots: Rule of Law in international relations, preservation of global peace and security, peaceful resolution of conflict, de-militarization … and recognition of the importance of the BRICS in the new world order.
Assad’s letter came one day after the Arab League gave Syria’s seat away to an external-based opposition coalition backed by Syrian foes – a move the Russians called “unlawful and invalid” and a hindrance to the peaceful resolution of the conflict.
It may be that BRICS intended to set an example here. Receiving this letter at the summit clearly bestows legitimacy on Assad and his claims – and it is hard to imagine that this was not an event coordinated in advance.
Moscow’s positions on the Syria issue cannot be seen out of the context of these shared BRICS principles. The Russians may have more at stake in what is going on in Syria – as others do in Iran – but these are consistent red lines in what the BRICS hope to achieve globally.
And they are willing to bet on it too. Part of the wager is that faltering western economies are so far gone on their current trajectories, that only “time” is required for these global shifts to materialize.
In any regard, shortly after the Summit concluded Russia vowed to prevent any measure in the UN Security Council to give Syria’s seat to the opposition.
The potential for chaos looms large though as a new political order emerges, and as a collective the BRICS will not be shy about pushing their agendas hard – a task made easier by the considerable clout they now share.
On his flight back from Durban to Moscow last Thursday, Putin ordered surprise large-scale military maneuvers in the Black Sea, which borders Syrian-foe Turkey – a move most observers took as a warning for foreign interventionists in Syria.
It is unlikely that BRICS nations would go to such lengths to draw red lines and not defend those positions. How this would transpire in the cases of Syria or Iran is uncertain – it is unlikely we are going to see a BRICS army fighting battles anytime soon. On the other hand, these strategic relationships are likely to give way to coordinated military positions and some special forces planning for exactly these kinds of scenarios.
This is not hard to fathom. BRIC was just an acronym created by Goldman Sachs to describe some fast-growing emerging economies a few years ago. Today, they are engaged in bilateral military exercises, funding banks, building institutions, and remapping global priorities for the 21st century.
Source: The Brics Post
‘America’s looming hangover in the Middle East’
“… Obama’s support for Syrian oppositionists reflects the same sort of hubristic thinking. His administration started backing opposition elements in 2011, not to help Syrians but to weaken Iran’s regional position and perhaps even spark the Islamic Republic’s overthrow. This proved unrealistic, for Assad’s government even today represents sizable constituencies. As time passed and Assad didn’t fall, concern that jihadi extremists gaining ever greater prominence in opposition ranks would target U.S. interests (as happened in Libya) prompted the administration to temper its stance in advance of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Now it is returning to the imperial game, disregarding risks to both U.S. security interests and regional stability. That’s why, in contrast to his charade on the Palestinian issue, Obama put real effort during his Middle East trip into brokering a renewal of Israeli-Turkish relations — for, in Washington’s view, Israeli-Turkish cooperation could facilitate a renewed push for Assad’s removal.
Just three days after Obama’s Jerusalem speech, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Baghdad, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki beside him, that Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, assured him Maliki “is going to do whatever I say.” (Maliki immediately replied, “We won’t do it.”) Though played it off as a “joke,” Kerry’s talking points for what he later described as “spirited” private talks with Maliki reflected a conviction that Washington can in fact leverage Baghdad’s compliance with U.S. demands on Syria. Kerry told Maliki that barring Syria-bound Iranian aircraft from Iraqi airspace is a condition for Iraq’s inclusion in discussions of Syria’s post-Assad future. Kerry also warned that failing to cooperate in ending the Syrian conflict on Washington’s preferred lines — through Assad’s removal — raises the danger that fighting will “spillover” and destabilize Iraq.This ignores that Maliki’s interests are profoundly threatened by Assad’s prospective displacement by U.S./Saudi/Turkish-backed opposition forces. (That’s why Maliki said that, while wanting good relations with Saudi Arabia, he will conclude a formal alliance with Iran if Assad falls.)
The most likely result of rebel “success” is not the Assad government’s replacement by a coherent, nationwide alternative. It’s Syria’s devolution into warring fiefdoms, with forces loyal to what’s left of the government battling increasingly fractious opposition militias that fight each other as much as they fight the Assad camp. Under these circumstances, Washington has no plausible claim it can stop extremist jihadis now fighting in Syria from taking their campaign for a new salafi ascendancy into Iraq. Maliki has a clear interest in seeing the Syrian conflict stop. But the only credible way this can happen is if America and others backing Syrian rebels get behind a new political compact for Syria, based on power-sharing between government and opposition. Until then, Iraq’s interests — like those of Iran, Russia, and China — lie in thwarting efforts by Washington and its partners to remake the regional balance by targeting the Assad government. That’s a recipe for prolonged carnage, in Syria and perhaps elsewhere, that smarter — and less imperial — U.S. policy could avert.”
I renounced my US citizenship and the United States of Hypocrisy refused to acknowledge my right, our right, to self-determination. Alright then, I am thinking now that maybe I just needed to leave for 10 years or so and reflect on things, now that I have, I have made some important conclusions.
First among them is that it remains an embarrassment, that idiot flag waving Americans have sat by while their Constitution was used like toilet paper and their government became a bought and paid for circus of clowns.
Second is that due to this despicable state of affairs of failing to pay attention on our watch we Americans have continued to be complicit in mass murder that is truly unparalleled in the modern age. God help us for what we are collectively responsible for.
Third, our American sons and daughters continue to be used as the meaningless pawns they are and ultimately, aside from those our sons and daughters murder in foreign lands, aside from those we rape and torture, our sons and daughters themselves are the biggest victims of all. We so pathetically spouted “support our troops”, like idiots, incredible idiots, while effectively sentencing them to a fate that makes post-traumatic stress disorder almost inevitable. Look at the drug abuse, domestic violence, homelessness and suicide rates of returning soldiers and compare it to the returning soldiers of Vietnam, what the fuck are we doing to our supposedly cherished sons and daughters?
I have come to another conclusion, America is almost assuredly going down and going down hard, so hard that it might just bring the whole world down with it, for this reason more than any other I feel a need to exercise the best virtues I obtained as an American born son and do my best to sound the alarm. To reach out to every genuine, not fake ass idiot patriot, but to reach out to the genuine patriots.
And lastly, we need to acknowledge 100% that the American government is bought and paid for by the Zionist, Jewish supremacists, Israeli “dual citizens”, which in truth is a pyramid with the Rothschild’s and their bankster kin at the top. These are the puppet masters and they have used America as their strong arm, if we are so blindingly stupid as to continue this role as their enforcers, we will exterminate not only ourselves but possibly this beautiful world we live in.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are proof of just how horrendous we have been and thus are capable of being today.
It is time to stop being chumps, it is time to actually give some meaning to the word patriot. It is especially time for those in the police, military and government who took an oath to uphold the Constitution to honor that commitment. Are you a person of honor? Or are you a fraudster? A coward?
I couldn’t care less about fake patriots, but real patriots, I am serious about working with you. Get the fuck up and take the fake ideals of America and make them real. If that were to happen I will happily ask for my citizenship back… until such time I do not give my allegiance to this criminal entity and thus I am not a citizen regardless of the judgments of this corrupt government and its minions.
When America truly becomes a nation of honor I will be proud to stand among its citizens as a genuine member of the family. Let us make this so.
Thank you to Anthony Lawson for his reading.