2024: A Year in Review and a Look Ahead

There's no question that 2024 was one of the most pivotal years in recent history. It seems that practically everything was happening all at the same time, and the ripples it left with be felt for weeks, months, and even decades from now. In writing this week's article, it was difficult to decide what to include and what to leave out. Much of what we will witness over the upcoming 12 months and beyond have their roots in what we've jointly experienced. Here, then, are our top choices for the most significant events of 2024. 

Hamas and Israel

Perhaps one of the most noteworthy event of 2024 has been the war between Israel and Hamas. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been involved in 19 wars and conflicts. Beginning with its War of Independence, Israel has faced the combined military might of the Arab world (with Russian and Chinese aid) or financially.   In every encounter (with the exception of one, which was a preemptive strike), Israel has been attacked with little or no prior notice by members of the Arab League. Each time it has prevailed thanks to the support of  the West, and most notably the United States.

On October 7th, members of the Iranian backed terrorist group, Hamas, secretly attacked a group of mostly civilian men, women, and children who had turned out for a concert and family oriented events. The attack was a brutal as it was sudden with over 1700 Israelis viciously murdered. Some were shot in cold blood, while others were raped before being burned alive. Others were taken captive. Beaten and repeatedly rape, they were to be used as bargaining chips to avoid repercussions against Hamas leadership. 

Since then, the Israelis have been relentless in the retaliation, which many have called "justifiable". However, while the Israelis have been winning in ruble of Gaza, they've been losing the public relations war. Hamas and their supporters have been able to portray Israel as the aggressor and guilty of genocide against Palestinian people while Hamas characteristically uses them as human shields and routinely attacking or hijacking relief trucks carrying medicine, food, and fresh water, which they often sell on the black market.  

Israel has seen a serious loss of support globally, and most notably in Europe and among NATO, which has historically backed the Israelis. The situation is so serious that Turkey has subtlety threatening to intervene to prevent the ongoing "genocide" of the Palestinians in Gaza. If that were to happen, how would it affect NATO? Besides having the second most powerful military in NATO behind the U.S., it also serves as a major bulwark, preventing hundreds of thousands of "migrants" from invading. Such a influx could collapse the European economy, which is already teetering on failure. 

Of late, Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hasn't been shy about threats to throw open its doors to these migrants should NATO or the EU impose any sanctions for its actions against Israel, the Kurds, or Syria. A threat by the way which has all the earmarks of political and economic blackmail. How would a greatly weakened U.S. military and NATO react should Turkey decide to intervene?

Syria, Iran and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Deadly Game of  Political Chess 

Iran, which is behind Hamas as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorists groups, has made it crystal clear that it will "wipe Israel off the map" at the first opportunity even if it meant the complete destruction of Iran and all its people. It's no secret that Iran has aggressively been working on a nuclear bomb with the intent of hitting Israel even if it meant that Israel responded in kind. The major stumbling block for Iran has been a delivery platform and defeating Israel's famed "Iron Dome". The fall of Syria may have helped alleviate one portion of that problem.  

It's no secret that U.S. foreign policy has been the control of Middle Eastern oil and gas and transportation lanes as well as destabilizing Russian regional interests and removing Iran as a regional and possible global threat (we've never gotten over the humiliating 1979 "hostage crisis"). Our principal allies, like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families, are very nervous about the spread of Iran's radical religious extremism and its threats to destabilize or even topple their governments. 

As a result, Neocons in the U.S. State Department, in conjunction with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, carefully laid out plans to reshape the Middle East in their image several years ago by first going after Afghanistan, then Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and lastly, the cherry on top---Iran (of course, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are all in for any war or conflict. Besides, it's good for business).

Unfortunately, we didn't do so well in Iraq. Not because of any military defeat, but for not properly planning for a post-war government.  In Afghanistan, we lost because our arrogance and failure to learn from history. Everyone from King Cyrus the Great and Alexander to the British Empire and the USSR has failed to conquer Afghanistan. The result, after 20 years of fighting, was a stronger and better armed Taliban, an intact Al Qaeda, and a PR disaster for the Biden Administration.

 Meanwhile, the U.S. has been trying to overthrow the Assad government since 1971 when Hafez al-Assad became president.  His son, President Bashar al-Assad has never been a friend of terrorists and opposed Iran's radical form of Islam. Syria has been the nemesis of our NATO ally, Turkey and our trading partner, Saudi Arabia, yet it was also a buffer to Iranian expansion. 

Most importantly, is that Syria has been a close ally of Russia going back to the early 1950's. The fall of Bashar al-Assad was been on the State Department's and CIA's. "things to do" list for a very long time. During the Syrian civil war, U.S. intelligence agencies have been aiding the Al Qaeda affiliated militia, HTS, and other paramilitary groups in destabilizing Assad's government as part of the efforts. 

Now with Assad out of the way, a number of different militias are poised to battle for the control of Syria, or at least large swaths of it, including ISIS, which stands to benefit greatly from the instability. The leader of the U.S. backed HTS, a spin off of Al Qaeda, Abu Mohmmad al-Jolani, is now downplaying his anti-Western terrorist past in the hope that U.S. aid will buy him a place at the table when it comes time to divide Syria up (either by pen or bullet).  

Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, Iranian backed militias are now securely in Syria (most notably ISIS). This will allow Iran to extend its influence further, not to mention its missile launchers. ISIS has already launched several rocket and missiles at targets inside Israel. While the fall of Assad benefits U.S. foreign policy interest, at least for the moment, it puts Israel at greater risk. Israel has moved troops pass the Golan Heights buffer zone into Syria while Turkey has extended its reach deeper into northern Syrian territory, pushing the embattled Kurds further into the surrounding hills. Of course, all this sets the stage for even more "migrants" to invade Europe via Lebanon and bypassing Turkey. 2025 should prove very interesting as this situation continues to play out. 

Russia and Ukraine: A Game of Nuclear Chicken

Another event to keep a close eye on is the situation between Ukraine and Russia. The war, which began in February 2014, was thought by most political and military observers, to be over in a matter of months at best, given the easy in which Russia forces seized control of the Crimea. Yet, ten years later and both sides are still slugging it out. For Ukraine, its ability to holdout is due to being heavily supported by the U.S. and NATO members, who are also augmenting American aid with equipment and material of their own.  

Since February 2024, the U.S. has provide Kyiv with some $61.4 billion dollars in military aid according to the U.S. State Department. When other forms of aid are added in, including money to prop up Zelensky's government, American taxpayers have ponied up $106 billion dollars without so much as having say about it. Many analysts believe the goal is to bleed Russia dry militarily, thus removing or at least decreasing its super power status military, and maybe with some luck, even destabilize Putin's government. 

Some former Warsaw pact nations like Poland have become increasingly belligerent toward Russia and are threatening more direct assistance to Ukraine (Poland and Russia have a long and antagonistic history with each other). Putin has urged the Poles and others to seriously rethink their positions and tone down their rhetoric. There has also been hints by the Russians that any such intervention could result in a military response up to and including the use of nukes. 

In a bit of a surprise, North Korea has begun sending troops to support the Russians in exchange for desperately needed economic aid (it must be serious, Kim Jong-Un looks like he's losing some weight). It should be noted that the North Korean soldiers have proven to be mediocre at best. Nevertheless, even as cannon fodder, you can't fault their commitment. Many have chosen suicide to being captured.  

It's unlikely that Putin will allow this drain on his military or economy to continue much longer, That doesn't mean Putin may throw in the towel. Far from it. Putin may go all in, including the possible use of limited tactical nukes in key areas. If so, what then? Will the U.S. and NATO react in-kind or with a all out ground invasion of their own? Sanctions against Russia have proven to be of little use, especially given the rapid growth of BRICs. Since China, a Russia ally and our largest trading partner, is a member of BRICS, sanctions against the U.S. and the EU would have a more profound impact.

The Pentagon has already stated that, following the debacle in Afghanistan, the U.S. military was unable to conduct an effective war on multiple fronts, and with the situation in the Middle East spinning out of control, the rise of the Chinese military and its economic clout, that doesn't leave many options. If we get occupied in the Middle East, that could open door for a Chinese takeover of Taiwan or a North Korean invasion of the South for instance. 

Incoming President, Donald Trump claims to have a good working relationship with Putin, which could result in a ceasefire until a compromise is reached (NATO membership for Ukraine will likely remain off the table). Trump has made similar claims about Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and North Korean President, Kim Jong-Un, but is that just ego talking or can he pull it off? 2025 will likely reveal the reality behind the rhetoric.

 Artificial Intelligence and Humanity: Will the Creation Replace its Creator? 

Another huge development in 2024 is the "sudden" rise of artificial intelligence. Many tech heads hail "AI" as the greatest thing since the invention of the abacus. Others see it as the creation of the golem. What was once found only in the pages of Azimov, Herbert, Clarke, and Le Guin, we now have machines capable of analyzing and manipulating genetic conditions, altering manufacturing, serving as our surrogate on far away planets or deep in the ocean. They can manage not just our businesses, but our lives. In many ways I'm remined of movies like "Total Recall", "Blade Runner", and "I, Robot".

We have technology that can monitor and regulate, if needed, practically everything from diabetes, the heart, and kidney functions. We can now grow not just new skin, but organs! Individuals previously unable to walk, can do so now.  Technology can help us overcome a wide myriad of diseases and disorders. Some have proposed linking humans with technology, thus creating real life "Borg".  There are those already proposing that we turn over governments (especially the judicial system) to AI since it presumably could manage society better than we can.  

A few have experimented with linking the human brain with the internet in order to provide near unlimited knowledge. We can strap on exoskeletons which gives us 10x times the strength of the average human.  A growing number of AI developers are promoting the addition of chips into the human body to monitor things like blood pressure or sugar levels, but these chips could also contain our personal information; everything from our employment and medical history to our financial information and credit score. Yes, it could potentially cut down on identity theft, but is it really a good thing for us? 

Banks and other financial institutions are pushing hard to do away with cash. As it is, practically everything can be done electronically, from work to shopping to doctor appointments to banking and paying bills. In fact, businesses are increasingly urging automatically deducted payments. Think about it. You can run your home electronically. You can work from home, get paid automatically directly to your bank account and pay your bills automatically. You can buy your groceries and shop online, and even have them automatically delivered to your door. Plus, while personal information was once private, now everything is stored in the "cloud" and practically any financial institution---or government agency---can gain access to it.

Technology can provide you with all the "adventure" you'd want with highly realistic programs taking you everywhere and allowing you to interact! You'll be able to sense heat, cold, smell, or taste. Games, music, or books, they can already be downloaded to your computer, iPad, or Smartphone. Thanks to AI, and with the level of existing technology, the need for human contact is all but passe'.

Today, the United States has become a virtual surveillance state. Privacy is nowadays a rare commodity and talk about "escaping from the grid" is nearly impossible. You are already watched, monitored, and analyzed nearly everywhere you go. A feature like a chip would simply be one more way to track you. 

However, while chips could be used track us, they could be used to find  children prone to getting loss or adults with diseases like Alzheimer's of mental disabilities who tend to wonder off, especially those in need of special medication. It could be used to monitor former felons on parole. No more "ankle bracelets". Thanks to retina scans, facial and voice recognition software, and the ubiquitous security cameras,  you can be found no matter where you are.  Even drones can be used to find you. Heck, you car even has a tracking device! 

We're developing robots which are nearly indistinguishable from humans in appearance and mannerisms. We have video games which are so accurate they could pass for the real thing.  There are even operational protypes of sexbots! Our military is heavily dependent of AI or related technology to our fight wars in order to minimize human loss and injuries on the battlefield. Yet, without the experiencing the horrors of war, where are the incentives to prevent them?

In the United States and in much of the world, people have become essentially "chained" to their Smartphones. Businesses, like doctor offices or hospitals, expect to be able to text or leave a message for you on your phone. In some countries, such as China, its mandatory that they carry their Smartphones with them at all times. We are increasingly turning over our lives to technology to the point where the line between "master" and "servant" has become almost so blurred as to nearly indistinguishable between the two.

Scientists predict that human level Artificial Intelligence will reach "singularity" or self awareness sometime around 2040. It will exceed human level intelligence within ten years after that and continue to grow exponentially.  Within 20 years following singularity we will have as much in common with AI as we do now with a worm. The question is then what? Will AI seek to serve us or enslave us (for our  safety of course), but  later, seeing us as hopelessly inferior and unwilling or able to change, will it simply replace us? It wouldn't be hard. Will the creator be replaced by its creation? The growth of  AI will be an important issue to watch closely in 2025.

The MAGA Revolution: The Election of Donald Trump

I thought about entitling this section "The Messiahship of 'The Donald' ", but I thought that might be taking it a bit too far. Nevertheless, there's no question that some diehard "Trumpeters" out there  who wouldn't object.  For over ten years, Donald Trump had endured nearly every from of attack the Status Quo could throw at him. They've attacked his character, his businesses, members of his family, and even his friends. They've publicly maligned him at every turn. 

They've tried to break him financially with countless bogus lawsuits, and all without success. Finally, they've managed to create a public atmosphere so poisonous that there have been attempts on life. Never, in the history of our country, has there been a person as loathed by the ruling class as Donald Trump. But who can really blame them? After all, Trump has not only promised publicly to rid the country of the controlling oligarchs, he's promised to restore the Republic and end the neo-fascist corporatocracy. In fact, in his previous term, he tried to back up his words with action. 

However, Trump found out that "draining the swamp" was a lot harder than it first appeared. Our Republic had previously undergone a quiet coup, having been taken over by Wall Street in a approach known as "gradualism". It was slow, happening piecemeal, but it was no less insidious as any other putsch.  It was also through in every detail. It included both political parties, every government agencies and departments, NGOs, and especially the media. 

Nothing was left to chance. What could not be controlled, was made impotent. Those who challenged it was ignored, ridiculed, humiliated, and if necessary, destroyed. What made it worse was the fact that it has been going on for decades. So much so that the corruption has become institutionalized. 

The corruption was given veneer of civility and the weight of law. Wars and conflicts were fought for noble sounding goals just when in truth they were waged for profit. Treaties were nothing more than business contracts designed to benefit the few. Government no longer represented the people. It serves the interests of the controlling elite to the degree where they line separating them has blurred beyond recognition. 

Many consider Trump to be a ego-driven blowhard. Others consider him pompous and volatile, while some even believe him to be dangerous. There is no question that Trump has, at least, some of these qualities, and quiet likely much more than some would consider disagreeable. However, Trump is not part of the Status Quo which we've been made so comfortable with. We've been made afraid of freedom to the point where comfortable servitude is preferable to independence.  

In many ways Donald trump reminds be of Julius Caesar. Caesar was a successful general while Trump is a successful businessman. Both appeared at the end of their respective Republics. Like Caesar, Trump is a political outsider. Caesar sought to restore the Republic, which had become hopelessly corrupt and ineffectually. The Roman Senate promised much but delivered little except bread and distraction in order to buy off its citizens.  

Any real attempts at reform were brutally crushed such as with Tiberius Gracchus and his attempt at land reform around 133 BC as was his brother, Gaius's efforts at agarin reform in 123 BC., and, of course, the Three Servile Wars, made famous by Spartacus in the third war, to end servitude in its many forms. Like the U.S., Rome faced a massive influx of migrants which threatened the stability of the Republic. Efforts to curtail it were half hearted at best. But, as those with a basic knowledge of history should know, each of these individuals were killed in order to preserve the Status Quo. 

Caesar was awarded the title of "dictator" in the hopes that he could be appeased with the title and would leave the rotting Republic and its Senators alone. It failed. Caesar, it's claimed, said that in order to save the Republic, he would have to destroy the Republic, meaning that reversing the level of institutionalized corruption to restore the Republic would take a thorough and unpleasant bit of housecleaning. 

We generally choose to call it "draining the swamp", which is something Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to do. In just a few weeks, he will be sworn in and his second term will begin and then we shall see what his intentions truly are. One thing is for sure, the Status Quo will fight him every step of the way.

As we head into our 20th year, we here at Another Opinion would like to thank each of you, our dear readers, for all your support, encouragement, and comments over the past 12 months. We are deeply appreciative. The articles above are but a small glimpse onto the many exciting and tragic events of 2024 and whose ripples we will feel for weeks, months, and even years to come. No doubt this coming year will be no less eventful. We hope you all have a happy, healthy, and safe 2025.  

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you found our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free thinking individuals. We do ask, however, that you be sure to "like" us on whatever site you found us on in order to keep our articles available for others, and that you please pass our post along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

From Syrian jihadist leader to Syrian politician:  How Abu Mohmmad al-Jolani reinvented himself 

Who are the Syrian rebels that have toppled Assad and taken Damascus? 

US sends more troops to the Middle East as violence rises between Israel and Hezbollah

Russia-Ukraine War

U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine

Technological singularity 

The new surveillance state

The Trump agenda: Here's what to expect from his second term

The reform movement of the Gracchi (133 - 122 BC)  

Ceasefire in Syria: Buying Time for the Kurds and the Region

There's a tenuous truce right now between Syrian, Kurdish, and invading Turkish troops. The truce and ceasefire went into effect on October 17, just days after US forces withdrew from the northern region of Syria, separating Kurdish forces and Turks massing on their eastern border. The ceasefire agreement came as a result of---or perhaps despite of---a October 9th letter sent to Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erodogan, and President Donald Trump in which he urged the Turkish President not to be a "tough guy" or a "fool".

President Trump went on to say that the U.S. could and would use economic sanctions to disrupt the Turkish economy, and closed with a promise to follow up with a phone call. Allegedly the Turkish president wadded up the letter and threw it into the trashcan. The letter was written the same day Turkish forces began crossing into northern Syria. Whether or not the letter was taken seriously or should have been worded more diplomatically, it appears to have had the desired result.

The Kurds, who were instrumental in the defeat of not just ISIS, but also in the downfall of Saddam Hussein, have had a long standing feud with the Turks, primarily over the issue of sovereignty. Part of the land occupied by the Kurdish people over the last 5000 years or so, includes eastern portions of Turkey, as well as part of northern Syria, northern Iraq, and western Iran.

Following the end of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish people had been promised a independent homeland by the victorious allies (principally France and England who acquired the lion's share of the Middle East). However, just a few years later, that promise was broken and the Kurdish people were divided up between four newly created countries---Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey---with a semi-autonomous territory called Kurdistan created in northern Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Kurds were subjected to purges and genocide. Turkey even refused to acknowledge the Kurds on the eastern border, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead, along with attempts to suppress their language and culture. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein wage a catastrophic war on the Kurds, including the use of nerve and saran gas attacks. Things weren't much better in Iran or Syria.

So why the invasion? An interesting question to be sure. Partly because a measure of stability has been re-established in the region with the defeat of ISIS. In addition, Syria, a long standing major Russian ally, is much more weakened militarily and economically because of its recent civil war with factions within the country (the U.S. was also looking at not just weakening Syria, but in toppling its president, Bashar el-Assad, in hopefully of a more pro-American government, which would deprive Moscow of a key ally in the region). In addition, it would allow the US an opportunity to put surveillance and perhaps ground forces close to Syria's border with Washington's archenemy, Iran. Perhaps this would give the Turks an opportunity to seize territory in northern Syria, as well as to get rid of the newly embolden Kurdish fighters and put an end to the idea of a independent homeland for the Kurdish people once and for all.

Another key factor is that the semi-autonomous province of Kurdistan sits on approximately 1/3 of Iraq's oil and gas reserves. Nothing in geopolitics gets more attention than the control and flow of oil and gas, which was a key factor in removing former ally, Saddam Hussein, who got a little too big for his britches with the invasion of Kuwait and it's oil production (as well as proximity to the Persian Gulf and their regional enemy, Saudi Arabia). Meanwhile, in Iran, the Kurds have been engaged in a "hot and cold" with whoever was in charge, for a independent homeland, especially since 1918. Since 2014, the intensity has increased to a much more "hot" insurgent war. Since 1946, there has been approximately 28,000 fighters killed, while from 1980 to 2000, around 30,000 civilians have died with no signs of easing hostilities.

President Erdogan alerted Trump on October 6th of his intentions to invade and requested that U.S. troops in the area be evacuated. Trump agreed, and the small detachment of soldiers and equipment were moved further south. What prompted Trump to do so, knowing full well that our Kurdish allies would likely be annihilated is unknown. At first there was a quip about the Kurds not "helping" us in World War II. I don't know if he was serious or not, but no one was smiling. The Pentagon and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were quick to criticize Trump's decision. In the eyes of the world, especially the Middle East which places a very high value on trust and loyalty, this didn't go down well.

Now President Trump is trying to force the Turks back out of Syria and minimize any damage to the Kurds. However, damage has already taken place. Kurdish troops guarding captured ISIS prisoners have been forced to flee the area, leaving the battle-harden ISIS fighters (in at least one case, around 1000 ISIS prisoners were able to escape thanks to the Turkish backed Free Syrian Army).

In addition, a key Kurdish politician and women's right advocate, Hevrin Khalaf, along with eight others, were ambushed and murdered by Turkish supported rebels who oppose Syria's President Assad. Hevrin was secretary-general of the Future Free Syria Party and a key diplomatic figure in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the situation in Syria and the region. Thus far, approximately 38 civilians have been killed since the October 9th invasion began.

Trump's blunder is serious. It has damaged our image in the eyes of not just our friends and allies, but has also provided a strategic opening for our enemies. They will use this opportunity to show that the United States isn't to be trusted; that it's better to deal with them than an American government whose support ebbs and flows based on its current needs. It will be surprising if North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, Russia's Vladimir Putin, or China's Xi Jinping don't make use of this error in judgment.

Another factor is that while Erdogan has agreed to a ceasefire, he has not agreed to a withdrawal of Turkish forces. This may result in a potential Syrian-Turkish clash. Given the strategic importance of Syria to Russia, there's little doubt that Putin will not allow any attempts at seizing either territory or toppling the Assad Government. Given that Turkey is a member of NATO and an important trading partner of the EU, that will prove to be interesting, especially given that an attack on one NATO partner is viewed as an attack on NATO itself.

How will the other NATO countries respond if Russian troops are introduced en-masse in Syria? In addition, China is also a friend of Syria, supplying it with an array of weapons as well as economic trade (Russia and China are supporters of the Iranians as well). Meanwhile, Israel sits isolated with its back to the Mediterranean with Iranian back Hezbollah to the north and Iranian back Hamas to the south. Not a position I'd like to be in.

So where does that leave us? First, it leaves President Trump with mud on that orange face of his. He has to first find a way to protect our Kurdish allies while at the same time convincing our NATO ally to back out gracefully. He has to be aware of Russia's keen attention to the situation (as well as China's). I would suggest that he be sure to keep both in the loop and well informed of what we're doing. Any misstep could set in motion something no one wants.

Meanwhile, he has to allow Erdogan to save face, especially in the eyes of the Muslim/Arab world. Turkey is 99% Muslim (mainly Sunni), however, it's also very secular and tends to be Westward looking. That makes Erdogan vulnerable to Muslim extremists who would love to turn Turkey into another Iran. As an aside, it would prove to be interesting to see how NATO would deal with a extremist backed civil war in Turkey, especially one supported by Iran. The potential affect could devastate the world economy, especially in Europe.

Trump will have to also find a way to reestablish trust with our Kurdish allies. It's essential, particularly given that ISIS is down but not out in the region. The Kurds not only provided us with military or logistic support, they were major sources of military intelligence. Without them, we would have had a much harder time not just defeating Saddam, but also in defeating ISIS.

Now that Turkish backed groups are busy freeing ISIS prisoners, we can expect that they'll be back with a vengeance. You can expect a uptick in terrorist attacks throughout the region, as well as in Africa, Europe, and even in Asia which has a large Muslim population. Lastly, you can bet that they'll look for ways to strike the U.S. both overseas and domestically.

I generally like Trump. I like his pro-American attitude and willingness to challenge that corrupt bipartisan status quo which has taken control of the government. As I've written many times before, and as academia has verified, America is an Oligarchy. Our Republic is gone. All that's left is the illusion of what we once had similar to what ancient Rome experienced. Trump has shown the moxie to fight back.

Naturally, he's being fought tooth and nail every step of the way by Democrats and Republicans and their corporate owners. Whoever advised Trump to step aside and allow the Turks to invade either knew nothing of political realities of the region or intended to intentionally sabotaged him, knowing the potential outcome of what those actions would bring. I don't know which is worse. I know that control, be it of assets, resources, or us, is the name of game and that lives matter little to the Oligarchy.


Turkish Backed Forces Are Freeing Islamic State Prisoners


Kurdish politician, other civilians 'executed' by Turkey-backed group

"We Have No Friends Except The Mountains": The Plight of the Kurdish People

When I was considering topics for this week's article, I originally gave serious consideration to writing about the possibility of whether President Trump will be brought up on impeachment charges. After all, the Democrats have been desperately looking for something...anything...to either discredit "The Donald" and effectively destroy any prospects of him winning a second term here and now.

The corporate owned media, which controls the narrative, has been in character assassination mode even before Trump took the oath of office. Even members within his own party have been secretly (and not to secretly) plotting to bring down this anti-establishment President. It's like the entire political establishment, so stunned that Hillary didn't get the coronation they thought she was entitled to, has been engaged in a cross party conspiracy to bring down the President.

Of course, Trump has given them plenty of ammunition hasn't he? Be it his comments to the media, his speeches, or his Tweets. Trump isn't exactly know for being subtle! And while he loves the public spotlight, I don't think he bargained for the kind of scrutiny he's been getting since day one. In fact, I seriously doubt any U.S. President has received the barely concealed loathing from the press that Trump has. Certainly, there's a lot to write about. However, it was a move by the President which caught my attention.

Just a few days ago, President Trump made the decision to withdraw American troops from areas in northern Syria in order to allow Turkish forces to launch an invasion, which may extend to parts of Iraq. The invasion will be directed against a small stateless group of individuals known as the Kurds. Now why would I choose to write about a bunch of stateless people instead of an attempt to bring down an American President?

Simply this. The Kurds are possibly the single most important group of people who've done more to help us in the Middle East than any other, with the possible exception of the Israelis. What's more, it strikes at something I deeply value on a personal level, namely loyalty and trust. But first, let me tell you about the Kurds.

If the Jews are considered a biblical people, then so too are the Kurds. The Kurdish people have been around almost from the beginning of civilization; originating, at least in part, from ancient Medes, and may be related to the ancient Hurrians who laid the groundwork for civilization itself. They've endured the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Persians, the Islamic Caliphates, Mongol invasions, and countless other empires which have come and gone. More recently, they survived the collapse and breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.

In fact, in 1920, the Allies (principally the French and British)"inherited" much of what was the Ottoman Empire, promised the Kurds a homeland in the Treaty of Sevres, yet just three years later, they reneged on their promise of a Kurdish homeland with the Treaty of Lausanne (this treaty established the boundaries of modern Turkey while craving out Iran, Syria, and Iraq. The result since has been decades of genocide, rebellion, and near constant war.

Ultimately, the Kurdish people were divided between four nations---Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Through it all, they adapted. They did whatever they could to remain together as a people with one goal in mind, to become a nation, while managing to exist mainly as a semi-autonomous province in northern Iraq. The estimated 35 million Kurds today represent the single largest ethnic group in the world which does not have a country of their own. Those who oppose a Kurdish homeland claim that it would represent a "second Israel" despite their presence in the same area for at least 5000 years, predating the countries which oppose its creation!

Currently, approximately 18% of the Turkish population is Kurdish. Most live in the southeastern portion of the country. As an aside, the Turkish Government refuses to even acknowledge the Kurds, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead. They're also guilty of several attempts at "ethnic cleansing" of the Kurds. About 10% of Iran's population are Kurdish, while 17% of Iraq's population are Kurds. Meanwhile, 9% of Syria's population, mostly in the northeast, are Kurdish. Outside of the region, there are substantial Kurdish populations scattered in about 21, mostly European, countries.

In terms of religion, the majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi sect, which puts them in conflict with the majority Hanafi sect of most of the Arab world, including the Sunni Turks. There are also large numbers of Christians and Zoroastrians (which predates Judaism). However, the fastest growing segment is secularism. In terms of their politics, the majority of Kurds support a secular democratic republic, which is quite different from the governments surrounding them which are mainly non-democratic theocratic monarchies (as an aside, Israel is the only democratic country is the region. A Kurdish state would make it two).

Fast forwarding to the 1990's, Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, attempted several times to eliminate the Kurdish people, mostly through attacks by mustard and sarin gas. I'm sure many of you remember seeing the horrific video on the nightly news. Between 1988 and 1991, an estimated 281,000 Kurds were murdered by Saddam. Of course, Congress and the United Nations promised to investigate, and there was the usual sanctions, yet little else happened, but here's a little something I bet you didn't know.

The Kurds had been a thorn in Saddam's backside for decades, but it wasn't until the U.S. promised them support to help oust Saddam that they really went all out. Washington even went as far as to promise to come to their aid in the event things got rough starting in the early 1980's (we were looking for an excuse to get rid of Saddam even then). However, when Hussein stepped up his attacks, we offered little more than words. When the mustard and sarin (nerve) gas started to fall, we were nowhere to be found. We didn't come to their aid like we had promised. Nevertheless, the Kurds still actively participated in both Gulf Wars. In fact, if it wasn't for their intelligence on the ground, our losses would have been much higher.

When things began to breakdown in Syria, it was the Kurds who helped us the most. It was the Kurds who took on ISIS fighters in village by village and town by town fighting. It was the Kurds who helped rescue thousands of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis, victims themselves of ISIS genocide or being sold into slavery, by attacking ISIS positions and evacuating large masses of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis to the safety of the Zargros mountains and away from certain death despite centuries of mutual mistrust.

It was Kurdish fighters, many of whom being women, who provided on-the-ground intelligence. In fact, approximately 11,000 Kurdish fighters---our "ally"--- died fighting ISIS. Without them, that could have been 11,000... or more...American soldiers. In short, if it wasn't for the Kurdish fighters, large swaths of Syria would have been lost to the Islamic terrorists.

So, what have we done on behalf of these beleaguered but invaluable allies? We've withdrawn our troops in the region in order to allow Turkish forces to engage them. The Turkish Army is one of the largest and most modern in the region while the Kurds have pretty much whatever they could capture or acquire on their own. They have no air force or other form of air protection from the Turkish Air Force. They lack heavy artillery or tanks. Most of what they have is light artillery and perhaps some shoulder launched rockets. The majority of what's available to the Kurdish fighters is small arms such as automatic rifles and pistols. They're grossly out gunned and outnumbered. Any direct military engagement will be a slaughter. This is what we've done for our allies, the Kurds. Can you imagine the damage this has done to our credibility, not just in the region, but worldwide? Here is America, your "ally of convenience"!

While many have argued (and rightly so) that the Middle East is a region largely stuck in the 9th century, our actions---regardless of whether they support or oppose the Kurds---demonstrates for all to see that the U.S. is a country not to be relied on. From a Middle Eastern perspective, we are a country which can't be trusted to stand by its friends. In a region like the Middle East, where one's word is their bond, our actions have shown friend and foe alike that we lack honor as a nation.

I'm one of those people who put great stock in honor and loyalty. Your word is your bond. I expect you to keep it come hell or high water just as I will. The same holds true for friends. If you're a friend, you can count on me to help, and by the same token, I expect the same. I cannot abide by a thief, a liar, or someone without honor. At the same time, I believe that the duty and responsibility of those with power is to protect and aid those without. What we've done and what we're doing to the Kurdish people is irreprehensible.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion. However, I'm not alone. Members of both political parties have spoken out over the President's decision. So have senior Pentagon officials as well as our allies who now have to consider just how reliable we are. An interesting aside is that Turkey is a key member of NATO. It provides a key staging area for our missiles; locating them virtually on Russia's doorstep and also putting them within striking range of our regional arch-nemesis, Iran. It also serves as the doorkeeper for all shipping traversing the Bosporus Strait between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, including the Russian Navy based in Sevastopol on the Crimea.

As I stated earlier, Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the region---412,691 active duty personnel along with another 378,700 in reserves. In fact, Turkey is second only to the U.S. in terms of a standing army in NATO. They have 2,246 tanks, 1,108 armored fighting vehicles, 872 Howitzers, and 418 multiple rocket launchers. They have "officially" 635 military planes, including 245 F-16 Falcons and 59 UH-1 "Huey" helicopters, not to mention four Boeing 737 AWACS air command and support aircraft. Naturally, it's chief supplier is the United States, which makes Turkey as very valuable customer for the domestic "merchants of death".

In addition, it's worth noting that prior to the recent "invasion" of Europe of military age "migrants' (cough cough), Turkey provided the largest source of low skill workers, especially to Germany. Turkey, which has been a candidate for the EU since 1999, is Europe's fifth largest trading partner. Its principal exports to the EU are mostly machinery, transport equipment, and manufactured goods while the EU exports machinery, chemicals, and manufactured goods.

As for the Kurds, they export nothing. They have no country, so they don't have a economic infrastructure. Much of what they produce simple items commonly found in street markets. However, Kurdish workers do make up an important niche of the employed in the various countries they live in. In terms of military, the semi-official Peshmerga (comprised mainly of forces loyal to either the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) along with other, much smaller parties, is approximately 325,000 strong, far less than what the Turks can bring to bear, and about the same in reservists though much less trained and even worse equipped.

Speaking of equipment, it's largely odds and ends of captured weapons; mostly of Russian, Chinese, or American origin. As I pointed out earlier, there are no tanks, heavy artillery, or aircraft. However, they do bring a lot of moxie to the fight, which at times, can turn battles. Equally, their communication and medical capabilities are just as lacking. Against a modern and well equipped military like Turkey, it can only be a delaying action to get civilians out of harm's way.

Lastly, you should know that of the thousands of ISIS prisoners being held throughout northern Syria, it's Kurdish troops who are guarding them. If, and when this invasion takes place, the Kurdish guards will be forced to evacuate the prisons, leaving them wide open. Can you imagine what will happen if these battle harden ISIS fighters escape, especially given their hatred for the West, Israel and the United States in particular? We'll see terrorist attacks and genocide on a whole new and far more bloodier level ever before.

So there you have it. We've turned a hungry wolf loose on a flock sheep. Trump quipped that the Kurds "didn't help us" in World War II, which is hardly the point. However, that the Kurds sit on 1/3 of the oil in Iraq does. I hope enough pressure can be brought to bear on President Trump to rescind his withdrawal order in time. However, it's likely that the Turks have anticipated this and move quickly to annihilate the Kurdish people as quickly as possible. It's little wonder that the Kurds have a saying, "We have no friends except the mountains". I wish I could say they're wrong; that the United States is their friend, but it looks like we're no better than all those who've come before us.


Trump's betrayal of the Kurds is a gift to Putin and Assad

Trump tells Turkish president U.S. will stop arming Kurds in Syria

Turkish troops advance into Syria as Trump washes his hands of the Kurds

MOAB: Whose Your Momma Now?

Just a few days ago, on April 13, 2017, the US dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb it has in its arsenal, the M.O.A.B. The M.O.A.B, which stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb or GBU 43/B, is better known as the Mother Of All Bombs, is a 21,600 pound behemoth with an explosive payload equivalent to 11 tons of TNT. It is so large that the only airplane able to carry it is a C-130 Hercules. It has to be dropped out the back on a wheeled carriage or cradle which is equipped with a parachute to slow the descent for accuracy. The blast radius is approximately one mile in diameter. The shock wave can be felt 30 miles away; shattering windows, ripping off roofs, flipping vehicles and toppling some structures in ranges from just under 2 miles up to 5 miles away. The bomb was dropped in the Nangarhar mountain range near Tora Bora, made infamous as the area where Osama Bin Laden escaped with the help of our so-called Afghani and Pakistani "allies", thus allowing the war to drag on years longer with thousands more killed (Ben Laden would be later tracked down to an enclosed compound just a yards away from Pakistani intelligence headquarters and the home of the Pakistan's "West Point").

There was a vast network of reinforced concrete tunnels which ran for miles with multiple levels. The tunnels, which were built originally by the CIA during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan to aid the Afghani rebels or "Muhadeen", was designed to provide protection from Russian bombers, artillery, and make it nearly impossible to track through the concrete maze with multiple entrances, exits, and filtered air vents not only to provide like clean air but to vent off any poisonous or noxious gases or compressed aid as a result of a bomb attack. In addition to providing protection, the tunnels also served as staging areas, storage bunkers, military hospital, sleeping/rest areas, and provided meals (apparently the lessons of Vietnam and the Viet Kong tunnel systems were well learned). Approximately 96 Islamic terrorists are believed to have died in the blast, although the actual number may never be fully known since any in the immediate blast zone would have been vaporized or forever buried under tons of mountainous rubble.

The order for the drop was originally given by outgoing President Obama, but the final go ahead was given by President Trump following a review of the situation and likely outcome, with emphasis on the possibility of any civilian deaths (civilians had been ordered away from the area starting several days earlier, so the blast itself wasn't a complete surprise, though the scale likely was unexpected). Plans for MOAB had been originally designed years earlier, with the intent of using it during the initial invasion of Iraq. However, US and Allied success made its use unnecessary (plus, I'm sure, the large movement of surrendering Iraqi soldiers and the shifting civilian population also made its use unfeasible).

So, what did we gain by dropping this "Mother Of All Bombs"? Tactically, we destroyed a vast network of tunnels that Al Qaeda, Daesh, and ISIS were still using as a staging and warehouse area. Of course, the US had the plans to the tunnel system since we built it, though there's little doubt that some modification had been made in the subsequent years. The fact that we warned people too likely ensured that there would be minimum causalities, even among the bad guys, but a high body count doesn't seem like the intent of MOAB. The bombing did, however, send notice that we still have firepower and willingness to inflict considerable damage. However, is ISIS and/or the other terrorists groups are anything like the Japanese military mentality of WWII, it will take several more strikes to get their attention, especially since we are fighting them on two fronts---Iraq and Afghanistan---plus on the international stage in Europe, Asia, and the US, while supporting them in Syria. Nothing like sending mixed signals.

However, I wonder if there was something else that MOAB was meant to destroy or, at least, cover up. Recently in Syria there was a sarin gas attack. The US and some of its allies claim the attack came from an Syrian attack on a pro-rebel area of Al Shayrat, which contained a weapons storage house. Syria's President Assad and its ally, Russia, deny that Syria dropped any nerve gas. Instead, they claim that the rebel warehouse may have stored the toxic nerve agent, which the rebels were intending on using again pro-Assad forces. This isn't so farfetched. Several years ago, there was a similar incident where civilian and pro-government forces were attacked with sarin gas. Immediately the US accused the Assad Government of using sarin gas tipped artillery shells against the rebel stronghold, resulting in the deaths innocent civilians and some of their own troops. Syria immediately denied the claim. President Obama called for an immediate attack on Syria, however Russia was able to provide proof that the attack didn't come from Assad forces. This was later verified by UN inspectors (US corporate media, however, buried the story and we quickly moved on to the next "crisis").

Personally, I think the most recent gas attack was simply a replay of the previous attack. Syrian jets just happened to hit a rebel warehouse where sarin gas was being stored. The US responded the only it could in both instances in order to protect its "ally" in Syria---Al Nusra Front---and cover its butt internationally (remember that Al Nusra in Syria is ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, and Al Qaeda everywhere else). Al Nusra/ISIS is trying to overthrow Assad's government as part of its plan to establish an Islamic Caliphate. The US has been trying to destroy or destabilize Assad given Syria's close ties with Russia. All this makes me wonder if the tunnel system destroyed by MOAB contained evidence of sarin gas storage and, perhaps, possible US involvement. Thus, since we either couldn't reach or weren't sure exactly where the sarin gas was hidden in the tunnel system, the entire thing was eliminated, and the only thing we had in our arsenal capable of such a massive destruction was MOAB which had been setting and waiting to go for years now. How handy! Besides, the military had a really cool toy it hadn't played with yet. By the way, shortly after the US dropped the "Mother Of All Bombs", Russia confirmed that it had the "Father Of All Bombs" (F.O.A.B.), a thermobaric bomb with an explosive payload of 44 tons of TNT, which they claimed was four times more powerful. Great. Just great.


Afghan Official: Massive US bomb death toll rises to 96 militants

A Prelude to War?

On April 6th, the US fired 59 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles at a cost of some $1.5 million dollars each at the Syrian Al Shayrat air force base located in Homs. The US and Western corporate media claimed there was extensive damage to the base, with between 23 and 26 top line fighters destroyed as well as damage to the runways, maintenance and storage outbuildings and hangers. The Syrian and Russian media outlets, however, reported that the damage was minimal, with only six planes destroyed and four suffering minor damage. A few of the reinforced dual hangers suffered some damage but remained functional. They confirmed that several of the outlining maintenance and storage buildings hit, resulting in significant damage, however none of fuel or weapons storage facilities were affected while the runways were undamaged. As proof, Russian and Syrian media showed footage of the base. In addition they reported that six individuals were killed and about a dozen were injured in the attack. As if to reemphasis the point, the following day, Syrian jets took off from the base's air strip. The Al Shayrat base is home to the Syrian 50th Air Brigade which is comprised of the 675th, 677th, and the 685th fighter squadrons (the 675th is made up of the MIG-23 "Flogger" while the other two are comprised of Sukhoi SU-22Fs). Russia's 120th Artillery Brigade is stationed there along with approximately ten "Hind" attack helicopters.

What prompted the US attack is a matter of some conjecture. Approximately two days earlier, fighter jets from the Al Shayrat base took off with instructions to knock out a rebel stronghold in the rebel controlled city of Khan Sheikhun, in the Idlib Provence, which allegedly contained a warehouse of various weapons, rockets, ammunition, and artillery shells. The Syrian jets successfully hit their objective and removed it as threat to Syrian government forces and the surrounding pro-Assad population. Shortly afterwards, came the first reports of a nerve gas cloud. Now, this is where things get a little murky, but first, let's explain who these rebels are. As everyone knows or should know by now, the US and a handful of Western nations have been battling Islamic extremist aka "the terrorists" in Iraq, Afghanistan . These terrorists are known variously as ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, and so forth. In Syria, they are known as the Al Nusra Front. These are the same groups which were involved with the attacks on 9/11, and numerous other attacks in France, England, Germany, Russia, and most recently in Sweden.

However, Al Nusra opposes President Assad of Syria. Their goal, as always, is to create a Islamic Caliphate of the extremist variety. Syria, which has been generally pro-Western and secular since the end of World War I, has been a long time regional ally of Russia, and recently, chummy with China (Russia and China are also on friendly terms with Iran, while Iran funds and arms their proxy terrorist organizations, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza). Since the US would like to isolate Russia in the Middle East, we have tried to destabilize the Assad Government whenever and wherever possible. The current civil war, has proven to be an excellent opportunity. However, in order to do so, we have had to ally ourselves with the rebel opposing Assad; and yes, they are the very same people we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and has been attacking the West is now our buddies in Syria. Amazingly stupid if you ask me.

Shortly after the recent attack, there was reports of what appeared to be a sarin gas cloud. News footage seemed to confirm that there had indeed been a release of the highly toxic never agent. Horrific scenes of dead and dying women, men, and children, along with brave attempts to save those still alive was broadcasted around the world. Condemnation from throughout the world was loud and swift. The only problem, however, was who did it? The US was the first nation to point the finger at Assad's government. It claimed that their intelligence reports "confirm" that the Syrian jets had dropped the sarin gas in a blatant disregard of international law or even basic respect for humanity. Based on the claims of the US Government, other nations joined in their condemnation of Assad.

However, there was a problem with this claim by the Trump Administration. Both Russia and the Syrian governments maintained that the Syrian military does not have any chemical weapons. They claim that the rebel warehouse must have stored the toxic agent and was released by the bombing, which is why there was such a limited exposure. Several years ago there was a similar incident in Syria where there was a sarin gas attack on a small pro-government neighborhood. President Obama, again acting on US military intelligence reports, quickly blamed the Assad Government and began demanding that the US military intervene in Syria's Civil War for "humanitarian" purposes. Both Putin and Assad insisted that the attack, which was made from nearby artillery fire, was the work of the rebels who were assaulting pro-government forces (and losing). Both Assad and Putin also stated that Syrian doesn't have sarin gas. Finally, in a last ditch effort to prevent a US military invasion of its ally, Russia produced satellite imagery and other intelligence reports confirming the Syrian military didn't fire on their own troops and pro-government neighborhood.

So here we go again. Same scenario. Different president. Meanwhile, Russian ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving into the region. The speed at which Russia is able to move ships into region is another reason for Russia's long standing presence in the Crimea, which is home for the Black Sea Fleet. Additionally, Russia, which has about 9000 military personnel in Syria, is reinforcing its air defense networks in and around its bases while the US is positioning a carrier task force to bolster their resolve. The British and French navies also maintain a strong presence in the Mediterranean , along with other NATO nation countries, including Italy, Greece, and Turkey (which, ironically, had just concluded war games in the Black Sea with the same Russian ships who are now steaming toward the Levant).

President Assad is winning the Civil War, despite US support for the rebels. He has publicly stated that Syria will need to the support of other nations to help rebuild their infrastructure and the economy. President Putin has maintained from the beginning that his goal is to protect his friend and ally, plus remove the terrorist threat not just from the region, but from Russia as well. Russia has the longest unbroken border of any country with majority Muslim countries; many of whom had been former Soviet Republics back in the days of the USSR. However, Russia has faced a growing threat from radical Muslim terrorists since the 1980's, including violent attacks in Moscow and more recently, St. Petersburg, not to mention their war with Chechnyan guerillas in the Republic of Georgia.

As for the rebels, they have repeatedly shown in the alter identity as "terrorists" to have a complete disregard for human life. They have massacred thousands of Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, non-Muslims, gays, not to mention ordinary civilians. They have raped countless women and children and sold untold numbers into sex slavery. Their atrocities have prompted one of the largest mass exoduses in world history; most of which has descended on Europe with trickles coming to the US. Unfortunately, with this mass migration has come terrorist cells intent on spreading their hate and bloodshed. So, why would the US align themselves with the likes of these monsters? The only explanation I can come up with is the same of ole one---control. Control over the oil and gas fields. Control over shipping routes. Strategic control over territory to further helm in Russia. Plus, it could provide a staging area for an invasion, either directly or indirectly, against Iran. It would also separate Iran from Hezbollah and Hamas, which could relieve pressure on Israel and even Egypt and Lebanon. It would also secure Israel's northern border with Syria and end the standoff over the Golan Heights, which was seized in the Six Day War of 1967. In addition, it would prove to be an excellent investment for US and Western business. After all, "someone" has to help with the rebuilding and provide the investment capital right? Why not our friendly neo-fascist Oligarchy?

I think there's a lot of potential for missteps in this game of geo-politics; missteps that the world cannot afford. We need to put aside our outdated Cold War mentality and forget about trying to fight the last war. The world has changed. Old ideas of political ideology belong to the history books. Nowadays, we face a common foe who couldn't care less about Communism or Capitalism. This enemy fights for its religion. Nothing and no one else matters. It sees no different between Moscow, Berlin, Beijing, Paris, Mexico City, Ottawa, London, or Washington DC. The US cannot win this war alone. It needs committed allies. Russia appears to be willing to be that ally, but will the Oligarchy who rules this country let it? Will it allow us?


The Latest: US Calls for Transparency in UN Syrian Summit


Sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack, Turkey's Health Ministry says


U.S. Missile Attack on Syria: What We Know and Don't Know


Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad

A Few Things On My Mind: The NFL Ratings Collapse, Trump's Sexist Remarks, Preparing for WWIII

What's Happened To The NFL?

There's a certain word or phrase for people who refuse to accept or acknowledge the obvious---disillusional. That's seems to be what's happening with professional football and the sports media right now. They know something is serious wrong and their ratings (and more importantly, their revenues) are dropping. Not just slightly off, but a whopping 20% to 25%. Some of these so-called "analysis", most of whom are former jocks looking to pad their incomes after losing their multi-million contracts, claim it's because of the presidential election. Fans, who would otherwise be glued to their TV sets come game time, are tuning in to watch two buffoons running for office instead. Yeah, right. Well, first off, the presidential debates aren't held weekly as is football on Sunday afternoons or Monday and Thursday nights (you could include amateur or college football on Saturday too since their numbers are off as well). Secondly, most Americans are so degusted with our political process in general and with the two "choices" in particular, you would expect that they would tune into football (or just about anything else) to avoid politics. But, as we know, that's not the case.

Viewers are going elsewhere, at least for part of the game---the first part, and we, the viewers, know why. The reason so many fans are turned off by football this season is because of a lack of respect directed by some super rich spoiled brat players at us, their fans. To be more specific, some players have chosen not to stand during the playing of the National Anthem, and instead, are kneeling or giving the "black power fist-in-the-air" salute. That is the same as giving Americans and America the finger. Yes, we all acknowledge that these individuals have the right to free expression (although whether they would afford that same right to others is another topic). They have that as individuals. However, once they put on that uniform, they are part of a team; in this case, a football team. Their words and actions is a reflection on their fellow teammates, their coaches and managers, the owners, and the National Football League.

So, when the coaches or owners allow this sort of disrespect, they are themselves agreeing with the message it sends by default. As a result, the team(s) are telling their fans, the viewers, the military (current and former), first responders, and Americans in general to "kiss off". Thus, fans and viewers are responding in-kind by turning the NFL or certain teams off at the television and not showing up at games or buying merchandise. When the National Football League and its owners and coaches grow a spine and say "no" to disrespecting America and Americans, then the viewers may come back. Meanwhile, let those spoiled brat players disrespect America on their own time, not ours.


Trump's Comment: Blowback

The corporate media never misses a beat when it comes to taking a swipe at Donald Trump, even if they have to make it up or blow it out of proportion, which seems to be the case (again) with "The Donald". It seems Trump made a male oriented "locker room" remark about women and the media has jump all over it as if his comment was the first of its kind ever. The comment was made in private with a bunch of other male overachievers. Oh, and by the way, did I mention that the remark was made over ten years ago? Or that he apologized for it back then and has again apologized for since? Apparently for the selectively oversensitive liberals and the "sink-Trump" corporate media, you would think Trump insulted the Queen (for the record, I'm referring to the British Monarchy and not Freddie Mercury). So, let's get this straight, we have a bunch of egotistical rich dudes with an ample dose of testosterone make a comment about beautiful women, and they---the liberals, Hillary Clinton and the corporate media---find it offensive.

OK, maybe Trump shouldn't have said anything. Maybe he was out of line. Maybe he should have complimented their hair or makeup or fashion choice instead, but something tells me that whatever he said some wuss was going to be "offended". The fact of the matter is that guys have been making comments about women since we first fell out of the trees on some African savannah thousands of years ago (and for that matter, so have women). But to be fair here, shouldn't we also discuss Bill Clinton and his treatment of women over the years like how many times he's been accused to groping women, raping women, forcing them into sexual situations (cigars anyone?), or harassing women? After all, there's allegedly been at least 17 women assaulted in one way or another by Bill Clinton.

What about his lying to Congress about Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment? We could also discuss Hillary's reference to all these women that Bill has pursued as "bimbos" or "Looney Tunes" or "trailer trash" or her acceptance of and joking about defending a rapist who she was able to get acquitted. But that wouldn't be "fair" would it since we're trying to get the public to focus on Trump and bury all of Bill's past "discretions" aren't we? The fact of the matter is that males and females make sexually oriented comments about each other. It's just a fact of life. It's been going on for at least ten millennia and it will be going on ten millennia more if we last that long. In Trump's case, it was said privately among a group of other guys and it was said with a bit of macho humor so I think it's time for these hypocrites to cease with their fake indignation and stay focused on the issues. And, by the way, when was the last time you saw a major party openly try and destroy its own nominee? That's exactly what the Republican Party is doing. Trump was the choice of the majority of working class conservatives, not the choice of the Republican Elites, now they are actively trying to undo that choice even if it means throwing the election to Hillary.


Gearing Up For WWIII?

I'm seriously becoming worried at the declining relationship between America and the Russian Federation. Ever since Obama took office, especially in his second term, there has a steady escalating attempt to rekindle the Cold War. Obama has repeatedly called for a US invasion of Syria, which is Russia's long time ally in the region. Each time Obama has been rebuffed by the America People. Each time the Obama Regime has done something to rise tensions in the region and to tweak Putin's nose. Over the past few years, we have bombed President Assad's troops, supplied ISIS and Al Qaeda (yes, the same terrorist network who hijacked the three airplanes on 9/11 and who have been murdering thousands of individuals wherever they go---especially Christians, Kurds, and Yazidis---and enslaving young girls for gang rapes and as sex slaves). In fact, Hillary's recovered emails reveled that she was illegally involved in running weapons from Libya to Syria in order to resupply Al Qaeda. It backfired and as a result, the US embassy in Benghazi was attacked and destroyed while the Ambassador Stevens was beaten, sodomized, and finally murdered along with three former Navy SEAL CIA contractors while at the same time, requests to mount a rescue by the Air Force and Navy were denied (ultimately, senior ranking officers were relieved of command for their insistence on rescuing the ambassador and three contractors).

The Obama Regime has provided not just military aide to Al Qaeda rebels, but provided logistics and air cover for them as well. Meanwhile, Russia has stepped up its support of the regional ally while at the same time, successfully targeted ISIS and Al Qaeda and knocked them back on their heels; the very thing US troops have been trying to do for years, they accomplished in a few weeks and months. Something folks just isn't right here. Hillary has promised to continue Obama's efforts to "contain" ISIS and Al Qaeda while Trump has said he would put an end to both terrorist groups. If Hillary is true to her word (which is ironic I know), then we can expect this never-ending "War on Terror" to continue by aiding the terrorists on one hand while supposedly fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan (to the benefit of defense contractors, surveillance agencies, and providing another excuse to extend the "Patriot Act"). By provoking a revival of the Cold War, the Obama/Clinton Regime would be adding another leg to the never ending "War on Terror".

Meanwhile, we're seeing the current administration keeping a hands off policy regarding illegal immigration which not only overburdens taxpayer based services, but drives down wages as the mostly service oriented labor market becomes flooded with potential new workers. In addition, we have the importing of unvetted or partially vetted Muslims into this country, including those not from war zones, knowing full well these groups contain terrorist as we've already seen throughout various US cities. In the interim, Russia along with China are moving troops material into Middle East to help support Assad's government, making the region even that much more volatile. Russia is moving some of its nuclear tipped "Iskander" missile carriers with its 450 mile range closer to its western border with Poland and thus closer to major European cities such as Berlin while Turkey continues to threaten its EU neighbors with releasing thousands of more "refugees" into Europe if Europe continues to crackdown on Muslims gangs raping, beating and murdering women and not complying with Muslim demands to become more Sharia compliant (some EU nations have shown signs of growing a backbone by not just clamping down of these gangs but also by deporting them) and China is flexing its muscle in the South China Sea.

While some have argued that Europe may be lost for the next several generations, Americans should begin preparing for the worse. Russia has been recommending that its citizens begin preparing for a possible war with the West, most notably the US, some Americans have begun preparing for a possible civil war here at home---albeit a manufactured race war; a domestic war with foreign terrorists; or a war against an increasingly out-of-touch federal government, no one here seems to be the least bit interested in reviving the Cold War with Russia except the Oligarchs who rule America these days who are working overtime to find a possible excuse; some spark.

Perhaps it was said best by former Reich Marshall Herman Goering when he said, "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Sound familiar?


NFL ratings fumble: Is it time to panic?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/08/media/tv-nfl-ratings-down/index.html


Kaepernick Effect? Falling ratings force NFL TV networks to give back free ads
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-tv-ratings-dropping-colin-kaepernick-49ers-boycottnfl-twitter-social-media-fans-politics-player-protests/1qtrec7b21cf11u70nodc10j0q


Trump's uncensored lewd comments about women from 2005
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/07/donald-trump-women-lewd-comments-origwx-cs.cnn


Russia prepares citizens for NUCLEAR WAR with the West
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russia-prepares-citizen-nuclear-war-8971068