BRIAN TRAUTMAN FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The United States is the most militarized and jingoistic nation on earth. Its foreign policy is guided by imperialist militarism, neoliberal capitalism and racial xenophobia. For more than sixteen years now, three presidential administrations have carried out a so-called “War on Terror” (GWOT), a perpetual state of war that is waged globally, under the depraved reasoning that “the world is a battlefield,” to quote investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill. As demonstrated by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the GWOT is conducted through conventional warfare. More often, however, it is executed through covert or “dirty” wars, against groups and individuals in many other nations.
The U.S. has the financial and logistical capacity to wage these illegal wars. Its bloated military budget is larger than the next seven countries combined. It is by far the largest operator of military installations abroad, maintaining nearly 800 bases in around 70 countries. The ever-growing military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address, permeates every facet of our society – from an economy largely dependent on the war industry, to military recruiting in our public schools, to police militarization. This toxic culture of war is underscored on different national holidays, particularly Memorial Day.
Memorial Day – a day originating in 1868 (Decoration Day), on which the gravesites of the Civil War dead were decorated with flowers – has morphed into a day that conflates the memorialization of killed soldiers with the glorification of war. The perennial flag-waving, ultra-nationalist speeches, garish street parades and hyper-consumerism of Memorial Day do not honor these soldiers. What might, however, is working to prevent future war and nurture peace – honoring their memory by not sending more men and women into harm’s way and to kill and maim in wars based on lies. To have any chance at being effective, however, this work must include efforts aimed at increasing public awareness about the many causes and costs of war.
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
When President Donald Trump arrived in Israel on Monday, he was greeted by billboards, proclaiming: "Trump is a Friend of Zion," and requesting "Trump Make Israel Great." In a Haaretz story titled "Who's Behind the Dozens of pro-Trump Billboards Around Jerusalem?" Judy Maltz pointed out that the "42 billboards featuring intertwined Israeli and American flags" are sponsored by Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem, an enterprise founded by Christian Zionist Mike Evans.
The Friends of Zion Museum honors the Jewish people and those Gentiles who protected them from persecution.
In a November Jerusalem Post story, Jeremy Sharon called Evans "one of the most prominent Christian Zionist leaders in the world today." He is a well connected, if not-so-well-known Christian Zionist, who has written numerous books, produced more than a dozen documentaries and one of the entities he heads up is called the Jerusalem Prayer Team. According to Right Web, which maintains at its website that it is "an independent online publishing project that assesses the work of prominent organizations and individuals—both in and out of government—who promote aggressive or militaristic U.S. foreign and defense policies, with a special focus on the 'war on terror' and the Middle East," the Jerusalem Prayer Team aims to "enlist one million people in America to pray daily and 100,000 houses of worship praying weekly for the peace of Jerusalem."
ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
A suicide bomber inflicts hell at a concert hall in Manchester, England that's full of children, as though that was the point -- to murder children.
The horror of war . . . well, terrorism . . . doesn't get any worse.
And the media, as they focus on the spectacle of what happened, as they cover the particulars of the tragedy -- the suspect's name and ethnicity and apparent grievances, the anguish of the survivors, the names and ages of the victims -- quietly tear the incident loose from most of its complexity and most of its context.
Yes, this was an act of terror. That piece of the puzzle is, of course, under intense scrutiny. The killer, Salman Abedi, age 22, was born in England to parents of Libyan descent and had recently traveled to Libya (where his parents now live) and Syria, where he may have been "radicalized." He likely didn't act alone.
LORRAINE CHOW OF ECOWATCH ON BUZZFLASH
Article reprinted with permission from EcoWatch
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget will still be slashed by nearly a third, from $8.2 billion to $5.65 billion, under President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget proposal released Tuesday.
The EPA, which has long been targeted by the Trump administration, is the hardest hit federal agency under the new plan. Opponents say it "endangers Americans" and cripples an institution charged with protecting their health and safety.
As detailed by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, notable components of the anticipated budget include a 30 percent cut in federal grants to state and local air pollution control agencies; a 39 percent cut in EPA's Science and Technology budget; a 35 percent cut in EPA's Environmental Program and Management budget (the agency's overall operating budget); and the elimination of funding several regional programs, including restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes and Puget Sound.
The Washington Post noted that "dozens of other programs also would be zeroed out entirely, including funding for radon detection, lead risk reduction, projects along the U.S.-Mexico border and environmental justice initiatives." Additionally, less money will be allocated to enforcement of environmental crimes and climate change research.
PATRICK T. HILLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Amidst a range of domestic controversies and the pushback against his agenda and actions, President Trump went back to one of his default personas, that of a self-proclaimed dealmaker “strongly protecting American interests.” During his trip to Saudi Arabia, President Trump signed an almost $ 110 billion arms deal supposedly in support of Saudi Arabia’s defense.
A May 20, 2017 press release “Supporting Saudi Arabia’s Defense Needs” from the U.S. State Department outlines the framework. How $110 billion worth of killing machinery such as tanks, artillery, helicopters, combatant ships, and other weapons systems reflect the State Department’s slogan “Diplomacy in Action” is a mythological stretch of imagination. More importantly though, this deal is the continuation of global arms trade practices that are sustained by several myths which are driven by a militarist consensus and acceptance of war profiteering regardless of who is President. With the help of historian Paul Holden and colleagues’ 2016 book Indefensible: Seven myths that sustain the global arms trade, it is now possible to shed new light on what we are led to believe such deals achieve.
The myth of increased security: According to the State Department, this deal supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia in the face of malign Iranian influence and threats. That’s unlikely, given that Holden and colleagues demonstrated that increased weapons spending leads to arms races, increases security threats due to ill-conceived usage, and under-sources important non-military action. Looking at the bloodshed in the region, we now can say with certainty that the continued influx of weapons makes civilians caught in violent conflict less secure.
The myth of a sound national security analysis: More weapons provided by the United States into a volatile region will not only add fuel to the many regional fires, it will also undermine successful diplomatic initiatives such as the Iran Nuclear Deal. It is more likely that such deals are driven by economic considerations – that is, corporate profits or flat out corruption. In fact, the State Department does not hide the fact that this deal presumably expands opportunities for American companies in the region.
MEL GURTOV FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go," said Donald Trump to James Comey onFebruary 14, a day after General Flynn was fired as national security special assistant. With those words, which Comey is said to have dutifully recorded in a memo, Trump may have put himself on the path to political oblivion. For the first time we have proof that the president directly interfered in a federal investigation, a criminal offense. To his credit, Comey did not "let it go."
Every day brings bad news for Trump's presidency. Every day is a reminder that this man is mentally, temperamentally, and politically unfit for the highest office. Every day also brings new risks to national security, which is in the hands of a commander in chief who is impulsive, uninformed, impervious to expert advice, and given to sudden movements that could mean war. Donald Trump must go, but how?
Up until now I thought our and the nation's best hope was that somehow, some way, the Republican leadership in Congress would feel compelled by Trump's outrageous behavior to start the ball rolling toward impeachment. Trump's bald-faced interference on Flynn's behalf leads me to a different denouement: his resignation, forced by the same Republicans who would otherwise never be persuaded to start impeachment proceedings.
FARRON COUSINS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
A recent article published in Ars Technica discussed several conservative leaders -- ranging from religious figures to former Republican politicians -- attempting to convince conservatives that climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed by everyone, not just the liberals in the United States. The article discusses various ways that these conservatives are trying to approach the issue, from citing biblical passages about protecting the Earth, to educating conservative voters about the benefits of a carbon tax.
The Ars Technica article touched on a very important subject that is too often left out of discussions on climate change: Why are Republican politicians so successful when it comes to getting voters to vote against protecting the environment?
Polls from recent years have shown that majorities of Republicans, Democrats and those who don't describe themselves as either Republican or Democrat all believe that climate change is real, so we know that there is a general acceptance of climate science among the public. Yet the majority of elected Republicans in Washington, DC -- the party that controls all branches of government at this time -- either outright deny climate change or question the scientific consensus. So how can a party that openly attacks climate science and environmental protections win the support of people who claim to be concerned about the environment?
JIM HIGHTOWER ON BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The wailing in our country about the "invasion of immigrants" has been long and loud. As one complainant put it, "Few of their children in the country learn English... The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages... Unless the stream of the importation could be turned they will soon so outnumber us that all the advantages we have will not be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious."
That's not some diatribe from the alt-right. It's the anxious cry of none other than Ben Franklin, deploring the wave of Germans pouring into the colony of Pennsylvania in the 1750s. Thus, anti-immigrant eruptions are older than the U.S. itself, and they've flared up periodically throughout our history, targeting the Irish, French, Italians and Chinese among others. Even Donald Trump's project to wall off our border is not a new bit of nuttiness — around the time of the nation's founding, John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, proposed "a wall of brass around the country for the exclusion of Catholics."
Luckily for the development and enrichment of our country, these past public frenzies ultimately failed to exclude the teeming masses, and those uproars now appear through the telescope of time to have been some combination of ridiculous panic, political demagoguery and xenophobic ugliness.
In our current national imbroglio over immigration coming from our 2,000-mile shared southern border, our "leaders" have set us up to look down at impoverished working people forced to leave their homeland and risk death in order to help their families escape poverty.
BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Are Christian conservative evangelicals so desperate for attention and an apocalyptic messenger that they’re turning to a disgraced televangelist to carry their End Times message? Ever in search of an End Times scenario that might resonate with its open-eared supporters, Steve Strang, the Christian conservative evangelical founder of Charisma magazine, and the CEO of Charisma Media, is turning to Jim Bakker for a revelation. And Bakker, the discredited PTL Club (Praise the Lord) televangelist who fleeced his audience, got involved in a juicy sexual scandal, and served time in prison, is claiming that the recent WannaCry "ransomware" cyberattack is a sign that World War III has already started. The early-May attack infected more than 230,000 computers in over 150 countries.
In a podcast interview, Bakker told Strang that the battle would not be fought with traditional weaponry; rather it will be with computers and satellites. And, it may not be a coincidence that on his Jim Bakker Show, he is hustling survivalist supplies to doomsday preppers.
On his show, Bakker made a point of claiming the "spirit of the Antichrist" was living inside of Donald Trump’s opponents.
In a piece titled, "What if Jim Bakker Is Right That the Ransomware Virus Is Part of Fulfilling End-Times Prophecy?" Strang writes that he doesn’t mind "if the secular community makes fun of it or thinks that it is just a lot of superstition," his folks know that "the spiritual realm is where things really happen. We also know that God is in control, that He has a plan and purpose, and that He revealed to the apostle John what would happen in the last days, which John wrote about in the book of Revelation."
ROBERT C. KOEHLER FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
"Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria" . . . and "emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia."
Welcome to the last paragraph of a Washington Post story the other day, a loose fragment of news, a homeless child, a cynical trigger. This is the story in which we learn that "President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week" and the let's-be-friends comment was part of the official White House statement about the meeting, the point of which was to dismiss the Post's allegations as false.
And indeed, the statement comes wrapped in cynicism, as though our proto-fascist, race-baiting, bomb-happy president carries the world's hope for peace in his heart. Nonetheless, I feel the need to rescue this paragraph from the rest of the Post's story, which details the latest manifestation of Russiagate in Trumpville.