Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Paris Attack Matrix by Erick San Juan

Still trending in the world wide web via the social networking sites are the Paris attacks and then the attack in Mali. Although some pundits believe that the two recent attacks are not related, just the same the world is now being terrorized and the latest attacks are sowing fear globally. Especially when reports of possible more terrorists attacks in different parts of the world are on the internet.

Actually, it is through the internet that netizens are becoming more aware of what is really going on especially if one will visit websites of patriotic citizens of the world through their blog or as writers of progressive websites, and fortunately there are many such sites that one can access with ease. Thinking public should not rely much on mainstream media and must be critical enough in analyzing reports.

One such analysis came from Dr. Paul Craig Roberts through his intriguing set of questions about the Paris attacks. "Most pundits believe that the Paris attack is the same as the terror attack in mainland USA in September 11, 2001 and they call it '9/11 French style'. And when we mention 9/11, it is a false flag operation."

Then the perennial question – who benefits? And if most Americans believed that 9/11 was an inside job, what then is the Paris attack? Who gave the funds to the ISIS/ISIL terror group? Who wrote the script? In other words, who is pulling the strings?

Here is one answer posted at http://www.collective-evolution.com Nov. 16 by Arjun Walia – “On more than one occasion, Russian President Vladamir Putin has revealed information that Western media won’t air. Two months ago he provided information illustrating that ISIS is funded by the West, and now he is making more noise at the G20 summit that’s currently taking place in Turkey, where he has supposedly shared intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues."

As RT News reports:

[During the summit] "I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them."

He also voiced his concern regarding the illegal oil trade by IS, stating that he has seen photos taken from space and from aircraft that demonstrated the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products.

I’d also like to mention that I am aware that RT news is sponsored by Russia and misconstrued as counter propaganda, but the fact remains that Putin has said that Western nations are funding ISIS before. Here is one of multiple examples.

At the summit he also stated that:

“The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000  to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon. “

"Again, it’s not the first time Putin has stressed that people who are going after ISIS and invading other countries (U.S. and their allies) are the very same people who funded and created ISIS in the first place.”

And here is what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has to say – “Why do terrorists attack ordinary innocent people who have neither awareness of “their” government’s actions or control over them? The victims of 9/11 were not the neocons and members of the Washington establishment, whose policies in the Middle East justified attacks on their persons. Ditto for the Boston Marathon Bombing, and ditto for the Paris attacks. Innocents were the victims, not those who have taken Muslim lives.

Historically, terror attacks are not on the innocent but on the rulers and those who are guilty. For example, it was the Archduke of Austria/Hungary who was assassinated by the Serbian terrorist, not ordinary people blown up or shot down in a street cafe.

It is interesting to note that terrorists attacks attributed to Muslims only fall upon ordinary people, not upon the political elites who oppress the Muslims. In past years on several occasions, I have remarked in my columns on the total vulnerability of the neoconservatives to assassination. Yet there has been not a single attack by terrorists on a neocon life, and the neocons are the source of the violence that Washington has unleashed on the Muslim world. The neocons walk around without threat free as birds.

How believable is it that Muslim terrorists take their ire out on innocents when the President of France himself, who has been very supportive of the Palestinian statehood was sitting in the attacked stadium and could easily have been eliminated by a suicide bomber?

With the Paris terror attacks, what was impossible became possible, and the President of France immediately announced the closing of France’s borders. The border closings will spread. The main issue of the rising dissident political parties will be defused. The EU will be safe, and so will Washington’s sovereignty over Europe.

Whether or not the Paris attacks were a false flag operation for the purpose of obtaining these results, these results are the consequences of the attacks. It is believed that these results to serve the interests of the European political establishment and Washington.

Is ISIL so unsophisticated not to have realized that? If ISIL is that unsophisticated, how did ISIL so easily deceive French intelligence?

Can westerners be intelligent to fall for a story set in stone prior to any evidence? In the West, it is perceived that facts are created by self-serving statements from governments. Investigation is not part of the process. When 90 percent of the US media is owned by six mega-corporations, it cannot be any different.

As the matrix grows in the absurdity of its claims, it nevertheless manages to become even more invulnerable.” (Posted @globalresearch.ca Nov. 14, 2015)

Former FBI whistleblower, author, Sibel Edmonds in her interview by Sophie Shevardnadze of Sophie&Co at RT.com in October 13, 2014, more than a year ago:

Sophie Shevardnadze: So what you’re saying basically is that it was expected for ISIS to turn into something so powerful, into a powerful group, but they are not just admitting to it?

Sibel Edmonds: To answer the question briefly, the ISIS is what the U.S. media and the propaganda creators behind the media decided to create. I mean, tomorrow or 3 months from now we will start hearing another name, that we’ve never heard of, and within a month they can make that the world’s greatest or the most dangerous threat. And, again, that is the main concept here, and I know the Western media, U.S. media, they have been playing it as such, but they did exactly the same thing with Al-Qaeda. I mean, Al-Qaeda was hundred people, or 100,000 people, or ten million people… Another interesting perspective in this is that I referred to the brand-change, and sometimes you have to switch the brand for the marketing purposes – with ISIS as you can look at and see from the term, from the name now, the brand created, the Western powers have gotten closer to just name and link the entire global terrorism to Islam, and that’s another marketing strategy by the U.S., NATO and main Western countries.” (https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/195384-us-fbi-syria-isis/)

There are still a lot of perspectives coming from different analysis from various observers and experts alike but one thing for sure, the design for the next world war has started just like in the past, one false flag op can lead to a world war. This one is worst – it’s the perpetual war on terror on a global scale. The goal? To sustain the perpetual war machine designed and managed by the globalists.

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

EDCA, What Can We Expect? By Erick San Juan

Once again the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition against the Philippines' Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US was deferred November 16. It was reset to December 16 or thereafter.

It was reported at Manila Times (November 8) that “the Supreme Court (SC) is poised to declare the controversial Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States constitutional, according to unimpeachable sources.

The Manila Times has gathered from several sources that an 82-page draft decision upholding the constitutionality of the defense agreement had been circulated among the 14 magistrates. The ponente of the case is Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

In her draft decision, Sereno said EDCA is “not constitutionally infirm,” the sources told the Manila Times. According to the decision, President Benigno Aquino III, as head of the executive department, has the power to sign agreement on matters of foreign affairs and national security.

An overwhelming majority of the justices are inclined to agree with Sereno since no dissenting opinion had been issued.

Some of the justices who do not see eye to eye with the Chief Justice, however, are waiting for a magistrate to issue a separate opinion concurring with the constitutionality of EDCA and they will favor that opinion so that Sereno will not gain credit from President Aquino because she is the ponente of the case.

A source said CJ Sereno circulated her draft decision days before the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to please Malacañang and gain 'pogi' points [credit] from the President. The EDCA decision is seen to be the Philippines’ “gift” to US President Barack Obama, who will be flying this week in Manila to attend the APEC summit scheduled from November 17 to 19.”

What went wrong (or right)? Well, the Senate did the right thing through Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago together with the other 14 senators, adopted Sen. Santiago’s resolution expressing the strong sense of the Senate that, absent their concurrence, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is a treaty prohibited under the Constitution.

Beside Santiago, those who voted in favor of the resolution were Senators Sonny Angara, Nancy Binay, JV Ejercito, Chiz Escudero, TG Guingona, Lito Lapid, Loren Legarda, Bongbong Marcos, Serge Osmeña, Koko Pimentel, Grace Poe, Ralph Recto, and Cynthia Villar. The 15th vote came from Sen. Pia Cayetano, who was not at the session hall during the vote, but later manifested that she is voting in the affirmative.

Plenary approval formalizes Senate Resolution No. 1414 as the Senate’s position on the question of the validity and effectivity of the EDCA. Only Sen. Sonny Trillanes voted against the resolution, deferring to the Supreme Court. Under the same premise, Senate President Frank Drilon and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile abstained. Sen. Bam Aquino, who was not in session during the vote, later manifested his abstention.

In her sponsorship speech, Santiago, chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations, argued that the EDCA “belongs to the category of prohibited treaty. Namely, it is a treaty of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities without the concurrence of the Senate.”

Santiago, the foremost constitutional expert in the Senate, insisted that “other than concurrence of the Senate, no authority expressly transforms a treaty into law.” She cited the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, Article 7, Section 21, which states that:

"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."

The senator added that the need for Senate concurrence was made an integral part of the nature of a special kind of treaty—that which involves “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities”—by the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25:

.… foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.… and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. (Emphasis added)

Santiago said the EDCA falls under this prohibition, as it had substantive provisions on the establishment, location, stationing of the U.S. military forces and storage of military facilities in Philippine territory.

“That such a prohibited ‘treaty’ has been concluded by the Executive Department as an executive agreement testifies to its inherently prohibitory nature under the Constitution,” the senator added.

She further claimed that the prohibitory character of Article 18, Section 25 trumps Article 8, Section 4(2), which Macalañang used to defend the EDCA as an executive agreement. The Constitution, Article 8, Section 4(2), states that:

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc…. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

“On the remote assumption that this provision may be applicable to a case involving the constitutionality of a treaty or executive agreement, it must exclude from its applicability the prohibited treaty as described in the Constitution, Article 18, Section 25,” Santiago said. These articles of our constitution are legal matters that are all binding.9

The Senate statement on EDCA comes a week before U.S. President Barack Obama’s expected arrival in the Philippines for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meet.

The senator added that she hopes the Supreme Court, to which she sent a copy of the proposed resolution in June, will consider the strong statement from the Senate “with decisive concern.”

Need we say more? Our congratulations to Sen. Santiago! Hoping that the SC decision come December will favor the Senate and let the Senate of the Philippines deliberate on the EDCA.

It's not the Americans fault per se but we really have to deal with them in a position of strength and level the playing field. Our colonial mentality should be redirected once and for all to get what's due us.

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

To Whose Interest? by Erick San Juan

Yes–China Is A Threat to U.S. Interests by Matt Vespa posted at townhall.com last  November 6. Vespa stated that “Over the past couple of years, China has built several man-made islands near the Spratly archipelago to prevent any challenges to China’s sovereignty in the region (via the Diplomat):

"The United States and China are hurtling toward a showdown over Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea. The U.S. Navy is poised to sail near seven artificial islands China constructed in the Spratly archipelago over the past two years as a means to challenge any excessive or illegitimate Chinese sovereignty claims there."

In Beijing, meanwhile, opposition to U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) around the artificial islands is hardening, as evidenced by the threat China’s state-run Xinhua news agency issued last week:

"America’s provocative attempt to infringe on China’s South China Sea sovereignty are sabotaging regional peace and stability and militarizing the waters…China will never tolerate any military provocation or infringement on sovereignty from the United States or any other country, just as the United States refused it 53 years ago [during the Cuban Missile Crisis]."

This Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) issue was answered by China’s President Xi Jinping  in a promise to safeguard freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, where tensions have flared due to overlapping claims and the US Navy’s move to challenge Beijing’s massive island building.

Speaking at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, China's President Xi said there has never been any problem with freedom of navigation and overflight, “nor will there ever be in the future.”

He said China need unimpeded passage through the waters more than anyone else.

“We have absolute confidence and capability in maintaining the peace and stability. This can be done through negotiations and the establishment of reasonable maritime rights,” Xi added.

China criticized last week’s patrol of the USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, within the 12-nautical-mile (22-kilometer) territorial limit of Subi Reef, one of the South China Sea features that have been claimed, expanded and reinforced by China over objections of other claimants, particularly the Philippines.

The US Navy said it wanted to demonstrate the principle of freedom of navigation.

China has called it a “deliberate provocation,” and sent two warships to shadow the US vessel and issued warnings. Although China labeled the action illegal, international law allowed warships to transit other countries’ territorial seas under the principle of “innocent passage.” (AP posted at atimes.com)

It would be an endless issue until China gives in from what they claimed as undisputed sovereignty over territories as per historical ‘facts’ according to their history books. Otherwise other claimants  have the right to their claim based on international law.

A very hot and controversial issue that will go down in history and could span over several administrations which was suggested by Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, that the country’s dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea should be made an election issue, with each presidential candidate obliged to make public his or her stand. And that the question will be “if elected president, ‘will you withdraw the case, if it’s still pending’?” he said.

Methinks that our ‘relationship’ with Uncle Sam should be included also as one of the election issues. The pending passage of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) should be tackled and the next set of leaders must give their stand on giving up our military bases as forward bases by the US military troops as hundreds of US soldiers will be based here on rotational basis in line with Obama’s pivot to Asia soon.

If China will continue to threaten the region as per the American view, our next leaders must give their clear foreign policy and not just rely on day to day band-aid solution to any eventuality that will come our way as a sovereign nation.

Word War: Laying the Predicate by Erick San Juan

Word War: Laying the Predicate by Erick San Juan

Maintaining peace and stability in the world’s busiest sea lane, the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea, is once again put to a test on how the G2 (China and US) could manage to keep the region peaceful. After the US destroyer USS Lassen (sail-past) entered what China claims as a 12-mile or 21-kilometer territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, a group of reefs, islets, and atolls, word war has started again.

According to reports, China's naval commander told his U.S. counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States will not stop its "provocative acts" in the disputed waterway, the Chinese navy said on Friday.

Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.

The two officers held talks after a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing's man-made islands in the contested Spratly archipelago on Tuesday.

China has rebuked Washington over the patrol, the most significant U.S. challenge yet to territorial limits China effectively claims around its seven artificial islands in one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

"If the United States continues with these kind of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war," the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.

"I hope the U.S. side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and U.S. navies that has not come easily and avoids these kind of incidents from happening again," Wu said. (Reuters)

China has been reminding the US and the rest of the world that any miscalculation can trigger a conflict in the South China Sea and will surely drag other countries as alliances are already in place. Just like in the past world wars where allies are used as cannon fodders and worst, being short changed in the end.

Sounds familiar? We had our bitter share of history and loss of precious lives should be the top consideration if ever history be repeated. I have been reminding our leaders to be wise enough and stop kowtowing to a perceived master to avoid a one way ticket to hell.

There is no point to ever rely on the US military to defend us if ever our country will be confronted by an external force especially China on the issue of sovereignty over disputed areas.

According to a statement posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry website, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said, “The Chinese side strongly urges the American side to take China’s solemn representations seriously, put right the mistakes, refrain from any dangerous or provocative actions detrimental to China’s sovereignty and security interests, and honor its commitment of not taking sides on disputes over territorial sovereignty so as to avoid any further damage to China-US relations and regional peace and stability.”

It is very clear here that the US has committed to China  and  it will not take sides in the territorial disputes so 'WTF' that our leaders are still hallucinating that Uncle Sam will come to the rescue if ever China attacks us?

Pundits believe that this 'moro-moro' ( secret arrangement to justify a scenario) between US and China are all for a show and that the operation being done in the SCS is just a bait to drag us into a conflict with China. Of course we will not win, presto, a long time secret plan that China will take Luzon and parts of the south where minerals are in abundance as prelude in retaking Taiwan.

The mere fact that the so-called military modernization being pushed by the Aquino government only boils down to buying more vintage and museum grade military hardware from the US.

Such posturing lead to militarization and the threatened Chinese will retaliate but it is actually a proxy war. Will our defeat be the payment for all the US debt to China?  A scenario that is not farfetched if we know how the great Big Brother works.

We have to wake up and confront this sweet dream-turning into nightmare posturing of Uncle Sam or we will be doomed without us knowing what hit us.

TPP: Good or Bad Deal? By Erick San Juan

TPP: Good or Bad Deal? By Erick San Juan

After nearly six years of negotiations, trade ministers recently announced they had reached agreement on the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This does not mean the TPP is a done deal. The next hurdle for this perceive rigged corporate power grab is to convince the participating governments, including Congress, to ratify it.

Both chambers of Congress must ratify the TPP by a majority vote using a process called “fast track.” The Trade Justice Movement fought a multi-year campaign to prevent Congress from giving the president fast-track trade authority. "We delayed it for much longer than the corporate traders wanted, forcing the TPP into the election year. Since the TPP is believed to be a 'Toxic Political Poison,' an election year is not when they wanted to consider it. The corporate traders were required to compromise and to pass fast track. One key compromise was making the text of the agreement public for 60 days before Congress considers it. This is a tremendous opportunity to educate and mobilize people."

Just after the TPP negotiators reached an agreement, Ralph Nader was asked if the TPP could be stopped. He said, “It will be stopped on its demerits.” He further noted its wide impact, saying, “Its scope is everything,” and described it as a “global corporate coup … the most brazen corporate power grab in American history.” The TPP, he added, is “a major peril to our national authority” that is “ceding our sovereignty, ceding our self-reliance, ceding everything we can do within the boundaries of the United States.”

The TPP is a bad deal. Just like every other similar agreement, it is going to outsource jobs, lower wages globally, increase the wealth divide, increase the U.S. trade deficit, undermine democracy, weaken the federal court system, degrade the environment and undermine sovereignty at every level of government. The more people who learn about this deal, the worse it will look, and if we resist it, the likelihood of passage in Congress will shrink.

And, similar to the TPP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is having troubles in Europe. Europeans see TTIP either not advancing or going in the wrong direction because of the heavy handedness of the U.S. The French negotiator said: “France is considering all options including an outright termination of negotiations.”

More than 3 million people across Europe signed a petition calling on the European Commission to scrap the agreement and hundreds of thousands marched in Berlin last Oct. 10 opposing the TTIP. People realize that rather than opening up new markets, since the U.S. and EU countries already trade a great deal, it will privatize public services for corporate profits. (By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Global Research, October 24, 2015)

As the TPP getting closer to its ratification, opposition to the said agreement is also growing stronger. There are reports that the US Congress will delay the ratification until late 2016.

“In the US, opposition continues to mount, suggesting that the TPP faces a difficult time getting through Congress.

US Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, came out against the TPP, arguing that it is too favourable to powerful pharmaceutical companies and believing that it didn’t “meet the high bar I have set”. While Clinton’s opposition could be viewed as mere politicking in the lead up to an election year, opposition is mounting across the board.

The powerful US pharmaceutical lobby is reportedly livid that the TPP did not secure better monopoly protections, whereas big tobacco lobby and its representatives in Congress are furious that the industry has been carved-out of the investor-state dispute settlement provision, thus limiting its ability to take legal action against member states that regulate against the tobacco industry.” (By Leith van Onselen, http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/10/us-to-delay-tpp-ratification-until-late-2016/)

The much talked about US pivot to Asia wherein the TPP is the centerpiece seemed to have lost its way by dealing with the Middle East crisis.

As what Fareed Zakaria opinion writer at the Washington Post online) wrote “The Obama administration’s foreign policy energies are fully engaged in the Middle East — negotiating the Iran deal, sending Special Operations forces into Iraq, supporting Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, working with the Syrian rebels. Whatever happened to the pivot to Asia?

Remember, the basic argument behind the pivot was that the United States was overinvested in the Middle East, a crisis-prone region of dwindling importance to the U.S. national interest. Asia, on the other hand, is the future. Of the four largest economies, three are in Asia, if measured by purchasing-power parity. As Singapore’s late leader Lee Kuan Yew often said, “America will remain the world’s dominant power in the 21st century only if it is the dominant Pacific power.”

The growing tension in some of the flashpoints where a regional conflict might be waiting to be triggered by a miscalculated event are just too overwhelming for a leader who will be facing an election soon. President Obama will have to play his cards well in order to have a legacy that will go down in history as something to be proud of. If not.....

End Game in Syria by Erick San Juan

End Game in Syria by Erick San Juan


In an article written by Tony Cartalucci, US End Game in Syria is Just the Beginning for A Wider Regional War?, he writes, “To call it a civil war is a gross mischaracterization. The entire conflict was engineered and fueled from beyond Syria’s borders. And while there are significant number of Syrians collaborating with this criminal conspiracy, the principal agents driving the conflict are foreigners. They include special interests in the United States, across the Atlantic in Europe, and regional players including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel. Syria is far from an isolated conflict. America’s interest in dividing and destroying Syria is part of a much larger agenda serving its aspirations both in the region and globally. The division and destruction of Syria as a functioning, sovereign nation-state is admittedly meant to set the stage for the conquest of Iran next."

"US End Game in Syria is just the beginning for wider regional war. Reuters recently published an op-ed titled, Syria’s one hope may be as dim as Bosnia’s once was, which argues that the only way the US can cooperate with Russia regarding Syria is if all players agree to a weakened, fragmented Syria.

If this scheme sounds familiar, that is because this op-ed was authored by Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution – a corporate-financier funded think-tank that has in part helped engineer the chaos now consuming the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). O’Hanlon previously published a paper titled, “Deconstructing Syria: A New Strategy for America’s most Hopeless War,” in which he also calls for the division and destruction of Syria.

In it, O’Hanlon calls for the establishment of “safe zones,” the invasion and occupation of Syrian territory by US, European, and Persian Gulf special forces, the relaxing of criteria used to openly fund what would essentially be terrorists operating in Syria, and openly making the ousting of the Syrian government, a priority on par with the alleged US fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS/ISIL).” (Posted at Global Research, October 17, 2015)

Sounds familiar? World leaders didn’t learn from history at all, repeating the same mistakes. In our case, if our own leaders will not be cautious enough, the design for the country’s balkanization is still on. It was delayed alright but the goal of some evil-minded globalists to balkanize this country is very much on the table. As I have written a few decades ago that the program (balkanization) is on but can be delayed, will materialize if we are not careful in choosing our next leaders.

The regional war we might get into by being ‘loyal’ or our leaders blackmailed by the Big Brother and be used as a cannon fodder against China is something that we have to rethink. The crisis in the Middle East will definitely affect our own peaceful existence because our corrupt leaders allowed and pressured to support US troops in its pivot to Asia to have its virtual military bases here.

There are lessons to be learned in contemporary history that we should be aware of and not be misguided by greedy collaborators. There is so much going on in the Middle East. In Syria  for example, that we should be vigilant enough so as not to be dragged Into another war.

“Putin, with a clear message to Washington and NATO governments on the subject of national sovereignty, something anathema to many who embrace the Nirvana supposed to come from globalization, homogenization of all to one level."

"What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here?” Putin rhetorically asked. “It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future. By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.”

Putin added, “We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one. We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress. “

"Those few words succinctly point to what is fundamentally wrong in the international order today. Nations, above all the one proclaiming herself Sole Superpower, Infallible Hegemon, the USA, have arrogantly moved after the collapse of the main adversary, the Soviet Union in 1990, to create what can only be called a global totalitarian empire, what G.H.W. Bush in his September 11, 1991 address to Congress called a New World Order. I believe with conviction that borders do matter, that respect for different cultures, different historical experiences is essential in a world of peace. That is as much true with nations as with individual human beings. We seem to have forgotten that simple notion amid all the wars of the past decades. Vladimir Putin reminds us.” (Putin is Defeating More than ISIS in Syria by F. William Engdahl, October 16, 2015 @Information Clearing House)

Thanks to the American patriots in exposing the hidden agenda of the globalists. We have forgotten our sovereignty just to kowtow to a perceived master. Unless we act as one sovereign nation and assert our rights to say no and insist to get what is due us, we will remain a slave in the this age of sophistication through modern technology and be ruled just like in the Middle Ages.

Seachange in World Affairs by Erick San Juan

Seachange in World Affairs by Erick San Juan

According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on the recent geopolitical crisis in the Middle East, particularly in Syria – “The world is beginning to realize that a seachange in world affairs occurred on September 28 when President Putin of Russia stated in his United Nations speech that Russia can no longer tolerate Washington’s vicious, stupid, and failed policies that have unleashed chaos, which is engulfing the Middle East and now Europe.

Two days later, Russia took over the military situation in Syria and began the destruction of the Islamic State forces.

Perhaps among Obama’s advisors, there are a few who are not drowning in hubris and can understand this seachange. Sputnik news reported that some high-level security advisors to Obama have advised him to withdraw US military forces from Syria and give up his plan to overthrow Assad. They advised Obama to cooperate with Russia in order to stop the refugee flow that is overwhelming Washington’s vassals in Europe. The influx of unwanted peoples are making Europeans aware of the high cost of enabling US foreign policy. Advisors have told Obama that the idiocy of the neoconservatives’ policies threaten Washington’s empire in Europe.

Several commentators, such as Mike Whitney and Stephen Lendman, have correctly concluded, that there is nothing that Washington can do about Russian actions against the Islamic State. The neoconservatives’ plan for a UN no-fly zone over Syria in order to push out the Russians is just a pipedream. No such thing as resolution will come out of the UN. Indeed, the Russians have already established a de facto no-fly zone. (Posted at Global Research, October 11, 2015)

The neocons in Obama’s loop still very much around (very active in the war on terror, Bush Jr. era) influencing decisions that is causing havoc in the Middle East and has affected the global balance, had taken the backseat in the Syrian crisis, for now.

The man-made crisis (by design) is not yet over and the move by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Syria against the Islamic State terror group is only the beginning.

The mere fact that this is a repeat of history, of alliances before a world war, there is still a lot of possibilities waiting to be ignited, like a tinderbox. And now China is coming into the picture.

“China's entry means two major powers are stepping in to do what the U.S. was unwilling to do against IS.

It's a lesson in how fast the tables can turn when America displays weakness — losing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and proving to be ineffective against IS despite fighting it for a year and three months now.

Our commander-in-chief even admits that he has no strategy against the monstrous caliphate that his very own policies of weakness brought into being.

What is apparently happening now was inconceivable before Obama sent America spiraling into decline: our two Cold War adversaries uniting militarily in an effort that will ultimately give them dominance, at our expense, in the most strategically important part of the world, the oil-rich and politically fragile Middle East.

You can't carry out your objectives there over the course of years with the most advanced military in the world? Fine. Watch us do it, Moscow and Beijing are telling us with their actions. And in months, or perhaps only weeks.

How the next president will dig us out of this hole is hard to fathom. A new post-Cold War Brezhnev Doctrine could come into effect, in which Moscow and Beijing warn that they will not let the U.S. reassert its influence in countries they've "liberated" in the Mideast.

If that turns out to be the case, America will be risking war with both Russia and China if it even tries to return to its pre-Obama influence in the region.” (Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com, 10/9/2015)

Pundits believe that the entry of China means our country will be used as cannon fodder being an ally of the ‘mighty Uncle Sam’. An unfortunate scenario that we will be drag again into war whether we like it or not.

And such tension happening now, escalating into a possible global conflict and yet our supposed leaders are infected with the election fever, dragging the whole nation into the pits.