Philip Giraldi

Many Americans will cast their ballots in November based on their reckoning of which candidate would be less dangerous. Unfortunately, the disappearance of Rep. Ron Paul from the campaign will inevitably mean that the two contenders will not discuss foreign policy in any meaningful way, instead preferring to boast of how tough they would be on America’s enemies.

Given the fact that there will be no actual debate on substantive issues, thoughtful Americans who realize that it is precisely the foreign and security policy nightmare that has evolved over the past 10 years that has fueled the domestic crisis might want to consider which of the two candidates will actually make the situation worse. Based on what the candidates are saying and have actually been doing, it is possible to get some idea of what might await us in 2013.

Mitt Romney is more easily categorized. He knows nothing about foreign policy, is almost willfully ignorant, and is completely dependent on his advisers, most of whom are neoconservatives who held positions in the administration of George W. Bush. There are reports of dissent among his advisers on some key issues, but Romney has invariably personally opted to take positions that might be regarded as more extreme in that they choose to rely on military might and confrontation rather than negotiation and accommodation.

Romney was unique among the gaggle of Republican presidential candidates in calling for increasing the size of the military budget and the armed forces in order to confront America’s enemies, including Iran, Russia, and China. He also joined some other Republicans in emphasizing American exceptionalism, which confers on the United States the role of world leader together with the apparently God-given authority to act unilaterally. It is significant that Romney was recently the recipient of largess derived from a fundraiser organized by Dick Cheney.

More »

Stephen Lendman

ICRC hasn't been doing all that much for the Palestinians either...

Progressive News Hour regular James Petras once said most NGOs skim 90% of donations for themselves. They're predators, not humanitarians. They serve political agendas for profit. They avoid denouncing governmental patrons providing financing. They don't link neoliberal exploitation and human rights violations to imperial agendas. They support wrong over right. They prey on the world's vulnerable. They commit flagrant abuses for self-enrichment and close ties to top government officials. ICRC is no exception. More on it below.

On July 18, Security Council members again vote on a Western resolution. Russia and China vetoed two earlier ones. They reject one-sided proposals. They advance the ball for war. This one includes UN Charter Chapter VII provisions. They range from economic sanctions to blockades or military intervention if other measures fail. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejects Chapter VII authorization. [He said]:

We will vote against the U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria if it is not based on the Geneva agreements.

Geneva language left much to be desired. It agreed on

"facilitat(ing) a Syrian led political process," but overstepped at the same time. Contrary to international law, it accepted "agreed guidelines and principles for a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people."

Syrians had their say earlier. They overwhelmingly adopted a new constitution by national referendum. First time ever parliamentary elections were held. Turnout was high. Voting went smoothly. Independent monitors judged the process open, free and fair. Why repeat what's already accomplished? Most important is that international law prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Doing so in Geneva or elsewhere lacks legitimacy.

More »

Joseph Mercola

When I first read that genetically modified humans have already been born, I could hardly believe it. However, further research into this story featured in the UK's Daily Mail proved it to be true. They've really done it... they've created humans that nature could never allow for, and it's anyone's guess as to what will happen next.

Even more shocking was the discovery that this is actually old news!

The Daily Mail article was not dated, and upon investigation, the experiments cited actually took place over a decade ago; the study announcing their successful birth was published in 2001[.pdf].

While I typically comment on recent findings and health related news, in this case I will make an exception, because I think many of you may be as surprised by this information as I was. I do not propose to have any answers here as this is out of my scope of expertise.

At best, I hope I can stir you to ponder the implications of this type of genetic engineering, and I invite you to share your perspective in the vital votes' comment section here.

More »