Prof. Guy Milliere: How the neo-Democratic Party Leftists are the new totalitarians, destroying the once free America

French professor of law, Guy Milliere: The Left are the new totalitarians, destroying the free America.

Why does Guy Milliere, a French professor of law history, self-exiled to the US, seek to avoid returning to France? In this interview, he interprets the Leftist movement throughout Western countries opposing the US, implementing Marxism, and eliminating liberties from societies.

 

Transcript of interview filmed in late April, 2022: 

DemoCast:  "It is now Holocaust Remembrance Day, and it is celebrated in Israel. There is a Holocaust Remembrance Day internationally at the end of January, but it seems to be commemorated only for the genocide which took place and doesn't seem to be commemorated for the learning experience of how a society becomes brainwashed to turn against its fellow members. If there's one group that's scapegoated - and the government comes up with a policy that they want to divide the population, what's the political science behind this concept?

Prof. Milliere:

I could say that democracies are very fragile, and I could say that they are fragile because of what the Left is. And I could say that if you try to study very carefully what National Socialism is, for example, you see that National Socialism is a movement that belongs to the Left. The same with Fascism. And I could say that by itself, the Left is totalitarian. And in order to understand the Left, I think that you have to understand what Karl Popper wrote when he wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Popper was a famous philosopher of the 20th century, and one of his most famous books is The Open Society and Its Enemies. And he explains that for a long time, for centuries religious clerks had a full power on societies. They could say what the truth is, and it was an absolute truth. It was a truth coming from their definition of God. And they started to lose this power slowly, and the society changed. People started to think by themselves and people start, started to be more free. And so they lost their power and they started to hate a society where freedom could exist and where their definition of truth could be criticized. And the result was that they became enemies of freedom, enemies of the society that was starting to exist, and from capitalism, market economy, democracy, the idea of the rule of law. And it created a totalitarianism slowly, it was not called totalitarianism, but it was totalitarianism.

And you had many movements in Europe, but the first time this kind of totalitarians became successful was the French Revolution. During the French Revolution, in the beginning you had people who said they support freedom, they support the rule of law, but slowly these people were vanishing. And the people who took the power in 1792 were totalitarians, and they had their definition truth, and they wanted to impose this definition of truth. And French society and the people who disagreed were called enemies of the people, <affirmative> or enemies of the state, and they were killed. You had mass murders. The first mass murders of the modern times happened in the west of France in Vande, and you had hundreds of thousand people who were killed. They even try to invent gas chambers. And I could say that from that moment, the left was totally Italian. The left is based on hatred for open societies for all aspects of western civilization capitalist mechanism, market economy freedom free speech democracy, the roll of flower. And from that moment, they try to destroy all that and to impose their view of society and for a time for why they tried to create different societies. 

And that's what Lenin tried to do when he created the Soviet Union. It's what Hitler tried to do in Germany. What Muslim tried to do and all that collapsed. The Nazis created a world war and the fascist followed the Nazi and all that collapsed in a disaster. And they killed many people. He had the worst genocide in history show the Holocaust and Soviet Union collapsed later. And I could say that China never collapsed, but you have less and less people who think that China could be the future different future, but you still have people who think like that. They hide what they think, and they could say that if you look, and it's very important to see it. If you look at what what's happening in devils the people who speak of the great reset, you see that they have a strong admiration for the Chinese way of transforming a society. <affirmative> Zhin Ping was invited very often, and I could say that these people are the new totalitarians.

So when you think that the left is opposed to that, you could say that you have two aspects of the left. You have a leftist, you have many leftist here, and they think that close pub is their enemy. But if you look at the Biden administration, for example, in the United States, you see that the Biden administration is very close to the ideas of Schwab on the graduate set. And they say it clearly when they speak sometimes. And so these people wants to destroy open societies and the societies like the United States, why so many people in the world hate the United States? It's because the United States is the most powerful open society in the world. And if the United States did not exist, I could say Hitler could have been Vic victorious <affirmative>. He could have won the war would have, Yes, yes, of course. And in the beginning, Hitler and Stalin were allies after that they had to fight together.

And they could say that if the United States had not decided to help Stalin I think that Hitler would have one. And in such a case, we would be in a very different world. And afterwards I could say that if the United States did not exist the Soviet Union could have won. So the United States has been for more than one century the enemy of totals. So the totals hate the United States because the United States defeated them many times, <affirmative>. And it's the same with the new form of totalitarianism that is Islamism radical Muslims were largely defeated by the United States. So it the same. And so if you want to understand why so many people hated the United States, you have to understand that it's because of what the United States is. The United States is a beacon of democracy, of human rights, of free markets, and of freedom in general. And these people know it.

And so they cannot respect the United States. They just want to destroy the United States. And they could say that the left, and it's the case with the American left, wants to destroy the United States. And if you look at the new left that is now the left you see that these people had only one aim and they start to be successful. I hope that they will be defeated, but they would to be defeated quickly. They want to destroy the American society. And if you look at what the forbid the Biden administration is doing, you can see that the Biden administration is trying to destroy all the elements constituting the United States. They want to destroy the American population. That's why they did open the border on the south, the border between Mexico and the United States. You, you're have many, many people who come in the country and they don't try to see who these people are.

And many of these people are members of gangs. Many of these people practice drug trafficking. Many of these people are gangsters. Many of these people terrorists carry. Yes, you have terrorists among them. And many of these people can be sick. They carry disease. And these people bring drugs like fentanyl in the United States, and slowly they destroy the American society. They create areas that are unsafe. They create AR areas where people don't integrate to American society. They create AR areas where people hate the United States. And as it's not enough they destroy history. If you look at the way American history is practiced in high schools in universities, you see that students are brainwashed by the curriculum. Yeah, exactly. If you listen to what is said in historic classes you see that the teachers want children or students in general to hate this country, to think that this country was created thanks to genocide, slavery, and that really, this country is disgusting.

This country must be destroyed. So you create a generation of people who wants to destroy the country they live in, and they do the same thing with the blacks. They say to the blacks You built this country, <affirmative>, everything that exists in this country has been built by you but Doty white people exploited you, <affirmative>. So you have to take a revenge. And white people are racist, <affirmative>, and so slowly they disseminate destruction in the United States and they can be successful. I could say that right now many things are destroyed. In the United States, the education system is largely destroyed because when in a country you learn to children and to students to hate their own country, you destroy a country. If you look at the media, mass media, mainstream media in the United States, you see that they don't give information to people. It's mostly propaganda.

And the propaganda has one aim to destroy the country, to push people, to hate each other, to think that they cannot rely on each other to think that businesses are practicing exploitation of poor people, <affirmative> business are greedy, et cetera, etc. So they destroy any aspect of society and they want people to push this destruction because they are brainwashed. And we are in this kind of situation right now. And so the problem is not only to gain power again and to win elections, but you will have many, many more things to do. You would have to change the way the education works. You would have to change the media and you would have to change many aspects of business because in many businesses you have people who think like that and who try to educate the employees of the business and to think that they are guilty when they are white and that they are exploiters of black people.

And so I think that it would be a huge task to try to recover from now on. And it would be a huge work. I could say that during the Trump years Trump tried to redress the situation, but to address the situation. Yeah. Yes. But he was not successful or he was partly successful, but four years or not enough. And I could say even when I speak of four years I'm too generous. It was only three years. After three years, you had the pandemic and the left use the pandemic to destroy the economy, to destroy freedom, et cetera, et cetera. And as it was not enough they created riots all about the country.

DemoCast:

Was that purely for the election, the purpose of the election or beyond that? Did it serve a purpose beyond the

Prof. Milliere:

No. For them for the left the election of Trump was a bad surprise. <affirmative>, they didn't expect it. And so immediately they started to destroy the Trump presidency to do their best

DemoCast :

For the deep state.

Prof. Milliere:

Yeah. Yes, yes, exactly. The deep state is working for the left. It's obvious. And so they did hope that Trump could do nothing. <affirmative> Trump could do a few things anyway, but they did their best to create a situation where it could do nothing. And as it was not enough, after three years, they used the pandemic, as I said, and they destroyed the economy. They pushed people to be afraid. They said, they started to say to people, All of you will die if you don't stop to work, if you don't go back home if you accept the destruction of your freedom. And the American economy collapsed for a few month and after they started to recover. But when the economy started to recover they used the death of a gangster, a small thief in Minneapolis named George Floyd. George Floyd, exactly. They used it to create riots.

And the riots created a lot of destruction in the country. And because of that situation, it was easier to use fraud to change the fraud, to change the result of the elections. So they were successful. And after that by Biden came to power and they could start to destroy the country again. And they did it very quickly. I could say that when Obama was president, Obama was an anti-American leftist, still an anti-American leftist, but he did it slowly. And now it's quick, stronger destruction. If you look at the southern border, even under Obama, you didn't have the present situation and the southern border of the country. You have thousands and thousands of people went through the country every day. And after that, these people are put in buses or in planes, and they are sent to many, many parts of the country. They do it by night. So people cannot see it, but they do it. And so they want to destroy the American population. That's very clear. And they push different agenda in the education system. When you say Zay, are you referring just to No left, the far left, the Biden administration. And

DemoCast:

Is it the Democratic Party around the country - or only in Washington?

Prof. Milliere:

All around the country, I could say that you have less and less moderate Democrats. Moderate Democrats are pushed away and almost everywhere. And there you have insane leftist who really wants to destroy the country. And if you see all the money that was spent by the bid, by the administration in the first month, <affirmative> you see that they wanted to create inflation, now you have inflation. But they are not insane. They knew what they were doing. When you create a lot of money and when you create much more money than what you produce, create inflation because, so they created inflation. It all economists know that because every part of the money you create is supposed to be able to buy a part of what your product, of what you produce. And if you increase the amount of money and if you don't increase the amount of what you produce, you create inflation. Every dollar can buy much less. So to buy the same amount, you have to use many more dollars. And you have the goal is to destroy property to destroy the value of money and to push people to be more dependent from the state, from the government because people have less money. But the government can say, You have problems, you don't have enough money, we can send you checks. So people become dependent on the government, they lose their independence. And that's what's happening right now.

DemoCast:

Is it Communism?

Prof. Milliere:

Yes, it the way leading to Communism. 

DemoCast:

And to ensure communist equality. Yeah. What does the government then require of the population? So to find out that people are not using the black market or getting around the government and dissent, what kind of steps do they take to invade people's privacy?

Prof. Milliere:

They can invade people's privacy in many, many ways. For example they can say, You need to use vaccines. Or if you don't use vaccines, you will not be able to travel. You will not be able to do many, many things. So it's a way to invade privacy. And if you become dependent on the government, if you receive a part of what you need to live from the government, you become dependent from the government. You are not in independent anymore. So they don't want people to be independent. And if you increase the price of gas you create a situation in which it's becoming harder and harder for people to travel, to visit France, to do many, many things <affirmative>. So you destroy liberty, you destroy the possibility for people to go somewhere else and to do many, many things. So it's a way to destroy liberty.

And I could say that if you want to understand what's happening right now in the United States, you have to look at what did happen in France or in other European countries. I'm coming from France, so I know how it works in France. I would say 30, 40 years ago you had some Muslims living in the country, but not as, Right now you have more than 750 no-go zones in France. And these areas are no-go for the police. The police cannot, cannot enter. They cannot. No, they cannot enter these zones. And too dangerous. Exactly. Or if they go inside because they are looking for an order or something like that, they can create riots. And if you have riots all over the country, it creates a very dangerous situation for everybody. So they prefer to don't go in to leave these areas alone. So French people leave these areas and they are abundant.

They are not part of the French territory anymore. And it has very bad consequences for the economy because in these areas you have gangs, and these gangs go out of these areas to steal to practice bank robbery to murder people, people. And so you destroy the economy and the freedom of people to go out and to do many, many things. So it did happen in France. And I could say that if you look at the price of gas, the price of gas is much higher than here. And so people travel much less, and they use people to use public transportation on only public transportation. And when you use only public transportation you depend on the government because the good government control public transportation. And so you have less freedom to do what you want to do, but

DemoCast:

They restrict someone's access to...

Prof. Milliere:

Yes. And they use the idea that you have a global warming or climate change to <affirmative>. And they said, because of climate change we have to block streets. You have no possibility to go in some areas of the city except if you walk. So it's a good way to push people to comply, to have less freedom. And I could say that speaking about global warming and speaking of climate change is a good way to destroy every freedom, every liberty in the country. Because if you say to people, if you use your car, you contribute to global warming or you contribute to climate change. So don't use your car. Even if you travel somewhere you contribute to global warming and to climate change. And for example, even if you buy a ticket of plane or if you take the train in France, when you buy your ticket, it shows that you produce this amount of carbon monoxide.

So you are guilty and they show you that you are guilty. So you feel I'm guilty, so I will not do it anymore. And <affirmative>, when you destroy liberty when you destroy freedom you create people who are compliant and who accept almost anything. <affirmative>. And I could say France use Chinese methods during the pandemic. Yeah. For example, for several month French people were supposed to stay inside the home and they had no right to go out, or they could go out for one hour a day, That's it. They had no right to speak to other people in the streets because it could have been dangerous. <affirmative> you could be contaminated. They didn't have the right to go out and to go on the beach, for example, even in they were alone in the beach, <affirmative> I don't know if they risked to contaminate the sand or the sea <laugh>, but they had no right.

And all the people accepted this situation, <affirmative>. And they had to show a paper saying, I go out for one hour and to show it to the police. And they didn't have the right to go away from the home for a distance that would be more than health, health minor. That's it. <affirmative>. So all the apartments, all the houses in France were transformed into prisons. <affirmative>, <affirmative>, all people accepted to be prisoners in their own home, <affirmative>. And they accepted it. Nobody contested that <affirmative>. And in order to brainwash people every day at 8:00 PM you had a doctor coming on TV saying, Today 120 people died. Died. 1000 people had to go to the hospital, etcetera, <affirmative>. So people were supposed to say to themselves, I risk to die if I go out I risk to die. If I go back to the freedom I had in the past, it became impossible on all the people accepted. Nobody tried to go against that. Cause everyone was afraid to die. So France become a kind of totalitarian society and all the freedoms were completely suppressed for several months.

DemoCast:

<affirmative>. 

Prof. Milliere:

The mainstream media. You have two kinds of media in France, either media that belongs to the state. So you have state propaganda or media that belongs to company, companies, corporate that work for the state. So they have ties to the state, right? If they don't say what the state ask them to say they lose their contracts.

DemoCast:

Well, isn't it similar in the United States?

Prof. Milliere:

I don't think so. I think that you still have here come some independent media. For example, I could say that media like Fox News belong to a big business that works only in the field of news or motion picture industry, but they don't depend on the state. And I could say that it's the same with Newsmax, for example. Newsmax has no tie to the government. Yes. So you have that, but you don't have that in France. In many European countries you don't have that

DemoCast:

<affirmative>. But these are exclusive channels that people have to pay to receive as opposed to broadcast channels, broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, NBC.

Prof. Milliere:

Oh, these businesses

DemoCast :

And the local stations who are also corporate connected. Most stations are not truly independent, but they're corporations

Prof. Milliere :

For whom. But you still have some elements of liberty here that you don't have anymore in countries like France, unlike most European countries,

DemoCast:

<affirmative>.

Prof. Milliere :

So it's not perfect at all. And I could say that you still have American billionaires, they can buy something like Twitter. Twitter for example. And you see the reaction of the left. Ellen Musk said I want free speech. Twitter will become a place for free speech. And you look at the reaction of the left, the left say, Oh, it's scary. We don't want that. He will destroy our way to think about free speech. For them, free speech is only the way they speak

DemoCast :

The way they

Prof. Milliere :

Think. Yes. And the way they think and the way they speak.

DemoCast :

But there are more billionaires who own, as an example, Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Besos owns the Washington Post.

Prof. Milliere :

Yes.

DemoCast :

So there's much more billionaire or

Prof. Milliere :

Yes, exactly. Exactly of what we hear. I could say that here in the United States, 80, 85% of the media belongs to the left <affirmative>. In France, it's almost 100%. So at least you have some element of freedom that are left in the United States.

DemoCast :

Are these leftist sways in the individual countries? Are they disconnected or are they somehow related?

Prof. Milliere :

I don't understand your question. 

DemoCast :

What I mean, is it just France and Italy just independently become a more leftist? Or is there some kind of a central influence like China or World Economic Forum?

Prof. Milliere :

I could say that the World Economic Forum has a strong influence. China has a strong influence. And I could say that in Europe you have the European Union. And the European Union creates a kind of nomen cura taking care of every aspect of European societies. And I could say that a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky wrote a book about that and said the European Union has one model, the Soviet Union, they work like the Soviet Union. They didn't destroy all liberties, but that's what they want to do it. So the European Union is a kind of subject union that can last because they didn't destroy all the freedoms.

DemoCast :

What happened to you when you addressed these issues in European media? Personally

Prof. Milliere :

I used to be a talk show host guest for a couple of month a guest. And before the show was starting, people were saying to me, Don't speak about that. It's forbidden. <affirmative> don't do it. So

DemoCast:

Who would say it? The people at the TV or radio?

Prof. Milliere :

Yeah, no, the people who own the media the people who represent them. And so some topics were for forbidden. I couldn't speak about it <affirmative>. And I could say that I stopped to be a talk show host guest.

DemoCast :

You were a host? Yeah.

Prof. Milliere :

Oh, for a couple of month. But sorry. But a frequent West guest was Muslim, <affirmative> leftist Muslim, <laugh> <affirmative>. And he was saying things that I could not accept. So I was criticized him very often. And one day he said the Holocaust did not even exist.

DemoCast :

Did it occur? Yeah.

Prof. Milliere :

And so I said, That's insane, <affirmative>. And I wrote an article about that <affirmative>. And the next day he said to the owners of this station If you keep him, I will never come back again. And people like me will not come back again. The next day I was fired.

DemoCast :

<affirmative>. Was it a Muslim channel?

Prof. Milliere :

No.

DemoCast :

What kind of a channel was

Prof. Milliere :

It? It was a private channel with connection with the government. But it was a private channel, not a Muslim channel. So if Muslim say bad, a leftist Muslim say bad things, if

DemoCast :

They complain,

Prof. Milliere :

They have the right to say it. If you criticize them you are the guilty party.

DemoCast :

Is it a bit like black activists can label someone as

Prof. Milliere :

Racist? They're done. Exactly.

DemoCast :

How about Muslims? Is it similar in the US today?

Prof. Milliere :

No, because they have much less power in the United States right now. And I think that they have much less power. It's because you have only a small amount of Muslims in American society. You have Muslims, but not as small as many as in country like France, in the country, like France. And they are 10% of the population. And it's almost impossible to get elected if you don't have the Muslim vote. And so you have to pay attention to what you say. You have to know that if you say something wrong about the Muslim, they will not vote for you. So you will not be elected the next time. You have to know that if you say really something strong against Muslims, you can have riots, et cetera, et cetera. <affirmative>. So

DemoCast :

What is Islamist imperialism is when you say Muslims in a country, maybe French Muslims have their own individual attitude. And in Germany and in Canada and America, they have, Or is there

Prof. Milliere :

Some kind of in every country where you have Muslims you can have some Muslims who integrate in societies. But Islam said that if you are a good Muslim, you are a member of the community of believers. And the community of believers is all Muslims on the south page of the earth. And you have to respect other Muslims and you have to obey to Muslim love. And according to Islam, the world is divided in two parts. One part is Dar al Islam. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> the territory where Islam rules

DemoCast :

The sphere of Muslim influence (power).

Prof. Milliere :

Yes, exactly. In any country. Yes. Yes. And you have a Dar al Harb - the realm of war. So this territory is a territory where Islam doesn't rule yet, but people, it's supposed to rule later

DemoCast:

For the, It's the land of battle for conquest.

Prof. Milliere:

Exactly. Exactly. So the duty of a good Muslim is to disseminate Islam and to push people to convert or to submit

DemoCast :

Into just what their religious beliefs are. Or in terms of political influence?

Prof. Milliere :

I could say that in Islam you don't have any difference between religion and politics. All that is connected in Islam God rules, God rules not only religiously but also politically. And so God has to rule everywhere, in every aspect of society.

DemoCast :

Why isn't this more known by now 20 years after September 11th?

Prof. Milliere :

I could say that it's because of the left think that Muslims and Islam can be their ally. They have something in common and they have something in common. They want to destroy the Western civilization. The left wants to destroy Western civilization. <affirmative> Muslims want to destroy Western civilization, <affirmative>. So they have this in common and they can work together. So I could say that Islamists think that it's good for them to have allies in the left because it helped them to conquer the West conquer and to make the west more Islamic. And the left think we use the Muslim to conrow the West. So one day we shall triumph and we shall get rid of Muslims, <affirmative>. And I think that Muslims have more possibilities to rule in the future because you have many more Muslims on the surface of the earth, then you have a leftist <affirmative>. And so I think that leftist are the useful idiots of Islam right now,

DemoCast :

How much leftist essence exists in main, the mainstream democratic party?

Prof. Milliere :

I think that the Democratic party is now leftist party. It was not the case 20 years ago, but now it's different. Now it's a leftist party. And maybe you have some Democrats who are not leftist, but they are pushed on the side. Or I think that people say to them, If you want to be elected as a Democrat, you have to accept the way we are now. If you don't accept and go out, go away, <affirmative>, you will not stay in the party.

DemoCast :

<affirmative>, is there a parallel? Did this occur in any European countries where the central,

Prof. Milliere :

Yeah. Yes, I could say that. If I look at the last elections in France, for example the traditional party of the left almost disappeared completely. The French socialist party got less than 2% of the votes last time. But leftist party who accept Islamist got 25%, almost 25% 23, something like that. So you see that leftist working with Islamist gain power, <affirmative>. And I could say that if a candidate of the traditional communist party had not been a candidate, the candidate of this leftist Islamic party could have been present at the second round of the election. And if the people who were older than 65 had not voted this guy would got more than 30% of the votes. So they are becoming very strong <affirmative>. They gain ground.

DemoCast :

Yes. How does, because we're recording this on Holocaust remembrance Day in terms of lessons that can be learned, how did the population of a western civilized country like Germany, how did the population become? So how did they turn so loyal to the state and opposed to their Jewish neighbors?

Prof. Milliere :

I'm not sure that they are opposed to Jewish neighbors. I could say that right now in Germany. In Germany people have a strong sense of guilt. They still have a Yes. Even today, how

DemoCast :

Did it occur in the 1930s that the government was able to

Prof. Milliere :

But they feel that what did happen in the 1930s was coming from the fact that they rejected all the people who are different from them. And for them, they rejected Jews for that reason. And now they apply this way of thinking to Muslims. So they say We rejected Jews in the past and it was really bad. It led to the Holocaust. Now we accept Jews, but we accept everyone. So we even accept Muslims, we accept radical Muslims. We have to be tolerant. And because of that, Germany is moron more Muslim. You heard more and more Muslims in Germany and Germans are paralyzed. They say nothing. And you have antisemitism in Germany, but it's mostly Muslim antisemitism.

DemoCast :

Mostly Muslim? 

Prof. Milliere :

Yeah, Muslim antisemitism. So because of that, Germans are afraid to criticize antisemites because they are Muslims and they say, We accept everyone. We don't want to say something bad about Muslims. And the same in France. They

DemoCast :

Don't wanna feel that they're racist.

Prof. Milliere :

Yes, yes, exactly.

DemoCast :

And how does this allow Islamism to rise to influence?

Prof. Milliere :

Yeah, because of that, they say we have to be tolerant, we have to accept all different people. And it's the same in France, the left gang ground and the Islam gang is gaining ground. Because of that you have more and more Islamist in France, in Germany. How about

DemoCast :

Britain?

Prof. Milliere :

The same thing. Britain? Yeah.

DemoCast :

The Corbyn Labor Party. This has this kind of influence.

Prof. Milliere :

Yeah, yeah. Yes, exactly. Exactly. 

Guy Millière, a senior fellow of the Gatestone Institute, is a professor at the University of Paris and published 27 books on France, Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. He is also the authors of thousands of articles published in France, Israel, and the United States. His last book, “The Resistible Rise of Barack Obama,” is an analysis of the policies and consequences of the Obama administration. He is working on an autobiography, “Dissident,” that will be published Spring 2023.

Here is a list of Prof. Milliere's articles in English on Gatestone Institute's website.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/author/Guy+Milliere 

Military option unlikely as Russia equips Bushehr nuclear reactor to go radioactive on Saturday

Iran to launch what Israel pled with U.S. to be permitted to deny them of (as Israel did to Iraq's Osirak).  Considered a boon for the defense industry (creating customers among all Middle East countries for defensive and offensive armaments- including more nuclear arsenals) Russia will equip and launch Iran's nuclear reactor in 48 hours.

Likelihood of strike on Iran reactor dwindling quickly by Stewart Stogel in World Net Daily
Officials say presence of Russian, Chinese personnel protect it

The diplomatic route appears the most likely direction for both Washington and Jerusalem.

Bushehr's activation will come about one month before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is due to travel to New York City to address the 2010 U.N. General Assembly.

Also at the 2010 meetings will be President Obama, Russia's Dimitri Medvedev and the U.K.'s David Cameron. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is also scheduled to travel to New York to attend the U.N. forum

Israel's Latma.TV supplies comic relief to the global frustration:

Music video: "The Bomb" by Iran's Minister of Information and Destruction

'Documentary "U.N. Me" depicts institutionalized corruption, complicity to terrorism, genocide,' director Ami Horowitz tells DemoCast in Washington

In a film that exposes the incompetence and corruption at the heart of the United Nations, filmmakers Ami Horowitz and Matthew Groff show how an organization created to enoble mankind now actually enables evil and sows global chaos. U.N. Me takes us on a harrowing and darkly humorous tour of the U.N.'s scandalous disregard for the people and principles it was founded to defend.

Director Ami Horowitz spoke with DemoCast.TV about his team's documentary at a preview held at the annual CPAC convention in Washington, DC.



The film addresses how the organization that ought to be leading the international effort to eradicate terrorism cannot, seven years after 9/11, agree on a definition of "terrorism."

Also, how the U.N.'s Human Rights Council prolonged the genocide in Darfur by attempting to discredit the urgent recommendations of its own investigative team.

Balancing these stories against exclusive interviews with former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, Nobel laureate Jody Williams, and others, U.N. Me delivers an unforgettable account of how the world's foremost humanitarian organization has become the clubhouse of dictators, thugs, and tyrants.

Ami Horowitz will discuss the film following a screening by StandWithUs at Beverly Hills' Writers Guild Theater on Wednesday evening.

Tehran: If Iran is attacked, nuclear devices will go off in American cities

This warning, along with an announcement that Iran would join the world's nuclear club within a month, raised the pitch of Iranian anti-US rhetoric to a new high Tuesday, April 13, as 47 world leaders gathered in Washington for President Barack Obama's Nuclear Security Summit. The statement published by Kayhan said: "If the US strikes Iran with nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America's main cities." For the first time, debkafile's military sources report, Tehran indicated the possibility of passing nuclear devices to terrorists capable of striking inside the United States.

Without specifying whether those elements would be Iranian or others, Tehran aimed at the heart of the Nuclear Security Summit by threatening US cities with nuclear terror.

Debkafile's Iranian sources report that Tehran is playing brinkmanship to demonstrate that the Washington summit, from which Iran and North Korea were excluded, failed before it began, because terrorist elements capable of striking inside the US had already acquired nuclear devices for that purpose.

Although Iran has yet to attain operational nuclear arms, our military sources believe it does possess the makings of primitive nuclear devices or "dirty bombs."

In an interview ahead of the summit, President Obama warned: "If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications... would be devastating."


In another shot at the summit, Behzad Soltani, deputy director of Iran's Atomic Commission, announced Tuesday: "Iran will join the world nuclear club within a month in a bid to deter possible attacks on the country." He added: "No country would even think about attacking Iran once it is in the club."

"US researchers postulate Israeli tactical nuclear strike on Iran" - Debka

DEBKAfile Special Report  March 28, 2010

Tactical nuclear weapon

DEBKAfile's military sources point in particular to the work of two eminent experts on Iran's nuclear program, Anthony Cordesman and American-Jordanian Abdullah Toqan for the Washington Institute for Strategic Affairs, who report the belief in some American military circles that "…nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels…"

The quote was embodied in a 208-page report published Friday, March 26 under the heading: Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program.  They explain that because of the limited scale of its air and missile forces, Israel would resort to "using these [nuclear] warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons, given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie."

Islamist-reformer's expert advice: For peace in Mid-East - first defeat Islamist Iran

Neutralizing the mullah regime in the Islamic Republic is pivotal to any peace negotiations in the Middle East, not the other way around, says Dr. Tawfik Hamid in the Jerusalem Post.


Call to name and shame
This week, two Iranian sisters, Zohreh and Azar Kabiri, ages 27 and 28, respectively, were sentenced to death by stoning in Karaj, 40 km west of Tehran. It is their second sentencing: They've already received 99 lashes each at the hands of their government for the crime of "illegal relations," in a trial conducted without a defense attorney. The court decided to try them again for the same crime, now finding that they were guilty of actual "adultery" - an offense punishable by death in Iran.

Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, and Bibi Netanyahu to address 10th annual Herzliya Policy Conference

Click to see the Program for 10th Annual Herzilya Policy Conference
Monday 8:30 am - 21:30 Israel time, 10:30pm Sunday - 11:30 am Pacific time
Tuesday 8:30 am - 21:30 Israel time, 10:30pm Monday - 11:30 am Pacific time
Wednesday 8:30 am - 20:45 Israel time, 10:30pm Tuesday - 10:45 am Pacific time

Watch Live Video from 2010 Herzliya Conference during session hours. Highlights are available here a short while after the session finishes. Full archived sessions should be available a the day after they air.



Videos from 2009 Policy Conference

Obama facilitating pro-Islamist Brzezinski/Baker policy; Appoints regime's lobbyist in charge of precluding Iran nuclear weapons; Forces Israel to go it alone; Peres visits Brazil & Argentina ahead of Ahmadinejad & Abbas

President Obama reversed his announcement to snub visiting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu while both visited the Jewish Federation Convention in DC. The President Israel's prime minister met behind closed doors, discussing U.S.-Israel ties, Iran and Mideast peace talks, according to a White House statement.

Obama's meeting Monday evening at the White House with Benjamin Netanyahu was closed to reporters, even omitting the standard photo opportunity and hand shake.

The White House statement following the meeting was unusually terse: "The President and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed a number of issues in the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship. The President reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues. The President and Prime Minister also discussed Iran and how to move forward on Middle East peace." (JTA News)

Pres. Obama replaced Dennis Ross at State with John Limbert to shift US to Brzezinski/Powers policy: facilitate Islamists' war against Jews in hope of appeasing Islamist imperialism

Ed Lasky published in the American Thinker: The New Iran Man at the State Department's Iran Desk

The key goal of the NIAC, as made clear in their master plan, is to place its supporters into key positions of power in Washington.

Their efforts have reached fruition: the National Iranian American Council now has one of their own as the Iran man (literally and metaphorically) at the State Department. The caviar is flowing in Tehran.

Read analysis available from Atlas Shrugs in "The Fix is In: Obama fires Dennis Ross and replaces him with an Iranian-regime lobbyist - John Limbert."

"This is it. As the evidence grew about Iran building bombs and warheads, Obama's team must have shown divisions.

Thus he removes the eyes who saw, Ross, (who is a Clintonian) and replaces him with an Iran regime lobbyist.

The Iran lobby, the NIAC, is a regime presence within the USA. Led by a famous Brzezinski-endorsed Iranian antisemite who blames Israel for Iran-US tensions and denies Ahmadinejad said "wipe off the map".

Basically Obama has handed over the Iran negotiations to an Iranian regime agency. This is grotesque and shows Obama's determination to avoid confronting Iran at all costs (the only thing actually capable of saving his lame duck presidency). He is willing to sacrifice his own future for the advancement of Iranian interests and the reduction of supposed Israeli/Jewish influence. The dogma he tends to believe having Powers and Brzezinski around him and him favoring their views over the more sensible Hilary/Ross camp.

This is time for Hilary and Holbrooke to stand up and resign from this treasonous line up. Even Carter had plans to invade Iran in 1981. Despite people like Vance opposing it. Vance resigned because Carter choose the military option to rescue the hostages."

(Hat-tip to My Right Word)

Why is Israel’s Shimon Peres in Brazil and Argentina? Iran.
For the first time in 40 years, an Israeli president is paying a state visit to Brazil. Israel President Shimon Peres began a week-long visit to Brazil and Argentina today. A key reason: Iran's growing influence in Latin America. (The Christian Science Monitor)

Whose backyard is Latin America now?

That’s the question that a flurry of leaders seem to be trying to answer on a series of visits to the region this month. Israeli President Shimon Peres began his week-long jaunt to Brazil and Argentina today with the stated purpose to “discuss the Iranian infiltration of the continent, opportunities to strengthen political and strategic ties between the countries, and how to increase economic cooperation.”

He’s right on time. The first state visit by an Israeli president to Brazil in 40 years and to Argentina in 20 comes just weeks before an expected trip by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the end of this month. Brazilian officials also say Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas may visit them this month. Since Ahmadenijad was elected in 2005, Iran has opened new embassies in Colombia, Nicaragua, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Boliva – and added ones to Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela, according to the Washington Post.

Israel's Netanyahu speaks truth to power at U.N. General Assembly (speech video)

'The greatest task for the United Nations is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'

Israeli statesman, Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech cuts through this week's bloviating at the United Nations' General Assembly like a knife. He exposes the hypocrisy of member governments sacrificing their integrity to scapegoat ethical Israel in order to enhance their status in business and power.

Mr. Netanyahu rips UN for Ahmadinejad 'disgrace,' Goldstone report in The Jerusalem Post

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. 


(Fox News aircheck courtesy Israel will Stand Alone)

Address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations General Assembly General Debate - 64th Session, United Nations, New York, 24 September 2009
Read speech transcript

"Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances - by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come."

Iranian-Americans confess: 'Regime scapegoats Israel & US as straw-men enemies to firm-up their power & pan-Muslim prominence'

Americans Amb. John Bolton, Thom Friedman, and James Woolsey among expert global affairs analysts at IDC Herzliya's Policy Conference

The Herzliya Conference - Israel‘s primary global policy annual gathering, drew together Israeli and international participants from the highest levels of government, business, and academia to present and debate national, regional and world strategic issues.

(Pictured from right to left, Amb. John Bolton; Chair of UN Watch - Amb. Alfred Moses; Hudson Institute President, Professor Herb London; James Woolsey, former Director, Central Intelligence Agency; American Jewish Congress' President Richard Gordon. Photo: Yotam From).

US former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and former CIA Director, James Woolsey are among the luminaries joining Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni in this policy gathering.

Watch videos of proceedings here on the Herzliya Conference website.

Video of The Jerusalem Post's Military Editor, Yaakov Katz, predicted Israel's Gaza enigma (wrapped in a conundrum) in November

Presentation filmed exclusively by DemoCast.TV in California, 26 November 2008

The Real World Order

Russia rewrites the rules against NATO; US against Iran

Moscow’s blitzkrieg in Georgia is more than a military campaign. It is designed to empower Russia’s diplomatic strategy, which seeks to make the European Union (EU) the West’s chief representative in future negotiations with Russia. Quite naturally the Kremlin wants to escape the logic of U.S. and NATO policy, which is to contain Russia within her national borders. Meanwhile, the European Union is an entirely different animal: toothless, utopian and ready to please.   

In Russia's Concept for Dominating Europe, J.R. Nyquist writes:

The real purpose of this operation, the Russian president hinted, was to highlight the dangerous obsolescence of NATO and Europe’s unrealistic expectations with regard to Russia. The old treaties will not keep the peace, he said, because they are unfair. Russia is a great power and deserves greater influence.

Today the European Union confronts Russia in the same way Neville Chamberlain confronted Hitler in 1938; being outwitted and tricked in the ceasefire negotiations, there is no possible outcome other than appeasement. The Russians insist that their troops be accepted as peacekeepers in Georgia. The French mediators allow this. And so, the stipulated withdrawal of combatants therefore does not apply to the Russian troops. Under this ceasefire agreement Moscow can claim – in a strictly legal sense – that Russian troops can stay in Georgia indefinitely. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are laughing at the French while observing international law. Meanwhile, occupied Georgia is looted and burned; Georgian ships are sunk and the Georgian capital is strangled.

NATO has done nothing, even though NATO has promised to make Georgia a member of the alliance. NATO defers to the European Union. Bush also defers and sends his Secretary of State to Paris instead of Moscow. While all of Europe demanded a negotiated solution, only Poland and the Baltic States (along with Sweden and Denmark) denounced Russian military aggression. All of Europe should have denounced Russia with one voice. All of Europe should have eschewed “negotiations.” All of Europe should have demanded an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia. All of Europe should have begun to mobilize troops and combat aircraft for the defense of Georgia. In that event, Russia would have retreated.

But the Kremlin knew, in advance, this wouldn’t happen. There is no “military confrontation” in Georgia. As President Medvedev said, “I am convinced that with the end of the Cold war … bloc discipline simply disappeared.”

Think-tank, Stratfor elaborates:  The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when Russia and Georgia went to war. Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11, 2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the Real World Order.

The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United States cannot intervene. The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening. The Russians will not act precipitously. They expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.

Will Americans now consider a Presidential candidate able to win in the hardball game that the big boys play?