Caspian Morgan

Caspian Morgan's Journal

June 2, 2015

USA Today called out for propaganda and lying to its readers

May 30, 2015

Ukraine president appoints ex-Georgia leader Saakashvili governor

Source: AFP/Yahoo

Odessa (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on Saturday appointed fiercely pro-Western former Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili, who once fought a war with Russia, as governor of the strategic Odessa region.

Poroshenko made the announcement at a televised event in the Black Sea port alongside the reformist Saakashvili, calling the ex-Georgian president a "great friend of Ukraine".

"There remain a large number of problems in Odessa: preserving sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and peace," Poroshenko said.

"But maybe the biggest challenge is another war -- a war against corruption, a war against injustice, a war against the unreformed economy."

The controversial announcement of the flamboyant Saakashvili as head of the southern coastal region is a pointed signal from Kiev to Moscow that it remains set on its pro-European course despite a bloody separatist conflict in the east blamed on the Kremlin.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-president-appoints-ex-georgia-leader-saakashvili-governor-131316539.html

This conflict has now truly entered into bizarro land. Imagine being from Odessa and having a governor appointed over you that is not even from your own country. It makes no sense, especially in consideration of what he previously was responsible for. In case anyones wondering, this is what being a great friend of Nuland and McCain gets you.

May 30, 2015

Guest Post: America Has No Enemy More Lethal Than The Neocon

Submitted by Michael Scheuer via Non-Intervention.com,

Those men who wrote our Constitution made it perfectly intelligible to anyone who cared to read it. They also left some flexibility in its articles to ensure that as time passed and circumstances changed the document would remain viable as the indispensable protector of the republic they created and of the liberty of citizens who delegated a limited amount of their sovereign power to the national government through its provisions. And after a long and often angry ratification debate, the first congress added a bill of rights to the Constitution as that document’s first ten amendments. These amendments were fully as clear as the text — perhaps more so — but less flexible than the body of the document because they dealt with the tenets of republican liberty which, if regularly and deliberately violated by the national government, would require that Americans, to paraphrase Jefferson, demolish the existing government and erect a new one that would better safeguard their liberties and their republic’s security.

In recent decades, however, Americans have been treated to an endless stream of politicians, academics, lawyers, and pundits who describe the opaqueness of the Founder’s Constitution and the need for “experts” to decipher or infer what the document means. As a result, we now have presidents who take the country to war on their whim; politicians who are legally bribed by “campaign contributions” from rich individuals, corporations, labor unions, and foreign lobbies and governments based on an absurd reading of the Constitution; a public that is increasingly endangered by flamboyant blasphemers who seek violence and war under the protection of the First Amendment; and the routine criminality of executive branch officials who refuse to obey their oath of office to execute the laws. We also have the overwhelming majority of both political parties willing to destroy the Fourth Amendment in the name of providing for national security against an enemy they have resolutely refused to either stop motivating or militarily annihilate. Together these realities amount to a more-than-full justification for Americans to recall that, as Jefferson wrote, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-28/guest-post-america-has-no-enemy-more-lethal-neocon

May 30, 2015

IMI- Analysis - Understanding the Grand Chessboard -German Think Tank

http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/

IMI-Analyse 2009/013, in: IMI/DFG-VK: Kein Frieden mit der NATO
Imperial Geopolitics: Ukraine, Georgia and the New Cold War between NATO and Russia

von: Martin Hantke | Veröffentlicht am: 1. Januar 2009
Drucken

Hier finden sich ähnliche Artikel

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand current and future U.S., EU and NATO policy. Over ten years ago the former National Security Advisor gave a graphic description of the imperatives of imperial geopolitics. He argued that the U.S.A.’s position of supremacy should be preserved under all circumstances. To this end NATO, acting as a “bridgehead” of the U.S.A., should expand into Eurasia and take control of geostrategically important regions so as to prevent Russia’s resurgence as a powerful political force.

Brzezinski had in mind two countries or regions in particular: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.” […] “However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”1 Brzezinski argued further that there was an imperative need to gain control of the southern Caucasus, i.e. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, on Russia’s southern flank. The past master of U.S. geopolitics set out the aim and purpose of NATO policy with impressive clarity: “The United States and the NATO countries – while sparing Russia’s self-esteem to the extent possible, but nevertheless firmly and consistently – are destroying the geopolitical foundations which could, at least in theory, allow Russia to hope to acquire the status as the number two power in world politics that belonged to the Soviet Union.

May 30, 2015