20 reasons why the U.S. & NATO are ultimately responsible for the crisis in Ukraine.

Despite what you might read in the mainstream press, the United States and NATO, not Putin, are the ones ultimately responsible for the crisis in Ukraine. More specifically, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has consistently provoked Russia by:

  1. Repeatedly interfering in Russian elections and internal politics from Boris Yeltsin on
  2. Resulting in the shocking U.S.-sponsored theft (by privatization) of the Russian people’s communal property by oligarchs and the Russian mafia
  3. Ignoring Russian sensitivities about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine in Russian history. (Russia has twice been invaded by its European enemies using Ukraine as their entry point.)
  4. Discounting Russia’s concerns about the ideological ties of Ukraine’s current leadership (including that of its army) to Nazi collaborators during World War II
  5. Breaking the promise of George H.W. Bush to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move NATO “one inch closer to Russia” than its position in 1990
  6. But instead incorporating into NATO countries of the former Soviet Union often extremely close to the Russian border
  7. Constantly entertaining the possibility of extending NATO membership even to Ukraine against Russia’s demands to the contrary
  8. Refusing to put in writing a promise not to do so
  9. In this way blocking diplomatic solutions to the Ukraine crisis
  10. And also hypocritically denying to Russia the same rights the U.S. claims (via its Monroe Doctrine) to be free from international threats in its own “backyard”
  11. Engineering a coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014 to replace the neutral (towards Russia) and democratically elected president of Ukraine (Viktor Yanukovych) with a far right rabidly anti-Russian U.S. client (Petro Poroshenko)
  12. Who then surrounded himself with anti-Russian, often neo-Nazi advisors, and cabinet members who are internationally recognized as constituting one of the most corrupt governments in the world
  13. Selecting the leaders of Ukraine by American fiat rather than by democratic processes
  14. Thus, making Ukraine a quasi-U.S. neo-colony right on Russia’s border
  15. And giving rise to an anti-coup, anti-corruption, anti-NATO rebellion on the part of constitutional democrats and anti-fascists centered in Ukraine’s pro-Russian Donbas region
  16.  Which over the last seven years has been subject to shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces costing over 14,000 mostly civilian lives
  17. Ignoring the provisions of the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements between Russia and Ukraine calling for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons from the Donbas front line, release of prisoners of war, and constitutional reform extending self-government to certain areas of Donbas, while restoring to the Ukrainian government control of its national borders
  18. Pouring weapons of mass destruction into Ukraine
  19. Countenancing (by not denouncing) Ukraine’s threat to seek installation of nuclear armaments on its territory
  20. While constantly proposing harsh sanctions on Russia as if it alone were responsible for the Ukrainian crisis.

None of this is to say that Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is justified. Like the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, it is clearly a violation of international law.

The claim here, however, is that Putin was provoked into his act of aggression by NATO led by the United States. The provocations benefit the U.S. not only in terms of discrediting Russia as a regional power, but of providing European markets for U.S. liquified natural gas (after sanctions deprive Russia of its own natural gas markets in Europe). The crisis also creates huge profits for U.S. arms manufacturers along with persuasive rationales for increased Pentagon budgets. As well, the entire fiasco promises to raise (at least temporarily) President Biden’s abysmal poll numbers.

As a final note, there is good reason to believe that the United States would long ago have adopted military measures similar to Putin’s had it experienced comparable acts of aggression for instance on its border with Mexico.

Imagine the response of “our” government had Russia or China sponsored a coup d’état replacing a Mexican government neutral or friendly to the U.S. with a virulently anti-American puppet regime. Imagine further if Russia or China had armed that hostile government to the teeth and shelled mercilessly Mexican citizens friendly to the United States. History (such as that of United States throughout Latin America during the 1980s) tells us that such action would never be tolerated. It would predictably result in American military operations dwarfing those of Russian forces in Ukraine.

So don’t believe what the mainstream media is telling you about Ukraine. Putin has his reasons and is no worse than our own country’s leaders. This is yet another tragedy created by the country Martin Luther King described as the “greatest purveyor of violence” in the world.

Biden, Saul & David vs. Jesus the Prophet 

Readings for 7th Sunday in Ordinary Time: 1 Samuel 26: 2, 7-9, 12-13, 22-23; Psalm 103: 1-13; 1 Corinthians 15: 45-49; John 13: 24; Luke 5: 27-38

More than any other group in the world, American Christians love war, don’t they? At least it seems that way.

Joe Biden’s a case in point. He’s a Catholic. But it looks like he’s doing his best to provoke war with Putin and Russia. It’s like he’d love nothing better than a fight over Ukraine of all places. It’s not clear why. 

(Btw, can someone please tell me what is Ukraine to us or we to Ukraine?  I can’t figure that one out.) 

Nonetheless, the mainstream media (MSM) seems fully on board with war. In a nation where 80% claim to be Christian, journalists love the sound of sabre rattling. It’s what the American elite and its publicists do. By now we should know that.

Today’s Readings

This Sunday’s readings show the elite have always been like that. Gangster kings like Saul and his successor David were just like Biden and the rest. They were like the royal classes depicted in “The Game of Thrones” – constantly at war with one another, with foreign kings – always hungry for more power, more land, more wealth, concubines, and spoils.

In doing so, they invariably claimed that God was on their side. Theirs was a God of war as blood thirsty as the royal classes themselves have always been.

However, biblical prophets like Yeshua of Nazareth consistently opposed such heresy. They insisted that Israel’s God did not belong to kings and queens, but to the indebted poor who constituted the perennial victims of the royals. 

The prophets constantly reminded the powerless that kings and queens were not their friends. How could they be? The poor were always in hoc to them. Moreover, the royals tirelessly tried to convince commoners that the enemies of the rich were also somehow the foes of “the nation,” “the realm.”  If successful, such attempts at persuasion always obliged the non-elite to fight and die in wars against rivals that were not really theirs.

In contrast to all that, a prophet like Yeshua taught his followers to have no enemies at all, to realize that debt and interest that held them in bondage are scams, and that the wealthy should give wealth away rather than hoard it. 

Can you imagine what would happen to our world – what a paradise it would become – if American Christians refused the warmongers and actually accepted wisdom like Yeshua's rather than the propaganda of those involved in contemporary Games of Thrones?

The “translations” that follow suggest what I mean. They contrast the royal games of Saul and David with the prophetic voice of the Master Prophet from Galilee. (Please read the originals here to see if I got them right.)

Readings Translated

1 Samuel 26: 2, 7-9, 12-13, 22-23

Like a scene from
“Game of Thrones”
The crown seeker
Steals into the field barracks 
Of the throne sitter 
Who’s asleep
And surrounded by his gang
Of 3000 brainwashed thugs
All snoring, belching  
And farting away.
(Imagine the din!)

The insurgent’s acolyte
“Let me kill the S.O.B.
Right now.
I’ll nail him to the ground
With my spear
You know how good I am
With steel.
No one would even hear.”

“Hell no!” 
David whispers back.
“The Game’s rules 
Forbid killing 
A throne sitter
Who claims he’s been 
Appointed by God.
Who knows?
Maybe he was.
It might be unlucky.”

So, instead
The intruders 
Silently steal
Saul’s own spear
And water jug,
Run to a safe distance,
Wave their plunder
And taunt:
“Coulda killed you
But didn’t.
Your days 
Are numbered, old man.”

It all
Frightened the hell
Outta Saul!

Psalm 103: 1-13

Despite the pretensions
Of gangsters
Like those,
Life’s Great Spirit
Has nothing to do
With Throne Games
Taunting, killing, or war.

The Great Spirit is instead
Kind and merciful
Compassionate and benevolent.
It’s a healer
Full of grace
And above all

1 Corinthians 15: 45-49

Has been like that
Since before
It breathed life
Into the first Earth Creatures.
The Spirit loves what’s living,
Loves the earth
And everything natural.

That’s the order 
Human beings 
Misleadingly call
“Spiritual” and “heavenly.”
It’s found here on earth
Not somehow
“Up there.”

To be spiritual
Is to love everyone
And Life’s natural order.
That’s what
Yeshua taught us.

John 12: 24

By his
Very life
And words.

Luke 6: 27-38

Here’s what
The Master said and implied
About earthy spirituality
In contrast to
Games of Thrones
Played by kings 
And would-be’s:

Have nothing to do 
With their values.

Games of wealth
And accumulation
God’s natural order.

It demands
Hating no one
Having no enemies.
Loving the haters.
Striking no one
Even if they hit you first
Or take 
What you think is yours.

Loans should be free
And without interest
Or expecting repayment.
Don’t judge or condemn
Or hang on to wealth.
Give and forgive
Again, and again.

If you do all that
You’ll be like
The Great Spirit
Earlier described
In Psalm 103
Unbelievable abundance
Beyond anything
Sought by “kings”
Gamers and gangsters
Like Saul and David. 
(Or their counterparts


The bottom line here is don’t listen to Biden or the MSM. According to Yeshua’s words, Putin is not our enemy. Ukraine is not our concern. All of that is the business of our “royals” and Russia’s with their shared preoccupations about presidential polling, gas pipelines, arms sales, market share, and imagined threats. Those are the concerns of the elite rich; they are not ours.

In the light of today’s readings, what should be our concern is the New Order proclaimed by Yeshua. He called it the “Kingdom of God” It’s a world without enemies, war, debt, interest payments, violence, taunting, or retaliation.

Accepting that viewpoint would change our world. Don’t you agree?

Human Rights, Hypocrisy, and the Beijing Olympics

The entire world is once again being treated to the wondrous spectacle of human potential and achievement at the 2022 Winter Olympic games in Beijing, China.

At the same time, American viewers are being mistreated by an accompanying display of jingoism, hypocrisy, and bias in the coverage of the games by its mainstream media (MSM).

They continually remind audiences that China is an “authoritarian regime” that disrespects human rights up to and including genocidal policies against Uyghur Muslims in China’s northwest. In taking that position, the media typically omit any critical reflection on U.S. human rights shortcomings that in many cases surpass any of those the media attributes to China.

In what follows, let me briefly address that duplicity. I’ll begin by summarizing China’s approach to human rights contrasted with that of the United States. Secondly, I’ll particularize those distinctions by comparing China’s approach to its “Muslim problem” with the way the U.S. deals with its own corresponding dilemma. I’ll finish by drawing some hopefully salutary conclusions.

Human Rights

To begin with, the media’s allusions to “human rights” violations by communists implicitly assume that respect for human rights is an all or nothing matter. In their constant critique of China’s system, the MSM even imply that (in contrast to China) human rights are universally recognized and respected within the national contexts the media spokespersons represent.

Nothing however could be further from the truth.

In fact, few (if any) nations on earth (socialist, capitalist, or any aspiring to communism) respect all human rights as elaborated in the U.N. Declaration. Instead, socialist systems like China’s respect some human rights on the U.N. list, while disrespecting others. The same holds true for the United States. It too respects some human rights, while disrespecting others, even to the extent of denying their validity. (For instance, the U.S. has refused to sign off on a whole host of treaties implementing human rights protocols accepted by most other countries in the world.)

The United States’ refusal is based on the fact that its system of political economy prioritizes human rights differently from that of countries like China.

More specifically, China, like other countries trying to implement socialism, prioritizes material rights to life, food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, dignified work, childcare, and comfortable retirement. All of those are recognized as rights by the U.N. Declaration.

Respect for the right to life is reflected in China’s unprecedented achievement of virtually eliminating extreme poverty within its borders. Since 1981, China has lifted nearly 1 billion people out of such conditions. At the end of last year, President Xi announced that the final cohort of 100 million mostly rural poor had been raised above extreme poverty levels. Such achievement in such a brief time represents a unique historical achievement in the field of human rights.

Additionally, the right to health is a human right enshrined in the UN declaration of human rights. In response, China’s universal health care system leads the world in minimizing its number of deaths due to COVID-19.

At the same time, the United States (alone in the developed world) has no universal health care system. With only 25% of China’s population, the U.S. leads the world in COVID deaths. Of course the U.S. record could be painted as an extreme violation of the UN’s recognition of health care as a human right.  

That violation goes unnoticed in the United States, because with its economy based on neoliberal “free enterprise,” its list of prioritized human rights does not begin with the right to life, health, food, shelter, clothing, and dignified work. Instead, it starts with the right to private property and to have contracts respected along with freedom of speech, press, assembly, voting and religion.

That is, for the United States, the right to private property is paramount. If that right is threatened, all others (including voting and religion) will be suspended — as shown by our government’s support of authoritarian regimes throughout the world.

Capitalist theoreticians regard rights such as to food, shelter, and clothing as “aspirational” and neither genuine nor enforceable. Hence, our country has refused to sign off on the human rights protocols mentioned earlier.

By way of contrast, under socialism, the rights prioritized by U.S. capitalists are far down their list. In fact, rights such as private property and religious expression (in the light of European weaponization of religion in the service of colonialism) are often seen as inimical to the rights that socialism seeks to guarantee.

Policies towards Muslims

This brings us to the subject of human rights violations. They represent a point of convergence between China’s system and our own.  

Sadly, both systems are comparatively unrestrained in their oppressive policies supporting the human rights they prioritize. This leads both to transgress the UN Declaration’s prohibition of torture and unfair detainment as well as the right to a free trial and to democracy.

Both forms of transgression (theirs and ours) are illustrated in the way the two systems deal with shared problems around Muslim dissidents, rebels, and terrorism.

China deals with those problems especially in its northwestern Xinjiang province by confining Uyghur Muslims to what they describe asl “re-education centers.” There, according to U.S. media, Muslims are said to be interned in desperate conditions. They’re forced to take propagandistic classes about the error of their ways. They’re also allegedly mistreated in manners, by the way, that would be familiar to blacks and Hispanics interned in the U.S. prison system and in the concentration camps at our southern border.

Apart from the general fact that the U.S. imprisons a greater percentage of its population than China, and that it maintains those just-mentioned concentration camps for refugees and asylum seekers, Americans deal with their Muslim problems by imprisoning them in detention centers such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and in “black sites” throughout the world. In extraterritorial locations like those, our government has unilaterally decided that human rights (even such as habeas corpus) enshrined in the western tradition since the Magna Carta, simply do not apply.

But detention centers are not the central element of U.S. strategies for dealing with Muslim dissidents and rebels. Killing them is. Since 9/11 2001, the U.S. has bombed and droned in many Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ethiopia. In Iraq alone, by some estimates, “America” has caused more than one million Muslim deaths. In contrast, Chinese apologists are quick to point out that the last time China bombed any foreign country was 40 years ago.


Thankfully, the 2021 Olympics in Beijing are providing us with a window onto China, its socio-economic system, culture, and values particularly as they impact human rights. Great effort however is required to see all that through the haze of the MSM’s anti-Chinese bias.

Those who make that effort can draw some perhaps salutary conclusions that include the following:  

  • (As if we needed reminding) the western MSM is biased and propagandistic.
  • It is particularly unbalanced in its approach to questions of human rights in China.
  • No nation observes all human rights.
  • Arguably, as a country emerging from Third World status, China’s prioritization of poverty elimination, education, housing, and health care makes more sense than adopting the preferences of the United States and Europe.
  • More China’s prioritization would be welcome even in the United States which (alone among industrialized nations) refuses to recognize universal health care as a human right. (In other words, it violates that right.)
  • China’s health care precautions are helping Americans see the life-saving effects and other benefits of a centralized and coordinated universal health care system.
  • In the process, thoughtful Americans might be moved to reconsider the meaning of the phrase “pro-life.” Discounting any connections with abortion, “pro-life” in China entails adoption of aggressive measures to eliminate poverty and to keep the number of deaths due to COVID as close to zero as possible.
  • Its achievements in doing so are remarkable to say the least. 
  • Somehow re-education of Muslim dissidents seems preferable to killing them.
  • The same might be said for the display of China’s human rights priorities. That is, the right to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and dignified retirement might be more important than those to private property and respect for contracts.


For years I worked for a Latin American studies program in Costa Rica. It served evangelical students from the U.S. doing their term abroad in San Jose. Each semester we took them to Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Cuba.

Before going to Cuba, the topic of “human rights always came up.” I’d ask the students to define the term. Eventually, they’d get to an understanding that a human right is what’s due a person simply in virtue of being human.

I’d them ask them to share what they considered the most important human right. Many said “the right to life” – and they weren’t talking about abortion.  

I’d then ask about rights to what’s necessary to sustain human life. They’d agree that the right to life implies those to food, potable water, shelter, education, and decent clothing.

Never once did my students (conservative, liberal, or libertarian) say that the most important human right was that of owning property or of having contracts honored.


Patriarchy Has Failed Us: Put Women in Charge!

Recently, Andrew Yang’s podcast (“Andrew & Zach”) had him and Zach Graumann discussing questions that should be of interest to everyone. They asked “Why are boys and men failing? Why so many weak men? Has women’s liberation unwittingly rendered males insignificant? And if so, what to do about it?”

Well, I thought, I for one know what to do about it.

Simply admit the obvious. Men have failed through their own inadequacy. Their “leadership” at all levels has been a disaster. Let’s face it: they’ve proven to be the weaker sex. In the aggregate, women and simply smarter and morally superior to men. So, as Keb Mo puts it, it’s well past time to “Put A Woman in Charge.” 

Let me try to make that case here by applauding the points made by Yang and Graumann about recent revelations concerning the changed situation between the sexes. The podcast hosts got that part right. Their description of the diminished status of men and masculinity is also undeniable. It’s simply a 21st century fact. Finally, I’ll suggest why I think Yang and Graumann’s approach doesn’t go far enough. Their concern to rehabilitate boys and men is misplaced. Instead, it’s time for all of us to work openly towards a Great Reversal where women are actually in charge of our country and world.

Women’s Superiority

To begin with, as Zach Graumann put it, women are proving smarter than men “across the board.” He said, “Men and women are so different, and the numbers are screaming off the page.” For instance:

  • Girls do better than boys all the way through school not only in the United States but throughout the world.
  • 58% of college graduates are women; 42% are men for whom admission standards are often “adjusted” to correct gender balance.
  • Currently, there are more women graduating from STEM programs than ever before, as well as more women succeeding in sports.
  • Their superior performance in those venues already equips them to replace men in leadership positions.
  • Significantly in the context of the worldwide COVID pandemic, women also deal with “free time” (idleness?) more creatively than men. Men who are idle typically start gambling, drinking, and doing drugs. Generally, they become anti-social. “There’s some part of each man,” Graumann pointed out, “that simply wants to go down into the basement, play video games and avoid the world.”
  • Women, on the other hand, prove “more adaptable than men” as job circumstances change. When unemployed, they are more likely, for example to return to school, go to church, or volunteer at a non-profit.
  • Women also show more wisdom in their tendencies to resist male corporate culture that places profits ahead of family welfare. Women are the ones most strongly pushing for generous programs of family leave. More than men, they also shy away from aberrations such as 80-hour workweeks as well as phone calls, texts, and e-mails outside of business hours because such practices interfere with family pursuits.
  • As Yang pointed out, women also make men live longer. Statistically, unmarried men will die about a decade sooner than their married counterparts. But marriage has no effect at all on women’s life spans.
  • And finally (I would add) let’s remember women don’t do mass shootings and are far less likely to rape (Ghislaine Maxwell notwithstanding), or to torture or commit atrocities in war.

Despite those blaring facts, men continue to dominate world politics. Industries, governments, police forces, and the military nonetheless remain male dominated in their leadership.

Women, of course, are aware of this and point out the need for “more female CEOs, partners and board members.”

Yang and Graumann agreed. But they also spent most of their discussion accounting for men’s fall from grace and wondering about saving men from reduction to second class status.

Men’s Failure Explained

As for explaining men’s decline, the podcast hosts offered predominantly economic explanations. They pointed out that:

  • Five million manufacturing jobs have been eliminated over the last 15-20 years.
  • Three quarters of those jobs were held by men.
  • According to Yahoo statistics, fully one-third of the male workforce is currently out of work or unemployed.
  • Job loss of this magnitude has led to massive increases in alcoholism, substance abuse, suicides, and overall despair.
  • Meanwhile women’s ascendancy has reduced men’s chances of assuming family leadership. Very often that’s because, disparity in college graduation rates means that an increasing number of college- educated women have difficulty finding similarly prepared marriage partners. So, many female graduates choose not to marry at all. And if they decide to have children, they frequently do so out-of-wedlock. The resulting female headed households often leave their growing boys without strong male role models. This causes the vicious cycle to continue.
  • Looking for explanations, disempowered men become susceptible to those offered by politicians and others who blame those with no responsibility at all such as immigrants, Muslims, liberals, and feminists.
  • All of this has had political consequences. Vote totals from 2020 show that Donald Trump won the votes of 66% of non-college-educated male voters who constitute 31% of voters in general. (This group represents the core of Trump’s base.)

A Pseudo-Solution

Despite their good intentions, the discussion between Yang and Graumann ended up sounding like many among liberal members of privileged classes whose hopelessly illusory goal is a “win/win” outcome where the oppressed class (in this case women) is able to advance without the privileged class (males) losing status or power.

The two hosts of “Andrew and Zach” even seemed to suggest that (while they considered themselves feminists) perhaps women should back off a little out of respect for men’s hurt feelings. 

As Graumann put it, while “the patriarchy has gone a little too far,” and “alpha men have gone a little too far,” the women’s movement seems to ignore the struggling and failures of male figures – unfairly blaming men (and not globalization) as the source of the problem.

This has the effect of sidelining men and boys is creating weak males out of touch with their masculinity. And with weak men we start to see more apathy and hatred, more destruction, more pornography, more alcohol, more “Me Too” incidents, more domestic violence, suicides, and drug overdoses. In primary schools and education where girls are dominating boys – “shellacking” them actually – there tragically remains the attitude that we have to do more for girls. And this even though boys are more likely to get suspended, more likely to drop out of school.

No, the two bro-discussants seemed to agree, balance needs to be restored; men need some affirmative action too – again in consideration for their hurt feelings and diminished status.



But what if patriarchy and alpha males have not gone “a little too far,” but A LOT TOO FAR – for thousands of years? Even more basically, what if the real problem is men themselves and their natural inferiority to women? Then, it would be a good thing that men are losing power – or in Graumann’s description, becoming “weaker?”

Once again, men have had their turn at leadership in the family, in politics, and in the world of work. And they’ve failed miserably. They’ve proven themselves weaker than women in fact. They’ve set the planet ablaze. They and the few women they allow to join them in imitating their ways actually see war and the risk of nuclear conflict as somehow acceptable solutions even to minor problems such as border disputes (e.g., in Ukraine) and economic competition (e.g., with China).

(By the way, that normalization of atomic warfare and planetary destruction, is proof enough of the general failure and stupidity of the male-dominated order. It’s unarguably criminal.)

What if it’s time to recognize thankfully (as Yang and Graumann showed) that girls and women usually don’t act like men? They have more of what our planet needs now. They’re generally smarter than men. They’re more empathetic. They’re more family oriented. They typically resist corporate culture with its emphasis on overwork. They’re naturally more in tune with the cycles of nature. They’re more generous with their free time. They’re less prone to resort to violence as a solution to problems.

In other words, it’s time for restitution. Except in some spiritual sense, win/win is impossible here. It’s time for men to recognize the truth and humbly assume subordinate positions. That’s because in the real world, reparations to women (or non-whites, indigenous peoples, or Mother Earth Herself) necessarily entail surrender by the privileged of their unearned status and benefits.

For men, this will often mean restitution and even subordination in the home and workplace, as well as in school, politics, church, and elsewhere. Put otherwise, restitution necessarily involves return of ill-gotten gains including in the realms of power, prestige, and profit.

As I said at the outset, and as Keb Mo put it so eloquently in his prophetic song, it’s time to “Put A Woman in Charge!”

Biden’s Latest “Act of Cowardice”: The “Suicide” of Another ISIS Top Commander

I almost laughed out loud the other day when Joe Biden announced (see above) the killing of yet another top- level ISIS commander in an “American” operation that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians including, in this case, the ISIS operative’s own children.

Here’s how the President explained away the “collateral damage” involved in the attack on Abu Ibrahim al-Hashmi al-Qurayshi and his family.

“As our troops approached to capture the terrorist, in a final act of desperate cowardice, with no regard to the lives of his own family or others the building, he chose to blow himself up.”

Apparently, the terrorist leader was wearing an explosive vest and at the last minute decided to detonate it killing himself and his family rather than allowing his wife and children to be taken alive by U.S. troops.

Our President implied that U.S. troops and/or gunship pilots would have carefully avoided the children’s deaths once they had dispatched their father. After all, the record shows the effectiveness of “our” precision operations. (Forget about all those “mistakes” around weddings and funerals.)

So, we’re asked to imagine the ISIS commander going to bed as usual with his suicide vest strapped on – just in case. Then he hears helicopters and the noise of firefight with approaching U.S. soldiers. Awakened from a sound sleep, with his wife beside him, his children in the next room, he calls them together and tells them something like, “Well, family, it looks like the jig’s up. No, there’s no use in trying to escape. Luckily, I always wear this vest. It allows me to blow us all up instead submitting to the Americans. Aren’t you glad? Remember, it’s best for everyone. Daddy loves you all. See ya.”

Alternatively, he says, “Here, honey, help me strap on with this suicide vest so I can kill you and the kids. You know what they say, “Better dead by my hand than theirs.”

What a barbarian!

(Okay, I know the President said the firefight went on for hours and that Mr. al-Qurayshi had plenty of time to strap on his vest when he saw that further resistance was futile. Still, something about Mr. Biden’s explanation doesn’t ring true — especially in the light of our military’s history, routine lies by presidents of both parties, and what parents instinctively do to protect their children and spouses.)  

That is, Biden’s words are at least highly questionable without undeniable supporting evidence. In fact, in the light of history, I’d go so far as to say that we have to assume the President’s lying. (Or as a great man once said, “Fool me once. . ..”)

That’s especially true after the U.S. was just caught in a series of outright lies about civilian casualties in Biden’s infamous and disastrous Afghanistan evacuation. In the aftermath, there’s all kinds of pressure on his administration to shift blame for any combat-related deaths of civilians especially children..

I mean, remember what we all witnessed on TV a few months ago during the disgraceful flight from Afghanistan? The New York Times and eventually our own eyes showed that those accused of terrorism were actually innocent. Nonetheless, the Pentagon insisted they weren’t blameless at all. Officials assured that it was a “righteous strike,” rigorously vetted and executed.

But it turned out that not a word of the military’s description was true. The “terrorist” killed (along with his children) was nothing like an ISIS operative. He was an aid worker loading his car with water for refugees. Nonetheless, the Pentagon continued to lie about the incident for days, even after the rest of us knew the truth. Their final response? “Oops. Just forget our false assurances. Pretend they didn’t happen.”

Those of us who insist on remembering such lies and coverups (along with those about non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq) are rightly skeptical.

[BTW, we’re skeptical too about State Department claims that the Russians are busy preparing “false flag” operations in the Ukraine to justify their invasion of their innocent and peaceful neighbor. (When we’ve been carefully instructed that “false flags” are the stuff of Alex Jones and Q-Anon.) In response to questions about evidence for such wild allegations, the Pentagon spokesperson in effect said, “The evidence is classified. But trust me. It’s true because I say so.”]

What I’m lamenting here is that Mr. Biden is completely out-of-touch with the effects of the serial lies foisted upon the U.S. public from Democrat and Republican presidents alike. Embarrassingly and with a straight face he allows himself and his spokespersons to mouth entirely doubtful claims without offering a shred of evidence about their veracity.

The problem is that the mainstream media largely go along with the silly game.

One thing is certain though: the evidence shows unmistakably that the U.S. military doesn’t give a damn about civilian casualties including children – not in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam, Korea, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.

Instead, we’re asked to forget all of that. Our government, our military have reformed, they tell us. They’re truth-tellers now — humanitarians actually.

“And, yes, all options (not discountring nukes) are on the table. You know what they say, ‘better killed by my hand than theirs’.”

About it all, I’m tempted to respond, “Don’t make me laugh — or cry.”