Podcasts about arms export control act

A defense contractor this month agreed to pay nearly a billion dollars to settle criminal fraud and other federal charges. Not some fly-by-night, but rather the legacy contractor Raytheon. The company is under Justice Department investigations for defective pricing, foreign bribery and violations of the Arms Export Control Act. My next guest says these problems aren't isolated to Raytheon. Greg Williams, from the Project on Government Oversight, joins me now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A defense contractor this month agreed to pay nearly a billion dollars to settle criminal fraud and other federal charges. Not some fly-by-night, but rather the legacy contractor Raytheon. The company is under Justice Department investigations for defective pricing, foreign bribery and violations of the Arms Export Control Act. My next guest says these problems aren't isolated to Raytheon. Greg Williams, from the Project on Government Oversight, joins me now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Connecting the Dots, I dive into how U.S. foreign policy impacts major conflicts in Ukraine, China, and the Middle East. Rather than simply telling you what to think, my goal is to provide context and analysis so you can form your own conclusions about these complex issues. We'll look at the roots of the Ukraine conflict, the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, and how these events ripple across Europe. I also examine U.S. military aid to Israel and its implications for the Gaza conflict, touching on questions of international law and diplomacy. Additionally, I explore the effects of significant events, like the deaths of Hassan Nasrallah and Qasem Soleimani, and what they mean for long-term stability in the region. Join me as I connect the dots and invite you to critically assess how U.S. policy shapes the global landscape today.   Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!   Wilmer Leon (00:01): Hey folks. Look, when you understand what's happening in Ukraine, when you understand what's happening in China as it relates to the United States trying to start a war with China over Taiwan, when you look at the latest developments the Middle East, you have to ask yourself this. And has President Biden become a victim of his own rhetoric? Has he fallen into his own trap? Let's talk about this, Announcer (00:41): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:49): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which they take place. So today, looking at Ukraine, looking at China, looking what's happening in the Middle East, I decided that I would just take a few minutes and just give you some extemporaneous just off the top of the head kind of stuff. No guests on this segment. Y'all are just stuck with me. So let's start here. In his last address to the United Nations as President Joe Biden said, I recognize the challenges from Ukraine and Gaza to Sudan and beyond. War, hunger, terrorism brutality, record displacement of people, a climate crisis, democracy at risk, strains within our societies, the promise of artificial intelligence and its significant risks. The list goes on. (02:00): Well, when you start to unpack that knapsack, when you really pay attention to the list of things, the litany of conflicts and tensions that Joe Biden just articulated, you have to ask yourself this. He mentions Ukraine, who started the conflict in Ukraine? Why did it start? Well, it started in 2014, during the Obama administration went with what was known as the Maidan Coup. The United States went in. In 2014, Victoria Newland led the effort overthrew the democratically elected government of Victor Jankovich, and installed a Nazi based Ukrainian nationalist government led by the current President, Volodymyr Zelensky. It escalated during the Biden administration and it has become a full-blown military conflict that President Biden refuses to settle. In fact, one of the most recent speeches given by Vice President Harris talking about the Ukraine, she said, the Russian proposal is not a peace deal. It is not a settlement. (03:30): She said, it is a surrender. Well, if you look at the data, it is a surrender because the Ukraine has lost, they hardly have any artillery shells left. Just about all of their tanks have been blown to smithereens. The F-16's that they've just received, some of them were blown up before they even made it off the runway. And you have US generals saying that the F sixteens that the United States and NATO sent are no match for the Russian Air Force. Their army is totally depleted. They've had to go to their prisons, empty their prisons, and send prisoners to the front. They have what are called press gangs that are scouring the Ukrainian countryside kidnapping men of age, sending them to the front. (04:35): It's over, it's over. The fat lady just ain't sung yet. That's really what you're looking at in Ukraine. It's over, but they just haven't blown the whistle. So yeah, it's going to be a surrender. You might as well, you might as well fire up the USS Missouri resurrect Emperor Hirohito from World War II and have Ukraine surrender the same way Japan had to because that's the way this has gone. September 26th, 2022, a series of underwater explosions and consequent gas leaks occurred on three or four pipelines of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea. This occurred during and based upon the Sy Hersh reporting tells us that this was conducted during the Biden administration. The Biden administration blew up three of the four pipelines of the Nord Stream pipeline, which provided natural gas from Russia to Germany and Germany was the distribution point for low cost natural gas throughout Europe. (05:59): And since 2022, what has happened to the economy of Germany and what has happened to other economies of European countries? They've been decimated because they now are forced to buy natural gas from the United States because the United States blew up their pipeline cutting off their access to Russian natural gas. Why? Because if you remember, when the Ukraine conflict started, president Biden told us what we're going to turn the rubble into rubble. Y'all remember that We're going to turn the ruble into rubble. Has that happened? Not at all. In fact, the rubble, the rubble, the ruble, which is the currency in Russia, is now one of the most stable currencies in the world. The Russian economy is in the top five economies in the world. Why? Because the United States was not able to bring about regime change in Russia through the Ukraine conflict. The United States was not able through its sanctions regime to bring about crippling sanctions on the Russian economy. (07:18): They have been able to find workarounds, and they have been able to continue to engage in international business all around the world. Look at the BRIC's meeting that's about to take place in Russia. You've got China. Well, the BRIC's, the acronym for what? For Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. And now you have a number of other countries that are joining this economic cooperative, and they are finding workarounds around the sanctions that the United States is imposing on all of these countries. In terms of Gaza, who's funding the genocide in Gaza, the Biden administration, of course, president Biden in May of 2024 said, he said what he would halt some of the shipments of American weapons to Israel, which he acknowledged had been used to kill civilians in Gaza. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a major invasion in the city of Rafa, well, Netanyahu did it. Biden did not honor his word. He still sent those weapons to Israel. And what do we find now? (08:47): $8.7 billion on their way of weapons and military aid are now on their way to Israel. Citizens have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of the bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers. Biden said this on CNN to Aaron Burnett back in May of 2024, civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they Israel go after population centers. He said that to CNN, and he still sends weapons to Gaza. He said, I made it clear that if they go into Rafa, and they haven't gone into Rafa yet, if they go into Rafa, this was May of 2024. I'm not supplying the weapons. They've been used historically to deal with Rafa to deal with the cities that deal with that problem. Where are we now? Four months later, Israel said in September, it had secured an $8.7 billion aid package from the United States to support its ongoing military efforts and to maintain a qualitative military edge in the region. (10:20): Folks for the United States to send military weapons into Israel violates international law. It violates American law. It violates the Arms Export Control Act. It violates American law for the United States government to send weapons to countries that are in the midst of oppressing their own people. Look up the arms. Export Control Act. $8.7 billion of your hard earned tax dollars are being sent to Israel to support genocide. This package includes three and a half billion dollars for essential wartime procurement, what they call essential wartime procurement, which has already been received and earmarked for critical military purchases. What does that mean? Well, in common parlance, we'd call that a money laundering scheme. So the United States sends $8.7 billion or earmarks or tags or identifies $8.7 billion for Israel for military weaponry. And what then happens? Well, that money goes to Lockheed Martin, that money goes to Boeing, that money goes to Raytheon. (11:52): That money goes to what Dwight Eisenhower told us in his 1959 farewell address to the American people, the military industrial complex. So the United States Funds genocide is backing the extermination, the elimination, the removal of innocent Palestinian people while American arms manufacturers make billions and billions of dollars. Oh, and by the bye, president Biden also said he's sending another $8 billion to Ukraine. So that's 8 billion to Ukraine. That's 8.7 to Israel. That's $16.7 billion, and they're sending almost 600 million to Taiwan. That's $17 billion in just one month that the United States is sending for militarism and the United States isn't being attacked. We're not under threat. (13:17): 8 billion to Ukraine. Ukraine is the proxy of the United States. The Ukraine is the proxy of NATO. Volodymyr Zelinsky, the president of Ukraine, he tried to negotiate a settlement with Vladimir Putin in April of 2022, right after two months after the damn thing started. And right as they were reaching an agreement, the United States had the former British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, go to Ukraine and tell Zelensky, under no circumstances is the West going to accept a peace deal with Russia. Go figure. And now Kamala Harris says, oh, we won't tolerate this proposed peace plan because the peace plan is surrender. You had the opportunity in 2022 to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict that you started, but you ignored it. You ignored it. Your hubris got in the way. Your ego got in the way. You were blinded by your ego to the realities that were right before you on the ground, and you ignored the opportunity. And now what has Russia done? They just keep saying, y'all want to drag this out? We'll keep fighting. When we keep fighting, we keep taking territory, and when we take territory, we don't give it back. (15:08): So yeah, it's going to be surrender. It's going to be surrender. The question simply becomes, how much of an ass whooping do you want to take? So now back to the Middle East. According to Middle East Eye on September 27th, Israeli fighters, they carried out a series of massive airstrikes on Beirut southern suburbs in what appeared to be the most intense bombardment of the Lebanese capitol. Since the 2006 war, at least 10 explosions rocked the capitol's southern suburbs, a densely populated area, colloquially known as Dahiyeh, with large clouds of blacksmith rising over the city. The result of that attack, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nala, was assassinated. (16:08): Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, was assassinated by the way, in violation of international law. Aaron Mate wrote one week after Israel began its US back campaign in a rampage in Gaza last October, Biden was asked by CBS news if fueling a Middle East conflict on top of the proxy war in Ukraine was more than the United States could take on at the same time. Basically, Hey, you're fighting wars on multiple fronts, and anybody that understands military history will tell you the more fronts you open up. This is my commentary, not mate, the more fronts you open up, the bigger problems you're going to have. What was Biden's answer to that question about is the United States taking on more than it can manage at the same time? No, Biden said, and he was incredibly indignant when he said it, we're the United States of America, for God's sake, the most powerful nation in the history, not in the world, in the history of the world. Not only does the US have the capacity to do this, Biden said, we have an obligation. We are the essential nation. And if we don't, who does? (17:38): Joe, you're reading your own press clippings, Joe, you're caught up in your own rhetoric, Joe. You've fallen victim of your own trap. It had overlooked comment. Biden gave his blessing not only to an Israel scorched earth campaign in Gaza, but Lebanon as well for Israel. Biden said, going in and taking out the extremists in Hezbollah up north along with Hamas down south is a necessary requirement. But what you got to understand, when you look at Hamas in the South, when you look at Hezbollah in the North, when you look at Ansar, Allah in Yemen, when you look at Iran, these are the forces of resistance. (18:43): They are resisting the occupation of historic Palestine. This isn't anti-Semitic rhetoric, it's fact. There's a reason why that area is referred to as the occupied territories. They don't use that language a lot in today's parlance because the West has now clearly come to understand that that narrative, that language contradicts the narrative that they're trying to present. But there's a reason why in the international criminal court, in the international Court of justice, in all kind of parliaments, in all kind of countries all over the world, they're referred to as the occupied territories. Who is the occupier? The Zionist government of Israel? Who is the occupied the Palestinians international law tells us? So when Vice President Harris steps to the podium at the DNC convention and says, Israel has the right to defend itself, nay, that's not true. When Joe Biden steps to the podium and says, at the un, Israel has the right to defend itself. That's not true. When Netanyahu steps to the podium and says, Israel has the right to defend itself, that's not true because international law is very clear. The UN is very clear. (20:53): The occupier, in this case, the Zionist government of Israel, does not have the right to defend itself against the interaction or the response by the occupied. In this instance, the Palestinians international law is, here's a very simple analogy. I can't walk into your house armed or unarmed, but I can't walk into your house armed, threaten you and your family, have you resist my aggression? And then I claim self-defense. I can't do it. It won't pass the laugh test. It won't pass the giggle test. It won't pass the smell test. I can't do that. I cannot walk into your home, take over your home, have you resist my aggression, shoot you in the process, and then claim I was defending myself. It's the same thing that's going on right now in the occupied territories. (22:25): So this isn't me being pouring haterade on Vice President Harris or Joe Biden. No, this is just the facts. So getting back to the recent assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, they reportedly used 2000 pound bunker busting bombs supplied by the United States in the attack that in the assassination of Hassan Raah, they leveled several apartment buildings. They killed dozens of people. I mean scores with others still being believed, trapped in a rubble, which means you're going to have, they leveled a whole damn neighborhood. They leveled a neighborhood to kill one guy. (23:27): And here is an incredibly interesting revelation to all of this. The Lebanese foreign minister now says that Hassanah Raah agreed to a ceasefire, a 21 day ceasefire right before the IDF assassinated him. Abdullah Habib, the Lebanese foreign minister says, Naah agreed to the US and French proposal for a 21 day ceasefire. He said that to on CNN to Christian Yama aur. They told us that Mr. Netanyahu agreed to this. And so we also got the agreement of Hezbollah on that. And you know what happened after that? They assassinated the man. So let's trace this back. If the reporting is true, and I believe that it is Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah was ready to accept the proposed ceasefire, which by the way, the US via Vice President Kamala Harris and a number of others, president Biden claim that they're desperately working on a ceasefire. You've heard him say this, we are desperately working on a ceasefire. We are desperately working on a ceasefire. We're doing everything in our power to come up with a ceasefire. So the US and France propose to Hezbollah a 21 day ceasefire. (25:38): Nasra says, okay, not only will there be a ceasefire in Lebanon, as in between Lebanon and the Zionist colony of it, settler colony of Israel, that ceasefire also has to apply to Gaza as well. There will be a cessation of violence across the landscape because after all, why is Hezbollah fighting the IDF in defense of Hamas, in defense of the Palestinians? Why is Ansara Allah in Yemen sending missiles into Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel? Why is Ansara Allah, why have they shut down the Red Sea and not allowing Israeli flagged or ships that are delivering goods or receiving goods from Israel from the Zionist colony to transit the Red Sea in support of the Palestinians? So you can't have a ceasefire with Lebanon and not with Palestine. That wouldn't make any sense. (27:07): So the story is Hassan Nasrallah was told Netanyahu has agreed the United States and France, everybody's in sync. We can now work towards the ceasefire 21 day ceasefire. And what happens? They assassinate it. And this is what Netanyahu said at the un, his words last week, knowing he said this, knowing that they were going to assassinate the man to speak for my country to speak for the truth. And here's the truth. Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. Israel has made peace and will make peace again. Yet we face savage enemies who seek our annihilation, and we must defend ourselves against them. (28:17): That's what he said last week at the un. Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. If that is true, then why did you assassinate the guy you were negotiating with for peace after you had received the message that he agreed to your proposal? Yet we face savage enemies. So you are negotiating for a peace deal. You're on the verge of accomplishing a ceasefire, which can then get you to a peace deal, and you assassinate the guy you're negotiating with, who's the savage Bebe, you or them, and you claim that these savages seek your annihilation. Oh, show me evidence where they have been the aggressor. And please don't give me this noxious BS about October 7th because this conflict did not start on the 7th of October of 2023. That's just revisionist history. This conflict started damn near 80 years ago. October 7th was just the latest iteration of the Palestinians saying enough. October 7th was just the latest iteration of the Palestinians defending themselves. (30:22): And I go back to international law. The oppressed have the right to resist oppression and the oppressor through any means at their disposal. So please, Kamala Harris, don't tell me that this started October 7th. Please, governor Waltz, don't say at the vice presidential debate that this started on October 7th. Spare me of that bs. Spare me of that revisionist history because you're lying. And I say you're lying because you're wrong. You know you're wrong, and you are intentionally perpetrating a lie. So I ask Netanyahu again, who, by the way, his real name, his family name, his grandfather's name before his grandfather immigrated from Poland to Palestine was Milikowsky His family name is not Netanyahu. The family name is Milikowski. (31:40): They're Polish. They're European. They're not Arab. Remember, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew with skin of burnt bronze and hair of lambs wool, kind of like this. They weren't Polish, they weren't French, they weren't Russian. They're Palestinian. That's why it's called the occupied territory. Again, I digress. Nasrallah was ready to accept the proposed ceasefire and the US and Israel assassinated him. Go back to this past July. Hamas' top political leader, Ishmael Heah, was assassinated in Tehran. He was attending the installation of the Iranian president who was Ishmael Haniyeh. He was not a terrorist. He was not a military leader. He was the head of the political wing of Hamas. Understand Hamas has basically two factions. They have a military faction and they have a political faction. They started as a political group, but only when they were compelled to develop a military response to the genocide and oppression that the Zionist government of Israel was imposing upon them in the West Bank. And in that concentration camp called Gaza, did they develop a military response. But Ishmael was not part of the, he was a negotiator. (33:43): He was in the process of negotiating a ceasefire slash peace deal with Israel and the United States. And what did they do? Assassinated him. They assassinated the man. But Netanyahu stands before the world at the United Nations and says, he's speaking for truth. Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace. That's what he said. Who's the savage? Joe Biden, who's the savage? BB Netanyahu. BB Milowski. Nasrallah was ready to accept a ceasefire. You assassinated him. Haniyeh was negotiating a ceasefire. You assassinated him. Let's switch gears. January 3rd, 2020. Remember General Soleimani, Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian major general who was assassinated by an American drone strike near Baghdad international airport in Iraq. Donald Trump pushed the button on Soleimani. (35:14): Why was Qassem Soleimani in Iraq? He had been lured there under the false pretense of a peace negotiation. The Saudis trying to make peace with the Iranians. You've got Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia. You've got Shia Muslims in Iran trying to find peace between the two. He General Soleimani was brought to Iraq under the pretext of bringing letters of negotiation between the two governments. False pretense. It was a lie. He was there on a peace mission and was assassinated. I'm connecting some dots here, folks. Are you starting to see the picture? I'm connecting some dots here, folks. Are you starting to see the picture? (36:39): Why is this going on? Oh, by the way, so Soleimani goes to Iraq. They assassinate him under the pretense of a peace deal. China steps in. And what does China do? China brokers a peace deal between who? The Saudis and Iran. So months later, the deal does get done. Even though Soleimani was assassinated, Donald Trump pushed the button on him at the behest of the Zionist government of Israel. But Netanyahu Millikowski wants to stand before you stand before the world and say, Israel yearns for peace, but these savages seek our annihilation. I ask again, Bebe, who's the savage? Joe Biden, who's the savage? Y'all tell me. (37:55): So what do we have? Well, at least in terms of the Middle East, we have Iran responds to the assassination of Haniyeh and a number of other incursions aggressions that they have been incredibly measured and incredibly calculating. And so they send some missiles into Israel, but they were very, very careful. They selected military targets, and most of the military targets that they selected were the targets that were either a, well, primarily, I won't even go to a, and let me just say they were responsible for the assassination of keeping these names in my head is a bit challenging of Hassan Nasrallah. So they decimated some F-35's at an Air Force base in near Tel Aviv. (39:23): They didn't strike any civilian centers, even though Israel has strategically placed a lot of its military, its intelligence operations and whatnot in densely populated civilian spaces. See, they're not like Israel. Israel blows up a whole damn neighborhood with 2000 pound bunker busting bombs. Israel didn't do that. They could have done that. They didn't. And they were very clear in explaining why, because they said, we aren't going to attack civilians. Also, the Holy Quran guides them in their tactics for war. They are guided as Muslims. They are guided by the Quran in terms of what is allowable in war and what is not. That is why, for example, they haven't developed a nuclear program because in their mind, by their belief, too many innocent people will be affected by the action. And when they get into a it kind of eye for an eye kind of deal, when they get into a conflict, they deal with those involved in the conflict. They don't have this idea of collateral damage. They don't sit back and calculate, well, our enemy is here, our target is here, and there are so many civilians in on the periphery, and we have an acceptable number of those that we can exterminate and still call it fair. They don't operate like that. (41:22): Their guide, the Holy Quran dictates how conflict will be managed. So that's why, for example, they sent a message to Iran and said, we are about to strike. They let 'em know they didn't have to do that. They let 'em know. See, people are making a huge mistake by confusing restraint with fear, whether it's Russia, whether it's China, whether it is Iran, because they have been so measured in their responses. They haven't just gone all out blast because that's not their tactic, that's not their way. They have a different understanding of time and what Dr. King called the moral arc of history, because their cultures are thousands of years old, unlike the United States. That's the new kid on the block. (42:30): So they have a totally different concept of time. So the adage, you have the watches, but we have the time. So they're not going to be baited into a knee jerk reaction to an attack. They're going to sit back, step back, evaluate the landscape, and then they retaliate on their terms, on their timeline through their methods. And that's why, for example, when I think it was when Hania was assassinated, the United States went to Iran and said, don't retaliate, don't respond. And Iran told Joe Biden, no, no, no, no, no, no, Joe, we got to respond to this. But understand, here's what we will do. And this is what they said. Here's what we will do. We will strike military targets. We won't strike civilian targets. And the military targets that we select will be those targets that we're responsible for engaging and planning the action that we are responding to. And here's the key that you all need to understand. They also said, Joe, once we respond, we will consider the matter settled. (44:04): Once we respond, once we retaliate, we will consider the matter settled unless you or them engage in further action. If you do that, then we are going to have to handle that business. We're going to have to do what we got to do. So they are, and I'm I'm speaking about the resistance in general. They are incredibly measured because not only do they have tactics, they have strategy. See what you see playing out from the Israeli side. There's no strategy here. There's no strategy, there's no plan. There's no long-term methodological. I think that's proper pronunciation plan. (45:08): They're just out there shooting first and asking questions later. They have tactics, but no strategy. So that takes you to the adage, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. I mean, they know Annihilation, they know genocide is what they're after. But in terms of a planned, calculated strategy doesn't exist. That's why it's so hard for people to make sense out of what's happening. People keep going, what the hell are they doing? Why are they doing this? You don't know. They don't know. You don't know. They don't know. So look, that's kind of where we are now. (46:11): Israel is talking about, oh, the response is going to be horrific. Oh, the response is we are going to have a ground invasion into Lebanon. Well, they tried that and they're getting their butts kicked. They got their butts kicked. Israel got their butts kicked the last time they tried it in 2006. Israel tried to go into Lebanon in 2006, got their asses handed to 'em, and Hezbollah has only gotten stronger and smarter and even more determined if that is possible. I remember when George W. was getting ready to go into Iraq and Minister Farrakhan, and I guess I'll end with this. And Minister Farrakhan was trying to convince America that this was going to be a fool's errand. In fact, he called it the precipitant of greater tragedies to come. And one thing that he said to George W. in an open speech and letter, he said, you can't win this with your technology. (47:45): He said, the first week you got this, he says, your technology and your missiles. He said, the first week you got it, he said, but eventually you're going to have to bring your soldiers in here. And when you do that, they got something for you. He said, because you've never fought a soldier with the heart of a Muslim. He said, you're fighting God in a man. And so when you look at what the resistance is all about, when you look at what Hamas is all about, when you look at what Hezbollah is all about, when you look at what Ansar Allah is all about, do you know what anah means? (48:45): Servants of God. Would did Minister Farrakhan say you're fighting God in a man? That's not rhetoric. That's not rhetoric. My very rough limited understanding Ansar Allah means, and these are the folks in Yemen. You all know him as the Houthis servants of God. And where did that come from? When the prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him was in that region in what is now Yemen. There were a group of people that assisted him and protected him during his travels in, what were they called? Ansar Allah. So they have a history, long history of being anah servants of God. So when you have a people that have taken on that identity, this is who we are, this is what we do, you put them up against a group of 18, 19, 20-year-old Israelis that have been conscripted into military service because they are obligated by law to serve three or four years in the military. And so really all they're trying to do is get the hell out of town alive so that they can check that mark off of the list and say, okay, I did what I was supposed to do. I served my country. You put them kids up against these folks. (50:42): Sad day in Mudville, boys and girls. So I can tell you, when Casey came to bat, it was a sad day in Mudville. So hey folks, look, I thank you all for listening to my rant. Take some time, research what I've said, because what you'll find, I'm telling you all the truth. Thank you all for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Please follow and subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow me on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. I'll tell you this. I ain't joking. I ain't playing. I'm just saying, Hey, see you allall again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (51:53): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.  

The Department of Justice announced on May 8 that a Florida woman pleaded guilty to a scheme that involved fraudulently procuring government contracts to supply critical military components to the Department of Defense.The woman, Yuksel Senbol, pleaded guilty to 25 felony counts, including violating the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Control Reform Act, money laundering and wire fraud. Download and listen to the audio version below and click here to subscribe to the Today in Manufacturing podcast.

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   Some articles referenced in the episode: Libertarian article: To End the War in Ukraine, Expose Its Core Lie | The Libertarian Institute Nato Watch article: How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion TruthOut article: The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made | Truthout   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon and this is a special episode. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum and we're failing to understand the broader historical context in which many of these events occur during each episode. Usually my guests and I have probing, provocative and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, and this enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is what's really behind this most recent spate of military spending and is democracy really at risk? My guest for this discussion is me as the brilliant philosopher of the late Maurice White with Earth, wind and Fire said in all about love. (01:23) I want to take this moment to run down a couple of things about things we see every day. So in this episode it's just going to be you and I, president Joe Biden. On Wednesday the 24th of April, he signed into law the So-called Military Aid Package. It's worth $95 billion of your hard earned tax dollars. It includes nearly $61 billion that's going to Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for the Indio Pacific. After signing the bill, president Biden said quote, it's a good day for America. It's a good day for Ukraine. It's a good day for world peace. The aid package, Biden said is going to make America safer. It's going to make the world safer, and it continues. America's leadership in the world. Is it and does it really well. So these statements by Biden, they're going to be kind of the broad outline of my comments for today. (02:43) What's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, Israel and the Indio Pacific, and is it an investment in safety or is it profit for the military industry? On January 17th, 1961 in his farewell address to the nation president Dwight Eisenhower, a former general and Republican warned the country and the world against the establishment of what he called the military industrial complex. Eisenhower said, and I quote, A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might ready for instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. He was talking about a defensive military, not an offensive military. He went on to say American makers of plowshares could with time and as required make swords as well, but now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions and this is really the key, this conjunction, this is Eisenhower of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications in the councils of government. (04:28) We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex, the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. I repeat that the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist and that's what we see today. Eisenhower was incredibly prophetic in his concern of the dangers of American foreign policy becoming the ideological play thing of the arms industry. So coming out of World War II in 1945 coming out of the Korean conflict in 1953 and entering the Vietnam conflict around 1955 or 1956, it's very easy to understand Eisenhower's position on the need for a strong and prepared military. We're not going to debate that point. That could be a whole nother program, but with that, he admonished us not to fail to comprehend the grave implications, the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. (05:57) So again, what's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, all this money to Israel, all this money to the Indio Pacific. Let's start with Ukraine and most of this will center around Ukraine because that's where a bulk of the money is going and that's also where for the most part, the most immediate risk of conflagration exists. There's a great piece that's published in the Libertarian Institute. It's entitled to end the War in Ukraine, expose its core lie to end the war in Ukraine, expose its core lie it's co-authored by Ted Snyder, a regular columnist on US foreign policy at antiwar and history at anti-war dot com as well as the Libertarian Institute and it's also it's co-authored by Professor Nikolai Petro. He's a political scientist at the University of Rhode Island and he's also the author of a number of books and since their piece is so well researched and so well written, I'm just going to quote from it, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they did a phenomenal job with this piece and I suggest everybody read it anyway. (07:19) They write. The essential argument used to avoid negotiation and continue support for the war in Ukraine is based upon a falsehood. They call it a falsehood. I call it a lie. That falsehood repeated by Joe Biden is that when Russian president Putin decided to invade Ukraine, he intended to conquer all of Ukraine and annihilated its falsity and this is Snyder and Petro its falsity has been exposed multiple times by military experts who have pointed out both before and after the invasion that Russia could not have intended to conquer all of Ukraine because it did not invade with sufficient forces to do so. Indeed, this was the key reason why senior Ukrainian officials and even President Zelensky himself argued just days before the invasion it would not occur. Now, I take issue with their use of the word invasion because it's really a military intervention, but again, that's a discussion for another time. (08:33) Folks, if you just strip away the rhetoric and the lies, and if you just look at the facts, the US started this fight with Russia and is using Ukraine as its proxy to do so. Schneider and Petro also have a piece, it's a shorter version of piece that I just referenced and it's entitled four Myths that Are Preventing Peace in Ukraine. Again, their work is so well researched and written, I'm just going to quote them again, I'm not going to try to reinvent the wheel they write. If diplomacy is to have a chance at settling the bloody conflict, then four persistent myths about Ukraine need to be exposed and refuted. Myth number one, Putin. I'm sorry, myth number one. If Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he will roll into Europe. You've heard this many times. If Putin takes Ukraine, according to President Biden, he said this in Congress on the 6th of December, 2023, he won't stop there. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear. (09:53) The problem with that statement is no evidence to support it has ever been presented. Petro and Snyder go continue, but Putin has not made that pretty clear. In fact, Putin has consistently said that the Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles of underlying the new international order. Simply put, it's about President Putin being concerned about Russian territorial security, sovereignty and integrity in the same manner that any other leader in the world is concerned about their territorial security, sovereignty and integrity. He's not doing anything different than what any other world leader would do. There's a piece@natowatch.com, I think.org, nato watch.org entitled How Gorbachev was Misled Over Assurances Against NATO expansion. And this piece that I'm referencing is kind of background to give you some greater context about what Schneider and Petro have written the US was trying to convince. The Soviet Union, this is back in the nineties, was trying to convince the Soviet Union to allow for the reunification of East and West Germany. (11:40) The then US Secretary of State, James Baker, his famous not one inch eastward assurance about NATO expansion while he was meeting within the president of Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. This was on February 9th, 1990 was only a part of a cascade of similar assurances, meaning not only did James Baker say it, but other European leaders said this to Gorbachev as well. In February of 1990, baker assured the Soviet Union, and at the time he was the US Secretary of State under then President George HW Bush, he assured his counterpart Edward Chevron Nazi, that in a post Cold War Europe, NATO would no longer be belligerent, less of a military organization, much more of a political one, and then it would have no need for an independent capability. This is what the United States told the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, baker promised Shepherd Nazi ironclad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward meaning no closer to the then Soviet Union. (13:12) On the same day in Moscow. He famously told the Secretary General that the alliance would not move one inch to the East The following day, O Cole, the future chancellor of a United Germany repeated the same thought to Gorbachev even though they were disagreeing on other issues. Tillman Cole told Gorbachev not one inch eastward. That's what convinced Gorbachev to agree to the reunification of east and West Germany. I believe France, Britain and possibly one or two other European countries made the same assurances as well. And again, as a result of these insurances assurances, Germany was reunited the West NATO and Western allies or US allies have violated this agreement ever since. That's what's at the crux of the conflict. That's why when President Putin and President Biden met in Geneva, Switzerland before the Russian intervention, Putin told Biden, I'm giving you my security concerns in writing and I expect your response to my concerns to come back to me in writing. (14:46) He demanded the written response because Baker had stated the commitment verbally to Gorbachev. So now Putin wants this in writing and just quickly to those that say, oh, well, because it was just a statement and it was not written, it's not valid. Nene, I say to you, there's a case, I think it's Norway versus Greenland. It's a 19 35, 19 36 international law case that holds statements made by official representatives of states or countries are valid. They are enforceable. So the fact that Baker said it and didn't write it does not mean it's not valid. Again, according to Norway v Greenland, it's a 19 35, 19 36 international case. Okay with that. Now let's go back to Petro myth number two. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was never about nato. That's the myth that this has. The conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with nato. Western officials insists that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked and that Russia's decision to illegally invade Ukraine was never about NATO expansion and crossing Russia's red lines, but rather it's a senseless war against a sovereign freedom loving nation. (16:29) Petro Snyder continue. On the 7th of September of 2023, NATO's secretary Jens Stoltenberg made the stunning admission that Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was indeed provoked by NATO encroachment on Ukraine. The United States wanted to put missiles into Ukraine too close to the Russian border. Prior to making that decision to go into Ukraine, Stoltenberg said that Putin had sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent to us, Stoltenberg said and was a precondition for his not invading Ukraine. And Stoltenberg said, of course, we didn't sign that. Myth number three, the war in Ukraine is a war on democracy versus autocracy. According to this narrative, Russia cannot be allowed to win because this war is not just about Ukraine. It's the first battlefield in a larger war for democracy against autocracy. (17:55) But Russia abandoned the goal of exporting ideology when the Soviet Union collapsed. In fact, the Russian constitution, article 13 of the Russian constitution explicitly prohibits the imposition of a single state ideology and the exportation of such. And for those of you who will say, oh, you all didn't know Russia has a constitution, president Putin is bound by that constitution. Russia has a parliament, they have a democracy. Vladimir Putin, contrary to popular belief and narrative is not an autocrat. He's no more of an autocrat than Joe Biden is an autocrat and some would tell you that Joe Biden is an autocrat. But anyway, this and this is my input. If the US is spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to defend democracy, then why did the United States go in and overthrow the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich in Ukraine in 2014? To that point, there is a piece in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made. (19:18) You can find this in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made assistant Secretary of State at the time, Victorian Newland engineered Ukraine's regime change without weighing its likely consequences. This is by Robert Perry, a RRY, as the Ukrainian army squares off against ultra-right, and neo-Nazi militias in the west and violence against ethnic Russians continues in the East, the obvious folly of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy has come into focus even for many who tried to ignore the facts or what many have called the mess that Victoria Newland made assistant Secretary of state for European affairs. Tor Newland was the mastermind behind the February 22nd, 2014 regime change in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich while convincing the ever gullible us mainstream media that the coup wasn't really a coup but a victory for democracy folks. She worked with Nazis in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected Jankovich government in 2014. (20:51) It's called the ma don coup or ma don coup. Look it up, M-A-I-D-O-N. Everything I'm telling you right now, you can verify for yourselves. In fact, I implore you to do so. I'm not just taking this stuff off the top of my head. This is not my opinion. If it is my opinion, I will tell you that it is. This is historic fact. Myth number four, Putin again, this is Snyder and Petro Putin is not interested in negotiating. The West insists that Putin is not interested in negotiating an end to this conflict despite multiple news reports that he has been signaling through intermediaries that he is open to a ceasefire and that he is ready to make a deal. The White House continues to insist that he has shown absolutely no indication he's willing to negotiate. And that's just not true. My opinion, that's just not well, that's a fact. (22:08) He my opinion is not interested in negotiating based upon the usual tactic that the United States uses. The United States usual tactic of negotiation is capitulation. The United States comes to the table and says, here's how it's going to go. And once you agree to how we believe it's going to go, then we can sit down and talk about it. And Putin's saying, no ne nay, I'm not going to do that. You want to negotiate this. We're going to sit down and negotiate this. And that's one of the big problems. My opinion, again, that's one of the big problems that the United States has with dealing with a peer such as Russian president, Putin back to Petro. But the historical record shows that Putin has sought a negotiated settlement since the opening days of conflict. And by all accounts, Russia and Ukraine had even reached a tentative agreement in Istanbul in April of 2022. And that has been confirmed by American reporting by then Israeli Prime Minister Neftali Bennett by former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder by Turkish Foreign Minister, and Newman Tuus, sorry for that struggle with those names. He's the deputy chairman of Erdogan, Turkish president of Erdogan's party. In fact, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he went to Ukraine and told Zelensky in April of 22, under no circumstance is the West going to allow you to negotiate a settlement with Russia. (24:29) I say that again as the United States says that Russia has no interest in negotiating. They were already negotiating and they had reached an agreement. And there have been some instances, some press conferences where Putin has held up the agreement and said, I got it right here. But Bojo Boris Johnson went and told on behalf of the West, went and told Zelensky, under no circumstances is the West going back that play. So if Putin isn't interested in negotiating, negotiating, why did he participate in the mens agreements, the series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbass conflict that was fought between armed Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatist groups and the armed forces of Ukraine. Folks look up the Minsk accords. And when you look up the Minsk accords, here's the problem. You can find this at the World Socialist website. You can find this a number of places former German chancellor, Angela Merkel Min, that the mins accords or the mins agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine's arms buildup. The 2024 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Merkel told a German newspaper, it was also used. They also used that time to become stronger as you can see today. (26:16) And Angela Merkel was one of the key conveners of the Minsk meetings under the pretext of negotiating a settlement between what were called the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region and the rest of Ukraine. See, once you had the 2014 Midon coup and the Yakovich government was thrown out, then a pro Ukrainian nationalist Western leaning government backed by Nazis in Ukraine was implemented. And they then, because they were Ukrainian nationalists, they started ethnically cleansing what were called ethnic Russians in what's known as the Donbas region of Ukraine. And those folks in the Donbas were begging President Putin to intervene on their behalf. They're Ukrainian citizens with Russian background, Russian families, many of them speak Russian. They are members of the Russian Orthodox Church. They travel back and forth between the Donbass and Russia because they have families in Russia. But the Ukrainian nationalists wanted to ethnically cleanse them from the country. (27:50) And so in order to stop the conflict, they came to what was called the mens accords, which is why if you go back and look at the record, you'll see Putin telling Biden before he went into Ukraine, all you got to do is implement the Minsk agreement and we're good. All you've got to do is implement the Minsk agreement. And I'm not going in. We've already negotiated this. All you have to do is implement it. And the United, he told that to Biden when they were in Sweden in Geneva, you can look it up. The United States ignored it. So folks, this is a cursory view, cursory overview of the situation. You can research this for yourselves. Tony Blinken, Joe Biden, even Malcolm Nance, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, they're all lying to you. This is not about defending democracy, it's not about stopping the further advance of Russia. It's all about selling weapons around the world and they're using your nickel to do it. (29:22) Of the $60.7 billion that's going to Ukraine, $38.8 billion isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to US factories that make missiles, munitions, and other military gear. It's going to replenish the United States military stocks that have been depleted as a result of this fool's errand called Ukraine. It's going to Lockheed Martin, it's going to General Dynamics, it's going to General Electric, it's going to Boeing, it's going to Raytheon, it's going to a whole lot of other American arms manufacturers or as Eisenhower refer to them, the military industrial complex. And I'm not making these numbers up. You can look it up. This came from an Associated Press story and guess where the Associated Press got their numbers? They got their numbers from the Biden administration. So again, not my opinion, it's the facts. There's a great summary at the World Socialist website. (30:48) I referenced the story a little earlier in this piece, but if you're asking yourself, so what's the motivation behind the United States for using Ukraine as its proxy to confront Russia? The summary is as follows, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has pursued the goal of remaining the sole world power. To this end, Washington has waged numerous criminal wars and expanded NATO into Eastern Europe. Now it wants to integrate Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics into NATO and subjugate Russia in order to plunder its resources and isolate China. You may have heard the pivot towards China from the Obama administration. That's what this isolation of China is all about. It's a pivot away from Afghanistan, a pivot away from a conflict with Russia, and the focus is on China. So the 61 billion in aid to Ukraine, the 26 billion for Israel, the $8 billion for the Pacific, those are your tax dollars with infrastructure crumbling in the United States, healthcare, pensions, education, we don't have the money to deal with those things as the rate of suicide is up in the United States as the rate of depression is up in the United States as inflation is ravaging the pocketbooks of the middle class and the working class and the poor in this country, they got 95 billion of your tax dollars that they can send to Ukraine now 26 billion for Israel. (33:09) What a mess that is contrary to the dominant narrative. This conflict did not start on the 7th of October. In fact, there's a piece in the publication in these times entitled History didn't Begin on October 7th. The Israeli military is currently carrying out an attack on the besieged Gaza Strip bombing homes, bombing mosques, bombing hospitals, churches cutting off access to water, assassinating children, assassinating doctors. They're cutting off electricity, they're cutting off food. The Palestinian death toll has risen to over 35,000. 70% of those 35,000 are women and children, 80% of GA's, 2.3 million residents have been displaced GA's and suffer untreated injuries and a continual lack of medical supplies. (34:28) While this collective punishment, which by the way violates international law, has been justified by right wingers. Israeli defense minister Yoav Glan called Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip human animals and US Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina that's never met, a war he didn't like, called for the military to level the place in a sitting American senator has called upon the Israeli government to level Gaza, which by the way is in violation of American law because Israel is using American money and American weapons to ethnically cleanse, to collectively punish, to engage in genocide against the Palestinian people. Look up the Lehe law, thehe Amendment, look it up. Look up the Arms Export Control Act, and you'll see very clearly that the United States is in violation of its own law by providing weapons to Israel. While it's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while it's defense Minister Gallant and others have stated very clearly that they are engaging in genocide. (36:16) Now, as I talk about this and as I talk about what Hamas' response, Hezbollah's response in Lebanon, ansara Allah in Yemen, I'm not saying this to condone violence or to condone killing in no way, shape or form, but you have to understand the context in which these actions and reactions are taking place. Dr. King told us many times that war is an enemy of the poor, and he also talked about the three evils of society are racism, militarism, and poverty about racism. He said, if America does not respond creatively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men. That not only applies to how the United States government treats Native Americans, that not only applies to how the United States government treats Mexican and other Latino or Hispanic immigrants. That does not only apply to how the United States treats African-Americans, it applies to how the United States spends and spends its money to back fund and organize genocide against the Palestinians. (38:03) The second evil was militarism. And Dr. King said, A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. 95 billion sent of our tax dollars to foreign countries for war, for oppression to maintain this unitary or unilateral hegemony that the United States has become used to since World War II and our bridges are collapsing. You have people in the United States that are having to decide between do they pay their rent, do they pay their mortgage, or do they pay their grocery bill? And that takes us into the third element, the third evil of society that Dr. King talked about poverty where he says the poor black and white are still perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. What happens to a dream deferred? It leads to bewildering frustration and corroding bitterness. (39:29) The people cry for freedom and the Congress attempts to legislate repression. They just voted to send $95 billion of your tax dollars to oppress another people, repress another people, Dr. King, millions. Yes, billions are appropriated for mass murder. That's not me, that's Dr. King for mass murder. But the most meager pittance of foreign aid for international development is crushed in the surge of reaction. Unemployment rages at a major depression level in the black ghettos, but the bipartisan response is an anti-riot bill rather than a serious poverty program. Or you've got Mike Johnson going to Columbia calling for the arrest of protesting students that are protesting what? They're not protesting against Judaism. They're not protesting against Israelis, they're protesting against genocide and they're protesting for the freedom and the rights of Palestinians at the time that he gave this speech, which I think was 1968, right before he died, $26 billion. (40:56) I'm sorry, this is me now, my problem, my mistake, 26 billion of your tax dollars are being invested in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Context, folks. Context is incredibly, incredibly important here. I'm not going to go through the 75 years of apartheid and oppression right now that's going on in pal. I'm not going to go through that right now. Let's just look at some of the most recent incidents. According to Chatham House, the Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus on the 1st of April. You remember Israel sent missiles into Damascus, Syria and struck the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing an Iranian general and a number of other diplomats. That's unprecedented. That's an unprecedented escalation by Israel against Iran in Syria, an unprecedented escalation. Folks, it's a violation of international law for one country to attack the embassy or the consulate of another country, and they did it on Syrian soil, which means they also violated Syrian sovereignty. (42:37) What did Iran do after consultation with the United States and agreement with the United States? Some say it was Bill Burns from the CIA A with the US and other countries in the region and based upon and consistent with international law. That's a very, very important point here is that after Israel on April 1st illegally struck the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran did not just react in a knee-jerk manner. They didn't just send a barrage of missiles into Tel Aviv. They sat down and they spoke with the United States and they said, look, we can't allow this to stand. (43:29) We just can't sit I lead by anymore and let them do this to us. So here's what we're going to do Based upon international law, we are allowed to retaliate rarely. When you read about this in the newspaper, does it say that Iran retaliated against Israel? What they usually, how they usually describe it, and this is why context is important, they usually describe it as Iran struck Israel. Iran attacked Israel. No, they retaliated. And under international law, what you are allowed to do is you are allowed to strike military targets that were tied to the offensive strike that you endured, and you're also allowed through international law to strike support targets well such as radar towers, communication facilities. And so Iran sat down, I think it was Bill Burns from the CCIA A and Bill Burns said to Iran, okay, so long as you don't hit civilian targets, we the United States will not respond. So what did Iran do? (45:02) They retaliated as international law allows them to, and when they finished, they even gave the United States and Israel the heads up. They said In five hours, this is what we're going to do. And they used these slow moving drones so that the United States and Israeli radar could track the drones. They even gave them time to get their newly acquired F 35 jet fighter planes that they had just gotten from the United States out of harm's way. They did all of that to make a point, and when they were finished, they said, we now consider the matter closed. You struck us. We retaliated we're good, but Israel wasn't satisfied. (46:10) And what did Israel do? They struck again in violation of international law. Fortunately, president Raisi as well as Supreme Leader, Khomeini and others in the Iranian government, fortunately they are thoughtful. Fortunately, they have a longer view of history than Americans do. Fortunately, they exercised restraint and they have not struck back. Think about that context, folks. Context is very important. President Biden tells us that we're protecting security and democracy in Israel. Here's the newsflash. There's nothing secure about Israel and there's nothing democratic about a colony that oppresses over 30%. Its population. Palestinians do not have the same rights to vote as Israelis do. Palestinians do not have the same right to travel throughout the country as Israelis do. (47:46) Many Palestinians have been relegated to living in an open air concentration camp called the Gaza Strip, where their caloric intake is monitored and managed by the Israeli government. Their access to water, their access to electricity is managed by the Israeli government. That's not democracy. That's not even humanity. It's called genocide. And your tax dollars are being used to fund it. There's nothing democratic about a United States that is arresting students for peacefully protesting against genocide. Now, over 40 colleges and universities are engaged in protests. The University of Southern California in Los Angeles has canceled graduation. They are not allowing, well, the first thing they did was they decided that the valedictorian of the class of 2024, a Palestinian American woman was not going to be allowed to give her valedictorian address and they claim due to security concerns. So instead of protecting her and allowing her to give her speech, they have been held hostage by threat, by innuendo, by social media posts. Think about that. (49:29) Over 40 colleges and universities are now engaged in protests and presidents of these universities are calling out the police. They were arresting students. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, just went to Columbia University and threatened or called for the resignation of the President of Columbia because she's not following the script. And to show you how prevalent this has become, there are now high school students, high school students in Washington DC at Jackson Reed High School, the largest high school in the District of Columbia. They have had to file a lawsuit being represented by ACL U. They have filed a lawsuit against their principal saying that the principal has infringed upon their first amendment rights by barring them from holding pro-Palestinian events and distributing information materials. So apparently the First Amendment doesn't apply if your speech is in support of those that the Israeli lobby deems to be offensive. (51:06) And for those of you listening to this that say that this is an anti-Semitic analysis, no, it's not. It's anti-Zionist is what it is. And contrary to what they have now wanted to say from Congress and what many backing the Israeli lobby will tell you, Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Zionism is a political ideology that is racist, that is white supremacists and is used as the basis for genocide against the Palestinians, whereas Judaism is a religious belief system. Two totally different things. Finally, what the United States loves to call the Indio Pacific, basically what they're doing is trying to start a war with China, and they're using the island of Taiwan as the United States has used Ukraine as its proxy to start a war with Russia. The United States is using the island of Taiwan in a similar manner, and fortunately, president Xi of China is thoughtful, patient, reserved, and is not responding to the provocations as the United States would do if China were trying to do to Puerto Rico or trying to do through Puerto Rico. What the United States is trying to do to China through Taiwan, missiles would be flying and bullets would be shot. (53:17) But G is a wise man and he's not falling for the banana in the trick. He's not going to allow the United States to provoke his country into a conflict. So the United States is engaging in military exercises with South Korea. The United States is engaged in military exercises with Japan. The United States is engaged in military exercises with the Philippines. The United States is building more military bases in along the Pacific Rim. All of this, and heaven knows why, because it's a fight. The US can win. We don't have the technology, we don't have the technology that they have. We don't have the capacity, the capability, the hypersonic missiles. Look, the United States going back to the Iranian, I'm sorry, going back to, yeah, the Gaza conflict, the United States sends in the USS Eisenhower, was it Gerald Ford? I think it was the Gerald Ford. They send in the Gerald Ford carrier Group into the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel. And President Putin says to Biden, he says, why are you doing this? He says, you're not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. He says, oh, and by the way, we Russia can sink your aircraft carrier from here with hypersonic missiles. (55:26) Hypersonic missiles. These things fly at something like nine times, 10 times the speed of sound they have, I think it's the SU 35, which is a fighter jet that Russia has, and they're called Kja. I think it's K-I-N-J-A-L, Ken jal missiles. Look it up. They can sink the carrier from the Black Sea before the carrier even recognizes that the missiles are incoming. That thing is on its way. That carrier is on its way to the bottom of the Mediterranean before they even know that the missiles are incoming, and China has the technology as well. Some say that Iran has the technology. (56:20) So folks, why are your tax dollars being used being wasted when there is such drastic need at home? And this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Democratic, this is a NeoCon, and you got Republican and Democratic neocons. This is a NeoCon issue. They are lying to you about the rationales and the so-called logic that they are employing so that it's a money laundering scheme, is what it is. The United States through its proxy, Ukraine starts a conflict with Russia so that the Biden administration can tell you that we have to increase our military spending to stop the fight with Russia to stop the war in Ukraine, to defend the Ukrainians. Well, if you hadn't started the fight in the first place, there wouldn't be a fight. (57:57) Joe Biden tells us we have to defend security and democracy in Israel as the United States Arms funds, trains, provides logistics support to the Israeli government as it engages in genocide against the Palestinians. It's very simple. Joe, if you want to bring a stop to this as you ring your hands and cry, crocodile tears about protecting innocent Palestinian civilians, pick up the phone. Tell Benjamin Netanyahu, you don't get another damn dime. Very simple, very simple. The way you end the fight is don't start the fight in the first place. The United States is trying to provoke a war with China over Taiwan, even though it is clearly stated, articulated by then President Nixon, secretary of State, Kissinger, the one China policy. The United States considers Taiwan to be a part of China. The UN recognizes Taiwan is a part of China. The majority of Taiwanese believe support that they are Chinese citizens. If you don't want to have a fight with China, then don't provoke the fight with China, as they say on the corner. Don't start nothing. Won't be nothing. So folks, here's what you really need to think about. What does this mean? I just went through Ukraine. I just went through Israel. I just went through the conflict with China, and what does this mean? What's at stake? Well, first of all, world War iii. Remember, Russia is a nuclear armed country. China, I believe, has nuclear weapons. Israel, that's the worst kept secret in the world, is a nuclear armed country. So the United States as a nuclear power is trying to start a conflict with other nuclear powers. A nuclear war is unwinnable by anybody. Everybody loses in the course of a nuclear war, (01:01:06) Even if the war doesn't go nuclear. Look at all the resources that have been wasted that could have been used to make America truly safer. When our infrastructure is sound, the country is safer. When our children are better educated, our country is safer. When you have social security, our country is safer. Why can't we have the healthcare, the mental healthcare, the family care that this $95 billion, and that's just the most recent of the So-called aid bills. That's just the most recent of them, 95 billion. Where could that money go, and what could that money do to help you life easier to ensure a better standard of living for you? (01:02:32) What could be done with that money instead of being used to fund a fight that the United States started? Again, don't start. Nothing won't be nothing. But when militarism is all you have, what is the adage? When your only solution is a hammer, every problem is a nail. When militarism is your solution, every problem is a conflict. And oh, by the way, you're starting the conflict. So folks, in all the stuff that I've said over this past hour, if you heard that on M-S-N-B-C, have you heard that on CNN? Have you heard that on Fox News? Probably not. But when you do a little research, you'll find everything I've said to you is true. (01:03:45) The truth is the light. So again, this is on you because this is impacting you, and you've got to start at the local level, starting with your city council, starting with your state and local government and working its way up. You've got to look at what those kids are doing on college campuses and on high school campuses. Now they are getting engaged. Now, I'm not saying you got to pitch a tent on somebody's lawn, and no, there are a myriad of ways that you can reengage in the process, but it starts with reading. So with that, I say to you, I got to thank my guest, who by the way, is me. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Go to patreon.com/wilmer leon and contribute. Please contribute. It costs to produce this program every week. We could do more programs in the week if we had the funding to do so. So please contribute. Go to patreon.com/wilmer Leon, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, history, converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace Announcer (01:06:11): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

The US Department of State has concluded an administrative settlement with The Boeing Company to resolve 199 violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. High winds and rough seas in the Atlantic have pushed back the launch of SpaceX Crew-8 Saturday at 11.16pm local time at the earliest, and more.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our weekly intelligence roundup, Signals and Space, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Our guest today is Robert Kurson, author of Rocket Men: The Daring Odyssey of Apollo 8 and the Astronauts Who Made Man's First Journey to the Moon. The US Congress passing a Continuing Resolution which extends the deadlines for passing the FY2024 appropriations bills further into March. You can learn more about Robert Kurson's novels on his website. Selected Reading U.S. Department of State Concludes $51 Million Settlement Resolving Export Violations by The Boeing Company Boeing in talks to buy supplier Spirit AeroSystems, WSJ reports- Reuters Congress Clears New CR, Punting Shutdown Threat Further Into March – SpacePolicyOnline.com https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7169004907721654274/ NewsSpace ground tracking program to reach key milestone NASA delays space station crew rotation flight, makes way for SpaceX Starlink launch - CBS  IM-1 | Intuitive Machines Sidus Space Announces Pricing of Public Offering | Business Wire NASA Selects ACMI as Second Approved Exploration Park Facility UK and France to deepen research and AI links following Horizon association - GOV.UK Funding boost to grow Aussie space sector Former NASA Administrator Richard Truly Passes Away – SpacePolicyOnline.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwxO1ZiJ0k T-Minus Crew Survey We want to hear from you! Please complete our 4 question survey. It'll help us get better and deliver you the most mission-critical space intel every day. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As what is being dubbed a genocide going on in Gaza, with now over 25,000 killed the majority of whom are women and children, and with over 62,000 injured. The US anti-war movement is struggling to impact the US Congress and President Biden to actively call for and work for a ceasefire, as well as to stop funding Israel's military operation. The US historically provides over $3 billion in aid each year to Israel, the largest to any other country. Additionally, the Biden administration bypassed Congress through an emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act to sell Israel $106 million worth of tank ammunition. Biden's unilateral support for Israeli policies in Gaza has earned him the moniker “Genocide Joe”. Our guest is Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund. And there is news on the Child Tax Credit. After millions of families were disappointed when Congress allowed the popular expanded CTC to expire after one year, there is new hope for a bi-partisan deal to bring back some elements of the expanded CTC. But who will be left out of the credit? The Expanded CTC lifted at least 4 million children out of poverty and cut child hunger by ¼. In contrast the new bipartisan proposal under pressure from the GOP would roll back some of the earlier gains of the Expanded CTC. The new proposal would lift 400,000 children out of poverty leaving behind millions of the most impoverished. Congresswoman DeLauro who has championed the CTC for over two decades said that the bi-partisan CTC proposal “will keep millions of children in preventable poverty.” Most NGO advocates on Capitol Hill including the Children's Defense Fund, Economic Security Project and others are supporting the bi-partisan compromise though they admit it doesn't go far enough out of fear of no action in this Congress on the CTC and with the hope that it can be improved on in 2025. We will hear remarks by Congresswoman Gwen Moore a champion in Congress against poverty, as she spoke during the House Ways and Means Committee Hearing this past Friday on the proposed compromise. And our guest is Phoebe Jones Schellenberg who has been actively supporting bringing back the expanded CTC. Phoebe is with Care Income Now and is a co-coordinator of the Global Women's Strike in the US.

As what is being dubbed a genocide going on in Gaza, with now over 25,000 killed the majority of whom are women and children, and with over 62,000 injured. The US anti-war movement is struggling to impact the US Congress and President Biden to actively call for and work for a ceasefire, as well as to stop funding Israel's military operation. The US historically provides over $3 billion in aid each year to Israel, the largest to any other country. Additionally, the Biden administration bypassed Congress through an emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act to sell Israel $106 million worth of tank ammunition. Biden's unilateral support for Israeli policies in Gaza has earned him the moniker “Genocide Joe”. Our guest is Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund. And there is news on the Child Tax Credit. After millions of families were disappointed when Congress allowed the popular expanded CTC to expire after one year, there is new hope for a bi-partisan deal to bring back some elements of the expanded CTC. But who will be left out of the credit? The Expanded CTC lifted at least 4 million children out of poverty and cut child hunger by ¼. In contrast the new bipartisan proposal under pressure from the GOP would roll back some of the earlier gains of the Expanded CTC. The new proposal would lift 400,000 children out of poverty leaving behind millions of the most impoverished. Congresswoman DeLauro who has championed the CTC for over two decades said that the bi-partisan CTC proposal “will keep millions of children in preventable poverty.” Most NGO advocates on Capitol Hill including the Children's Defense Fund, Economic Security Project and others are supporting the bi-partisan compromise though they admit it doesn't go far enough out of fear of no action in this Congress on the CTC and with the hope that it can be improved on in 2025. We will hear remarks by Congresswoman Gwen Moore a champion in Congress against poverty, as she spoke during the House Ways and Means Committee Hearing this past Friday on the proposed compromise. And our guest is Phoebe Jones Schellenberg who has been actively supporting bringing back the expanded CTC. Phoebe is with Care Income Now and is a co-coordinator of the Global Women's Strike in the US.

After over 11 years working as a Director in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Josh Paul recently resigned from the State Department. In this role he was responsible for U.S. defense diplomacy, security assistance, and arms transfers. He joined the show this week to discuss the pipeline of US weapons being sent to Israel. While the letter of the law has perhaps been followed regarding these arms transfers, Josh argues that its spirit has not. Congress is failing to perform its oversight role and hold the Biden administration accountable. We discussed the laws that are supposed to govern the transfer of weapons, namely the Arms Export Control Act, the Leahy Laws, and the Foreign Assistance Act and their circumvention by the Biden Administration. We closed by discussing the larger lessons that the US should draw from its own experience fighting the Global War on Terror.

Related material Main page: https://billatnapier.medium.com/cryptography-fundamentals-8-rsa-rivest-shamir-and-adleman-445b91932bd0 RSA: https://asecuritysite.com/rsa  Introduction In August 1977, The Stranglers were in the music charts with “Something Better Change” and something really was changing, and it was something that would change the world forever. This was the month that Martin Gardner in his Scientific American column, posted a challenge of a method that has stood the test of time: RSA. It related to the work of R(ivest), A(dleman) and S(hamir) and was a puzzle on their discovery of a method which allowed two keys to be created, where one could encrypt and the other to decrypt. Their work had been based on a proposal from Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman on trapdoor functions that could be used to create the key pair. Mathematical Puzzles introducing RSA In order to explain the RSA concept, Martin's provided a background the Diffie-Hellman method for which he outlined: Then in 1975 a new kind of cipher was proposed that radically altered the situation by supplying a new definition of "unbreakable." a definition that comes from the branch of computer science known as complexity theory. These new ciphers are not absolutely unbreakable in the sense of the one-time pad. but in practice they are unbreakable in a much stronger sense than any cipher previously designed for widespread use. In principle these new ciphers can be broken. but only by computer programs that run for millions of years! Overall the Diffie-Hellman method has had a good run, but it has struggled in recent years to keep up with the processing power for computers, and the millions of years of running is not quite the case in the modern area, and where the original ciphers could now easily be broken with the simplest of computers within minutes. With the RSA method, Martin Gardner outlined: Their work supported by grants from the NSF and the Office of Naval Research. appears in On Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems (Technical Memo 82. April. 1977) issued by the Laboratory for Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology 545 Technology Square. Cambridge Mass. 02139.The memorandum is free to anyone who writes Rivest at the above address enclosing a self-addressed. 9-by-12-inch clasp. On receipt the requesters eventually (it took over four months in many cases) received a precious piece of history (Figure ref{fig03}). RSA research paper It seems unbelievable these days, but the original methods were based on two 63-digit prime numbers that would be multiplied to create a 126-digit value: Contrast this with the difficulty of finding the two prime factors of a 125- or 126-digit number obtained by multiplying two 63-digit primes. If the best algorithm known and the fastest of today's computers were used, Rivest estimates that the running time required would be about 40 quadrillion years' A 256-bit number, at its maximum, generates 78-digits: 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,984,665, 640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 Web: https://asecuritysite.com/encryption/keys3 The 40 quadrillion years has not quite happened, and where 512-bit keys are easily broken in Cloud. If you are interested, here is a 512-bit integer value and which has 148 digits, such as: 13,407,807,929,942,597,099,574,024,998,205,846,127,479,365,820,592,393,377,723,561,443,721,764,030,073,546,976,801,874,298,166,903,427,690,031,858,186,486,050,853,753,882,811,946,569,946,433,6 49,006,084,096 web: http://asecuritysite.com/encryption/random2 The search for prime numbers, too, has been progressive since 1977, and by 2014, the world discovered a 17,425,170-digit prime number. The finding of prime numbers make the finding of them in the RSA method must easier. So the RSA method has been under attack for years, from both discovering prime numbers and also in factorizing. Along with this computing power has increased massively. If think that 40 years that have passed, and take a quick assumption that computing power doubles every year then we get: 1977 4 Quadrillion Years (4,000,000,000,000,000)1978 2 Quadrillion Year1979 1 Quadrillion Year…2020 227 years2021 113 years2022 57 years2023 28 years and if we get a GPU card with 4,000 processors, we take it to less than a year, and we get of few of them today into a cluster, and we crack it within one day! The FREAK vulnerability was actually caused by the limiting of RSA keys, due to US Export controls, to 512-bits. The factorising of prime numbers too has generated methods which can quickly find the prime number factors  The Tension of Crypto and Academic Freedom Once Martin had published the article, the requests for the article came rushing in, especially as the paper had not yet appeared in the Communication of the ACM. Initially there were 4,000 requests for the paper (which rose to 7,000), and it took until December 1977 for them to be posted. Why did it take so long to get the paper published and also to send them out? Well the RSA method caused significant problems within the US defence agencies. This was highlighted in a letter sent from J.A.Meyer to the IEEE Information Theory Group on a viewpoint that cryptography could be violating the 1954 Munitions Control Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and could thus be viewed equivalent to nuclear weapons. In even went on to say that: Atomic weapons and cryptography are also covered by special secrecy laws The main focus of the letter was that any work related to cryptography would have to be cleared by the NSA before publication. In fact, the letter itself had been written by Joseph A Meyer, an employee of the NSA. Joseph had already been embroiled in controversy with a proposal to fit a tracking device to the 20 million US citizens who had been associated with crime. The tag would then be used to monitor the location of the “subscriber”, and to detect when they broke a curfew or committed a crime. In this modern era of GPS tracking of everyone's phones, Joseph's dream has actually become a reality, but now everyone is monitored. The RSA team thus had a major dilemma, as many of the requests for the paper come from outside the US. Martin Hellman, who was a co-author of the Diffie-Hellman method, had already had problems with ITAR, and even decided to present thep aper himself in 1977 at Cornell University rather than the practice of letting his PhD students present the work. His thinking was that the court case would be lengthy, and that it would damage his PhD student's studies (Ralph Merkle and Steve Pohlig), and so he stood up for academic freedoms. Initially the students wanted to present their work, but their families did not think it a good idea. Eventually though, Ralph and Steve stood beside Hellman on the stage to present the paper, but did not utter a word. With this stance the cryptographers held ground, and hoped that a stated exemption on published work within ITAR would see them through. The worry, though, did delay the paper being published, and for the posting of the article. In reply to Meyer's letter, the IEEE stood its ground on their publications being free of export licence controls, with the burden of permissions placed on the authors: RSA research paper and then additional response from the IEEE saying they put in place safeguards for the publishing of material. The scope of the impact of RSA was perhaps not quite known at the time with Len Adleman stating: I thought this would be the least important paper my name would ever appear on In fact, Adleman has said that he did not want his name on the paper, as he had done little work on it, but he did insist that his name went last. Often papers, too, have an alphabet order, and if so the method could have been known as the ARS method … not the kind of thing that you would want to say to audiences on a regular basis. RSA Within cryptography we typically use non-negative integer values, and perform integer operations. The challenge in public key encryption is to find a method which is computationally difficult for a computer to solve, if it does not know a given secret (normally the private key). One such problem is the difficulty in factorizing a value made up of the multiplication of two large prime numbers. In RSA, we take two large prime numbers — typically at least 512 bits long — and then multiply these together to create a modulus value, (N) (often at least 1,024 bits long). From this, we then derive a public exponent (e) and a modulus. The modulus N is thus determine by multiplying the two prime numbers (p and q): N = p x q The core challenge here is that it should be extremely difficult (and costly) to determine the two prime numbers which make up N. Next we select the value of our encryption key value for the public key (e). This is selected so that N and e do not share any factors: gcd(e,PHI)=1, and where  PHI = (p-1)(q-1) This is known as Euler's totient function. The most typical value we use for e is 65,537 (0x10001). To produce a cipher (C), we convert our message into the form of an integer (M) and then use e and N to give: C = M^e mod N To decrypt this, we take the cipher (C), and recover the message value using the decryption exponent (d) and the modulus (N): M = C^d mod N To make RSA work, we then need to calculate the private exponent (d) to obey: (d x e) mod{PHI} = 1 and where phi is: PHI = (p-1)(q-1) We determine d by determining the inverse of e modulus phi: d = e^{-1} pmod {phi} So let's take p=11 and q=7, and pick e of 3. N will be: N=p.q = 77   PHI is 6x10=60 We can't pick e of 3 or 5, so we will pick e=7. Now we compute the decryption exponent of d = e^{-1} mod (PHI) >>> pow(7,-1,60) 43 If we select a message of 19, we get a cipher of: C=19⁷ (mod 77) = 68 Now to decrypt: M= 68⁴³ (mod 77) = 19 Our public key is then (e,N) and the private key is (d,N). The usage of the (mod N) operation is the magic that makes this work. Unfortunately, the RSA method has suffered from performance issues as we have increased the size of the prime numbers used. Thus, if researchers can crack a modulus of 1,024 bits, they will factorize the two 512-bit prime numbers used. At the current time, a public modulus of 2,048 bits is recommended. So while a modulus of this size is acceptable within a powerful computer, devices which have limited CPU resources often struggle in creating the keys, and in the encryption and decryption process. RSA Signatures With the mathematical operations involved, RSA is hardly ever used for core encryption, as symmetric key methods are much more efficient in their implementation. But it is fairly efficient when dealing with relatively small data sizes, such as for a symmetric key (typically only 128 bits or 256 bits long). For this, Alice might protect a symmetric key with her public key, and whenever she needs to use it, she will decrypt it with her private key. Another area where we use RSA is to take a hash of a message, and then encrypt this with the private key. As the hash is relatively small (such as 128 bits, 160 bits or 256-bits), it is relatively efficient on the use of the computing resources. Where public key encryption methods come in most use is within creating digital signatures, and where Bob can take a hash of a message, and then encrypt this hash with his private key. Alice can then also take a hash of the received message, and decrypt Bob's encrypted hash with his public key, and compare the values produced. If they match, she determines that it was Bob who sent the message and that it has not been changed by anyone.  In Figure ref{fig_trust03} we see that Bob has a key pair (a public key and a private key). He takes a hash of the message and encrypts with his private key, and then appends this to the message. This and then message will be encrypted by the symmetric key that Bob and Alice share (typically this is either a long-term shared key, or has just been negotiated through a hand-shake). When she receives the ciphered message, she decrypts it with the shared symmetric key, and then takes her own hash of the message. She also decrypts the encrypted hash using Bob's public key, and then compares the hashes. As the public key and the private key work together, only the signing by Bob's private key will reveal the hash with his public key. Alice can then tell that the message has not been changed — as the hash would change if Eve has modified it — and that it was produced by Bob (and not by Eve pretending to be Bob). Obviously, we now have a problem in how we get Bob's public key. An important element here, is that they have to find a way for Bob to send Alice her public key in a trusted way, so that Eve cannot intercept it, and change the keys. For this, we introduce Trent, and who is trusted by Bob and Alice to prove their keys. For this Trent signs the public key of Bob with his private key, and then Alice uses Trent's public key to prove Bob's public key. For a few decades, RSA has been the main method in supporting public key encryption. We often use it when we connect to a secure Web site, and where the RSA method is used to prove the identity of the Web site. In this case the RSA public key of the site is presented to the user in the form of a digital certificate — and which is signed by a trusted source. The Web site can then prove its identity by signing a hash of the data with its private key, and the client can check this. A typical size of the public modulus is now 2,048 bits (created by two 1,024 bit prime numbers), and with some sites supporting 4,096 bits. So while desktop computers have the processing power to cope with these large numbers, less able devices (such as for low processing powered IoT — Internet of Things — devices) will often struggle to perform the necessary calculations. Simple example So let's take a simple implementation of RSA key generation, encryption and decryption. In this case the code is: Web: https://asecuritysite.com/encryption/rsa12 In this case, we generate two random prime numbers ($p$ and $q$) for a given number of bits. The more bits we use, the more secure the method is likely to be, as an increase in the number of bits increases the number of prime numbers that can be searched for. Once we have these, we then determine the public modulus ($N$) by multiplying the prime numbers together. The difficulty of the problem is then factorizing this modulus back into the prime numbers. If we have the public modulus, it is fairly simple to then find the decryption exponent value. In most modern examples of RSA, we select a public exponent value ($e$) of 65,537, and so our encryption key becomes $(65,537,N)$. The decryption exponent ($d$) is then the inverse of $e pmod {phi}$ (and where $phi=(p-1)(q-1)$). from Crypto.Util.number import *from Crypto import Randomimport Cryptoimport libnumimport sysbits=60msg="Hello"p = Crypto.Util.number.getPrime(bits, randfunc=Crypto.Random.get_random_bytes)q = Crypto.Util.number.getPrime(bits, randfunc=Crypto.Random.get_random_bytes)n = p*qPHI=(p-1)*(q-1)e=65537d=libnum.invmod(e,PHI)## d=(gmpy2.invert(e, PHI))m= bytes_to_long(msg.encode('utf-8'))c=pow(m,e, n)res=pow(c,d ,n)print ("Message=%snp=%snq=%snnd=%dne=%dnN=%snnPrivate key (d,n)nPublic key (e,n)nncipher=%sndecipher=%s" % (msg,p,q,d,e,n,c,(long_to_bytes(res))))end{lstlisting} A test run using 60-bit prime numbers is: Message=hellop=242648958288128614541925147518101769011q=299356840913214192252590475232148200447N=72638625604016464006874651287120524699932001616388639276131104258310920947917cipher=5847803746095553957863305890801268831081138920772806292673259864173015661385decipher=hello Conclusions RSA has been around for over 46 years, and is still going strong. It can encrypt and it can sign. While the prime numbers involved has got larger, and it needs to have padding applied, it is still one of the best public key methods around, and well used on the Web.  

The annual war authorization (NDAA) is an excellent opportunity to examine our military's roles and goals in the world. In this episode, learn about how much of our tax money Congress provided the Defense Department, including how much of that money is classified, how much more money was dedicated to war than was requested, and what they are authorized to use the money for. This episode also examines our Foreign Military Financing programs with a deep dive into a new partner country: Ecuador. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd269-ndaa-2023-plan-ecuador Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD243: Target Nicaragua CD230: Pacific Deterrence Initiative CD229: Target Belarus CD218: Minerals are the New Oil CD191: The “Democracies” Of Elliott Abrams CD187: Combating China CD176: Target Venezuela: Regime Change in Progress CD172: The Illegal Bombing of Syria CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico CD128: Crisis in Puerto Rico CD108: Regime Change CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? World Trade System “IMF vs. WTO vs. World Bank: What's the Difference?” James McWhinney. Oct 10, 2021. Investopedia. The Profiteers: Bechtel and the Men Who Built the World. Sally Denton. Simon and Schuster: 2017. Littoral Combat Ships “The Pentagon Saw a Warship Boondoggle. Congress Saw Jobs.” Eric Lipton. Feb 4, 2023. The New York Times. “BAE Systems: Summary.” Open Secrets. Foreign Military Sales Program “Written Testimony of Assistant Secretary of State Jessica Lewis before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing on the ‘Future of Security Sector Assistance.'” March 10, 2022. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ecuador “Ecuador - Modern history.” Encyclopedia Britannica. “Ecuador Tried to Curb Drilling and Protect the Amazon. The Opposite Happened.” Catrin Einhorn and Manuela Andreoni. Updated Jan 20, 2023. The New York Times. “Ecuador: An Overview,” [IF11218]. June S. Beittel and Rachel L. Martin. Sep 9, 2022. Congressional Research Service. “Ecuador: In Brief,” [R44294]. June S. Beittel. Updated Feb 13, 2018. Congressional Research Service. “Ecuador's 2017 Elections,” [IF10581] June S. Beittel. Updated April 20, 2017. Congressional Research Services. Debt Default “Ecuador's Debt Default: Exposing a Gap in the Global Financial Architecture.” Sarah Anderson and Neil Watkins. Dec 15, 2008. Institute for Policy Studies. “Ecuador: President Orders Debt Default.” Simon Romero. Dec 12, 2008. The New York Times. Violence and Drugs “Ecuador's High Tide of Drug Violence.” Nov 4, 2022. International Crisis Group. “Lasso will propose to the US an Ecuador Plan to confront drug trafficking.” Jun 8, 2022. EcuadorTimes.net. “‘Es hora de un Plan Ecuador': el presidente Lasso dice en entrevista con la BBC que su país necesita ayuda para enfrentar el narcotráfico.” Vanessa Buschschluter. Nov 4, 2021. BBC. “Ecuador declares state of emergency over crime wave.” Oct 19, 2021. Deutsche Welle. Mining “An Ecuadorean Town Is Sinking Because of Illegal Mining.” Updated Mar 28, 2022. CGTN America. “New Mining Concessions Could Severely Decrease Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Ecuador.” Bitty A. Roy. Jun 19, 2018. Tropical Conservation Science. Foreign Infrastructure Investments “Ecuador prioritizing 4 road projects involving more than US$1bn.” Nov 28, 2022. BNamericas. “USTDA Expands Climate Portfolio in Ecuador.” May 27, 2022. U.S. Trade and Development Agency. “Ecuador's controversial and costliest hydropower project prompts energy rethink.” Richard Jiménez and Allen Panchana. Dec 16, 2021. Diálogo Chino. “Ecuador's Power Grid Gets a Massive Makeover.” Frank Dougherty. Mar 1, 2021. Power. Fishing “China fishing fleet defied U.S. in standoff on the high seas.” Joshua Goodman. Nov 2, 2022. Chattanooga Times Free Press. “Report to Congress: National 5-year Strategy for Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (2022-2026).” October 2022. U.S. Interagency Working Group on IUU Fishing. “United States Launches Public-Private Partnership In Peru And Ecuador To Promote Sustainable, Profitable Fishing Practices.” Oct 7, 2022. U.S. Agency for International Development. “US Coast Guard Conducts High Seas Boarding for First Time in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization Convention Area.” U.S. Coast Guard. Oct 5, 2022. Diálogo Americas. “Walmart, Whole Foods, and Slave-Labor Shrimp.” Adam Chandler. Dec 16, 2015. The Atlantic. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) Cutter Ships 22 USC Sec. 2321j, Update “Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress,” [R42567]. Ronald O'Rourke. Updated August 30, 2022. Congressional Research Service. Julian Assange “How Julian Assange became an unwelcome guest in Ecuador's embassy.” Luke Harding et al. May 15, 2018. The Guardian. “Ecuador Expels U.S. Ambassador Over WikiLeaks Cable.” Simon Romero. Apr 5, 2011. The New York Times. Chevron Case “Controversial activist Steven Donziger is a folk hero to the left, a fraud to Big Oil.” Zack Budryk. Dec 27, 2022. The Hill. Venezuela “Ecuador: Lasso Calls for Increased Pressure on Venezuela.” Apr 14, 2021. teleSUR. China Trade Deal “Ecuador reaches trade deal with China, aims to increase exports, Lasso says.” Jan 3, 2023. Reuters. “On the Ecuador-China Debt Deal: Q&A with Augusto de la Torre.” Sep 23, 2022. The Dialogue. “Ecuador sees trade deal with China at end of year, debt talks to begin.” Alexandra Valencia. Feb 5, 2022. Reuters. Business Reforms “Will Ecuador's Business Reforms Attract Investment?” Ramiro Crespo. Mar 3, 2022. Latin American Advisor. U.S. Ecuador Partnership “Why Ecuador's president announced his re-election plans in Washington.” Isabel Chriboga. Dec 22, 2022. The Atlantic Council. “USMCA as a Framework: New Talks Between U.S., Ecuador, Uruguay.” Jim Wiesemeyer. Dec 21, 2022. AgWeb. “US seeks to bolster Ecuador ties as China expands regional role.” Dec 19, 2022. Al Jazeera. “As China's influence grows, Biden needs to supercharge trade with Ecuador.” Isabel Chiriboga. Dec 19, 2022. The Atlantic Council. “The United States and Ecuador to Explore Expanding the Protocol on Trade Rules and Transparency under the Trade and Investment Council (TIC).” Nov 1, 2022. Office of the United States Trade Representative. “A delegation of U.S. senators visits Ecuador.” Oct 19, 2022. U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Ecuador. Referendum “Guillermo Lasso Searches for a Breakthrough.” Sebastián Hurtado. Dec 19, 2022. Americas Quarterly. State Enterprise Resignation “Ecuador President Guillermo Lasso asks heads of all state firms to resign.” Jan 18, 2023. Buenos Aires Times. Lithium Triangle “Why the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act Could Benefit Both Mining and Energy in Latin America.” John Price. Aug 22, 2022. Americas Market Intelligence. Colombia “Latin America's New Left Meets Davos.” Catherine Osborn. Jan 20, 2023. Foreign Policy. “How Colombia plans to keep its oil and coal in the ground.” María Paula Rubiano A. Nov 16, 2022. BBC. “Colombia: Background and U.S. Relations.” June S. Beittel. Updated December 16, 2021. Congressional Research Service. Tax Reform “In Colombia, Passing Tax Reform Was the Easy Part.” Ricardo Ávila. Nov 23, 2022. Americas Quarterly. “U.S. Government Must Take Urgent Action on Colombia's Tax Reform Bill.” Cesar Vence and Megan Bridges. Oct 26, 2022. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Letter from ACT et. al. to Sec. Janet Yellen, Sec. Gina Raimondo, and Hon. Katherine Tai.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Relationship with U.S. “Does glyphosate cause cancer?” Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Jul 8, 2021. City of Hope. “Colombian Intelligence Unit Used U.S. Equipment to Spy on Politicians, Journalists.” Kejal Vyas. May 4, 2020. The Wall Street Journal. “Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence.” Luoping Zhang et al. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research Vol. 781, July–September 2019, pp. 186-206. “Colombia to use drones to fumigate coca leaf with herbicide.” Jun 26, 2018. Syria “Everyone Is Denouncing the Syrian Rebels Now Slaughtering Kurds. But Didn't the U.S. Once Support Some of Them?” Mehdi Hasan. Oct 26, 2019. The Intercept. “U.S. Relations With Syria: Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet.” Jan 20, 2021. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. “Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret C.I.A. War in Syria.” Mark Mazzetti et al. Aug 2, 2017. The New York Times. “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.” C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt. Mar 24, 2013. The New York Times. Government Funding “House Passes 2023 Government Funding Legislation.” Dec 23, 2022. House Appropriations Committee Democrats. “Division C - Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2023.” Senate Appropriations Committee. Jen's highlighted version “Division K - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2023.” Senate Appropriations Committee. Laws H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 H.R.7776 - James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 Jen's highlighted version Bills H.R. 8711 - United States-Ecuador Partnership Act of 2022 S. 3591 - United States-Ecuador Partnership Act of 2022 Audio Sources A conversation with General Laura J. Richardson on security across the Americas January 19, 2023 The Atlantic Council Clips 17:51 Gen. Laura Richardson: The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that has been ongoing for the last over a decade in this region, 21 of 31 countries have signed on to this Belt and Road Initiative. I could take Argentina last January, the most recent signatory on to the Belt and Road Initiative, and $23 billion in infrastructure projects that signatory and signing on to that. But again, 21 of 31 countries. There are 25 countries that actually have infrastructure projects by the PRC. Four that aren't signatories of the BRI, but they do actually have projects within their countries. But not just that. Deepwater ports in 17 countries. I mean, this is critical infrastructure that's being invested in. I have the most space enabling infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere in Latin America and the Caribbean. And I just caused question, you know, why? Why is all of this critical infrastructure being invested in so heavily? In terms of telecommunications, 5G, I've got five countries with the 5G backbone in this region. I've got 24 countries with the PRC Huawei 3G-4G. Five countries have the Huawei backbone infrastructure. If I had to guess, they'll probably be offered a discount to upgrade and stay within the same PRC network. And so very, very concerning as we work with our countries. 20:00 Gen. Laura Richardson: What I'm starting to see as well is that this economy...the economy impacts to these partner nations is affecting their ability to buy equipment. And you know, as I work with our partner nations, and they invest in U.S. equipment, which is the best equipment, I must say I am a little biased, but it is the best equipment, they also buy into the supply chain of spare parts, and all those kinds of things that help to sustain this piece of equipment over many, many years. So in terms of the investment that they're getting, and that equipment to be able to stay operational, and the readiness of it, is very, very important. But now these partner nations, due to the impacts of their economy, are starting to look at the financing that goes along with it. Not necessarily the quality of the equipment, but who has the best finance deal because they can't afford it so much up front. 24:15 Gen. Laura Richardson: This region, why this region matters, with all of its rich resources and rare earth elements. You've got the lithium triangle which is needed for technology today. 60% of the world's lithium is in the lithium triangle: Argentina Bolivia, Chile. You just have the largest oil reserves -- light, sweet, crude -- discovered off of Guyana over a year ago. You have Venezuela's resources as well with oil, copper, gold. China gets 36% of its food source from this region. We have the Amazon, lungs of the world. We have 31% of the world's freshwater in this region too. I mean, it's just off the chart. 28:10 Gen. Laura Richardson: You know, you gotta question, why are they investing so heavily everywhere else across the planet? I worry about these dual-use state-owned enterprises that pop up from the PRC, and I worry about the dual use capability being able to flip them around and use them for military use. 33:30 Interviewer: Russia can't have the ability to provide many of these countries with resupply or new weapons. I mean, they're struggling to supply themselves, in many cases, for Ukraine. So is that presenting an opportunity for maybe the US to slide in? Gen. Laura Richardson: It is, absolutely and we're taking advantage of that, I'd like to say. So, we are working with those countries that have the Russian equipment to either donate or switch it out for United States equipment. or you Interviewer: Are countries taking the....? Gen. Laura Richardson: They are, yeah. 45:25 Gen. Laura Richardson: National Guard State Partnership Program is huge. We have the largest National Guard State Partnership Program. It has come up a couple of times with Ukraine. Ukraine has the State Partnership Program with California. How do we initially start our great coordination with Ukraine? It was leveraged to the National Guard State Partnership Program that California had. But I have the largest out of any of the CoCOMMs. I have 24 state partnership programs utilize those to the nth degree in terms of another lever. 48:25 Gen. Laura Richardson: Just yesterday I had a zoom call with the U.S. Ambassadors from Argentina and Chile and then also the strategy officer from Levant and then also the VP for Global Operations from Albermarle for lithium, to talk about the lithium triangle in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile and the companies, how they're doing and what they see in terms of challenges and things like that in the lithium business and then the aggressiveness or the influence and coercion from the PRC. House Session June 15, 2022 Clips Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): The GAO found that the LCS had experienced engine failure in 10 of the 11 deployments reviewed. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): One major reason for the excessive costs of LCS: contractors. Unlike other ships where sailors do the maintenance, LCS relies almost exclusively on contractors who own and control the technical data needed to maintain and repair. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA): Our top priority and national defense strategy is China and Russia. We can't waste scarce funds on costly LCS when there are more capable platforms like destroyers, attack submarines, and the new constellation class frigate. A review of the President's Fiscal Year 2023 funding request and budget justification for the Navy and Marine Corps May 25, 2022 Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense Watch full hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, United States Navy Admiral Michael M. Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations General David H. Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps Clips Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): I think the christening was just a few years ago...maybe three or so. So the fact that we christened the ship one year and a few years later we're decommissioning troubles me. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): Are there not other uses, if there's something missing from this class of ships, that we would avoid decommissioning? Adm. Michael Gilday: We need a capable, lethal, ready Navy more than we need a larger Navy that's less capable, less lethal, and less ready. And so, unfortunately the Littoral combat ships that we have, while the mechanical issues were a factor, a bigger factor was was the lack of sufficient warfighting capability against a peer competitor in China. Adm. Michael Gilday: And so we refuse to put an additional dollar against that system that wouldn't match the Chinese undersea threat. Adm. Michael Gilday: In terms of what are the options going forward with these ships, I would offer to the subcommittee that we should consider offering these ships to other countries that would be able to use them effectively. There are countries in South America, as an example, as you pointed out, that would be able to use these ships that have small crews. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Secretary ofDefense Lloyd J. Austin III Remarks to Traveling Press April 25, 2022 China's Role in Latin America and the Caribbean March 31, 2022 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Watch full hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Kerri Hannan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Policy, Planning, and Coordination, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State Peter Natiello, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Latin America and Caribbean Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development Andrew M. Herscowitz, Chief Development Officer, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation Margaret Myers, Director of the Asia & Latin America Program, Inter-American Dialogue Evan Ellis, Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies Clips 24:20 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): Ecuador for example, nearly 20 years ago, former President Rafael Correa promised modernization for Ecuador, embracing Chinese loans and infrastructure projects in exchange for its oil. Fast forward to today. Ecuador now lives with the Chinese financed and built dam that's not fully operational despite being opened in 2016. The Coca Codo Sinclair Dam required over 7000 repairs, it sits right next to an active volcano, and erosion continues to damage the dam. The dam also caused an oil spill in 2020 that has impacted indigenous communities living downstream. And all that's on top of the billions of dollars that Ecuador still owes China. 56:40 Peter Natiello: One example that I could provide is work that we've done in Ecuador, with Ecuadorian journalists, to investigate, to analyze and to report on the issue of illegal and unregulated fishing off Ecuador's coast. And we do that because we want to ensure that Ecuadorian citizens have fact-based information upon which they can make decisions about China and countries like China, and whether they want their country working with them. 1:23:45 Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): There are 86 million tons of identified lithium resources on the planet. On the planet. 49 million of the 86 million are in the Golden Triangle. That's Argentina, Bolivia, Chile. So what's our plan? 1:54:10 Evan Ellis: In security engagement, the PRC is a significant provider of military goods to the region including fighters, transport aircraft, and radars for Venezuela; helicopters and armored vehicles for Bolivia; and military trucks for Ecuador. 2:00:00 Margaret Myers: Ecuador is perhaps the best example here of a country that has begun to come to terms with the challenges associated with doing business with or interacting from a financial or investment perspective with China. And one need only travel the road from the airport to Quito where every day there are a lot of accidents because of challenges with the actual engineering of that road to know why many Ecuadorians feel this way. Examining U.S. Security Cooperation and Assistance March 10, 2022 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Watch Full Hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Jessica Lewis, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State Mara Elizabeth Karlin, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities, U.S. Department of Defense Clips 1:23:17 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): According to one study, the DoD manages 48 of the 50 new security assistance programs that were created after the 9/11 attacks and out of the 170 existing security assistance programs today, DOD manages 87, a whopping 81% of those programs. That is a fundamental transition from the way in which we used to manage security assistance. And my worry is that it takes out of the equation the people who have the clearest and most important visibility on the ground as to the impact of that security assistance and those transfers. Sen. Chris Murphy: We just spent $87 billion in military assistance over 20 years in Afghanistan. And the army that we supported went up in smoke overnight. That is an extraordinary waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and it mirrors a smaller but similar investment we made from 2003 to 2014 in the Iraqi military, who disintegrated when they faced the prospect of a fight against ISIS. Clearly, there is something very wrong with the way in which we are flowing military assistance to partner countries, especially in complicated war zones. You've got a minute and 10 seconds, so maybe you can just preview some lessons that we have learned, or the process by which we are going to learn lessons from all of the money that we have wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Jessica Lewis: Senator, I'll be brief so that Dr. Karlin can jump in as well. I think we do need to learn lessons. We need to make sure, as I was just saying to Senator Cardin, that when we provide security assistance, we also look not just at train and equip, but we look at other things like how the Ministries of Defense operate? Is their security sector governant? Are we creating an infrastructure that's going to actually work? Mara Elizabeth Karlin: Thank you for raising this issue, Senator. And I can assure you that the Department of Defense is in the process of commissioning a study on this exact issue. I will just say in line with Assistant Secretary Lewis, it is really important that when we look at these efforts, we spend time assessing political will and we do not take an Excel spreadsheet approach to building partner militaries that misses the higher order issues that are deeply relevant to security sector governance, that will fundamentally show us the extent to which we can ultimately be successful or not with a partner. Thank you. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): You know, in Iraq, last time I was there, we were spending four times as much money on security assistance as we were on non-security assistance. And what Afghanistan taught us amongst many things, is that if you have a fundamentally corrupt government, then all the money you're flowing into the military is likely wasted in the end because that government can't stand and thus the military can't stand. So it also speaks to rebalancing the way in which we put money into conflict zones, to not think that military assistance alone does the job. You got to be building sustainable governments that serve the public interests in order to make your security assistance matter and be effective. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. National Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activity in North and South America March 8, 2022 House Armed Services Committee Watch full hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Melissa G. Dalton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs Office of the Secretary of Defense General Laura Richardson, USA, Commander, U.S. Southern Command General Glen D. VanHerck, USAF, Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command Clips 17:30 General Laura Richardson: Colombia, for example, our strongest partner in the region, exports security by training other Latin American militaries to counter transnational threats. 1:20:00 General Laura Richardson: If I look at what PRC (People's Republic of China) is investing in the [SOUTHCOM] AOR (Area of Responsibility), over a five year period of 2017 to 2021: $72 billion. It's off the charts. And I can read a couple of the projects. The most concerning projects that I have are the $6 billion in projects specifically near the Panama Canal. And I look at the strategic lines of communication: Panama Canal and the Strait of Magellan. But just to highlight a couple of the projects. The nuclear power plant in Argentina: $7.9 billion. The highway in Jamaica: $5.6 billion. The energy refinery in Cuba, $5 billion. The highway in Peru: $4 billion. Energy dam in Argentina: $4 billion, the Metro in Colombia: $3.9 billion. The freight railway in Argentina: $3 billion. These are not small projects that they're putting in this region. This region is rich in resources, and the Chinese don't go there to invest, they go there to extract. All of these projects are done with Chinese labor with host nation countries'. U.S. Policy on Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean November 30, 2021 Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Watch full hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Brian A. Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State Todd D. Robinson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State Clips 1:47:15 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): I'd like to start with Mexico. I am increasingly concerned that the Mexican government is engaged in a systematic campaign to undermine American companies, and especially American energy companies that have invested in our shared prosperity and in the future of the Mexican people and economy. Over the past five months, Mexican regulators have shut down three privately owned fuel storage terminals. Among those they shut down a fuel terminal and Tuxpan, which is run by an American company based in Texas, and which transports fuel on ships owned by American companies. This is a pattern of sustained discrimination against American companies. And I worry that the Mexican government's ultimate aim is to roll back the country's historic 2013 energy sector liberalisation reforms in favor of Mexico's mismanaged and failing state-owned energy companies. The only way the Mexican government is going to slow and reverse their campaign is if the United States Government conveys clearly and candidly that their efforts pose a serious threat to our relationship and to our shared economic interests. 2:01:50 Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): Mr. Nichols, can you can you just be a little more specific about the tactics of the GEC? What are some of the specific activities they're doing? And what more would you like to see them do? Brian A. Nichols: The Global Engagement Center both measures public opinion and social media trends throughout the world. They actively work to counter false messages from our strategic competitors. And they prepare media products or talking points that our embassies and consulates around the hemisphere can use to combat disinformation. I think they do a great job. Obviously, it's a huge task. So the the resources that they have to bring to bear to this limit, somewhat, the ability to accomplish those goals, but I think they're doing vital, vital work. 2:13:30 Todd D. Robinson: We are, INL (International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) are working very closely with the Haitian National Police, the new Director General, we are going to send in advisors. When I was there two weeks ago, I arrived with -- they'd asked for greater ability to get police around the city -- I showed up with 19 new vehicles, 200 new protective vests for the police. The 19 was the first installment of a total of 60 that we're going to deliver to the Haitian National Police. We're gonna get advisors down there to work with the new SWAT team to start taking back the areas that have been taken from ordinary Haitians. But it's going to be a process and it's going to take some time. Sen. Bob Menendez: Well, first of all, is the Haitian National Police actually an institution capable of delivering the type of security that Hatians deserve? Todd D. Robinson: We believe it is. It's an institution that we have worked with in the past. There was a small brief moment where Haitians actually acknowledged that the Haitian National Police had gotten better and was more professional. Our goal, our long term goal is to try to bring it back to that Sen. Bob Menendez: How much time before we get security on the ground? Todd D. Robinson: I can't say exactly but we are working as fast as we can. Sen. Bob Menendez: Months, years? Todd D. Robinson: Well, I would hope we could do it in less than months. But we're working as fast as we can. Global Challenges and U.S. National Security Strategy January 25, 2018 Senate Committee on Armed Services Watch the full hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman of Kissinger Associates and Former Secretary of State Dr. George P. Shultz, Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Former Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage International and Former Deputy Secretary of State Clips Dr. George Shultz: Small platforms will carry a very destructive power. Then you can put these small platforms on drones. And drones can be manufactured easily, and you can have a great many of them inexpensively. So then you can have a swarm armed with lethal equipment. Any fixed target is a real target. So an airfield where our Air Force stores planes is a very vulnerable target. A ship at anchor is a vulnerable target. So you've got to think about that in terms of how you deploy. And in terms of the drones, while such a system cannot be jammed, it would only serve to get a drone—talking about getting a drone to the area of where its target is, but that sure could hit a specific target. At that point, the optical systems guided by artificial intelligence could use on-board, multi-spectral imaging to find a target and guide the weapons. It is exactly that autonomy that makes the technologic convergence a threat today. Because such drones will require no external input other than the signature of the designed target, they will not be vulnerable to jamming. Not requiring human intervention, the autonomous platforms will also be able to operate in very large numbers. Dr. George Shultz: I think there's a great lesson here for what we do in NATO to contain Russia because you can deploy these things in boxes so you don't even know what they are and on trucks and train people to unload quickly and fire. So it's a huge deterrent capability that is available, and it's inexpensive enough so that we can expect our allies to pitch in and get them for themselves. Dr. George Shultz: The creative use of swarms of autonomous drones to augment current forces would strongly and relatively cheaply reinforce NATO, as I said, that deterrence. If NATO assists frontline states in fielding large numbers of inexpensive autonomous drones that are pre-packaged in standard 20-foot containers, the weapons can be stored in sites across the countries under the control of reserve forces. If the weapons are pre-packaged and stored, the national forces can quickly deploy the weapons to delay a Russian advance. So what's happening is you have small, cheap, and highly lethal replacing large, expensive platforms. And this change is coming about with great rapidity, and it is massively important to take it into account in anything that you are thinking about doing. Foreign Military Sales: Process and Policy June 15, 2017 House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Watch the full hearing on YouTube Witnesses: Tina Kaidanow, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey, Director, U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency Clips 14:40 Tina Kaidanow: Arms Transfers constitute an element of foreign policy. We therefore take into account foreign policy considerations as we contemplate each arms transfer or sale, including specifically, the appropriateness of the transfer in responding to U.S and recipient security needs; the degree to which the transfer supports U.S. strategic foreign policy and defense interests through increased access and influence; allied burden sharing and interoperability; consistency with U.S. interests regarding regional stability; the degree of protection afforded by the recipient company to our sensitive technology; the risk that significant change in the political or security situation of the recipient country could lead to inappropriate end use or transfer; and the likelihood that the recipient would use the arms to commit human rights abuses or serious violations of international humanitarian law, or retransfer the arms to those who would commit such abuses. As a second key point, arms transfers support the U.S. Defense industrial base and they reduce the cost of procurement for our own U.S. military. Purchases made through the Foreign Military Sales, known as the FMS, system often can be combined with our Defense Department orders to reduce unit costs. Beyond this, the US defense industry directly employs over 1.7 million people across our nation. 20:20 Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey: FMS is the government-to-government process through which the U.S. government purchases defense articles, training, and services on behalf of foreign governments, authorized in the Arms Export Control Act. FMS is a long standing security cooperation program that supports partner and regional security, enhances military-to-military cooperation, enables interoperability and develops and maintains international relationships. Through the FMS process, the US government determines whether or not the sale is of mutual benefit to us and the partner, whether the technology can and will be protected, and whether the transfer is consistent with U.S. conventional arms transfer policy. The FMS system is actually a set of systems in which the Department of State, Department of Defense, and Congress play critical roles. The Department of Defense in particular executes a number of different processes including the management of the FMS case lifecycle which is overseen by DSCA (Defense Security Cooperation Agency). Technology transfer reviews, overseen by the Defense Technology Security Administration, and the management of the Defense Acquisition and Logistics Systems, overseen by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the military departments. This process, or a version of it, also serves us well, in the DoD Title X Building Partnership Capacity arena, where the process of building a case, validating a requirement and exercising our U.S. acquisition system to deliver capability is modeled on the FMS system. I want to say clearly that overall the system is performing very well. The United States continues to remain the provider of choice for our international partners, with 1,700 new cases implemented in Fiscal Year 2016 alone. These new cases, combined with adjustments to existing programs, equated to more than $33 billion in sales last year. This included over $25 billion in cases funded by our partner nations' own funds and approximately $8 billion in cases funded by DOD Title X program or Department of State's Appropriations. Most FMS cases move through the process relatively quickly. But some may move more slowly as we engage in deliberate review to ensure that the necessary arms transfer criteria are met. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Wouldn't want you to be misled by the episode number (though we do actually foreshadow some future Section 230 coverage in light of an upcoming pair of SCOTUS cases)!  At any rate: tune in as Professors Chesney and Vladeck discuss what is and isn't similar about the Trump and Biden classified documents scenarios; the relative authority of the President and Congress under the Arms Export Control Act (in light of the potential sale of F16s to Turkey); the 21st anniversary of GTMO; the indictment of a Chinese man who harassed a fellow student at the Berklee School of Music based on the victim's pro-democracy, pro-freedom speech; and of course no small amount of frivolity!

A businessman in southern California was sentenced on March 30 to one year and one day in prison for illegally brokering sales of embargoed arms from China to the United States, and for falsifying the correlating tax returns. https://ept.ms/3uKEoMC Californian businessman, sentenced to prison, illegal China arms deals, embargoed arms, China, United States, falsify tax returns, Arms Export Control Act, false tax, Department of Justice. munitions List, space-based equipment,

Mike Volkov interviews Alex Cotoia, Regulatory Manager and Compliance Consultant at the Volkov Law Group, concerning trade compliance and anti-boycott issues. Alex specializes in corporate risk assessments, evaluation of general compliance programs, and the remediation of compliance deficiencies. He also specializes in trade (export) compliance and is familiar with a broad range of issues arising under both the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations (ITAR) as well as the Export Administration Act and its implementing regulations (EAR). Alex can be reached at acotoia@volkovlaw.com.  

Today's episode takes us back to Yodel Mountain, where we take a look at a popular article making the rounds suggesting that (you guessed it) this ONE WEIRD TRICK might unravel the entire Mueller investigation.  Should you be worried? (No.) We begin, however, with the rare (but delightful!) Thomas Was Right segment revisiting 3-D guns and the Arms Export Control Act.  What's going on?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, we take apart this Politico story suggesting that McKeever v. Sessions hold the key to Yodel Mountain. After that, we tour what's left of Yodel Mountain to discuss the latest developments with our buddy Paulie M.  Did he really try to plead out in advance of his next trial?  What's next on the horizon for everyone's favorite ostrich-vest-wearing money launderer? Then, we end with Thomas (and Andrew!) Take the Bar Exam Question #91 regarding the separation of church and state and graduation prayers.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the injunction granted in the 3-D guns case. This is the Politico story regarding McKeever v. Sessions. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of the legal wrangling regarding the Trump Administration's secret settlement with a self-described "crypto-anarchist" who uploaded material that allows anyone with access to a 3-D printer to make their own plastic, undetectable, untraceable firearm. We begin, however, with a  listener who's considering coming over to the "dark side" and wants an honest answer about getting electoral help from overseas.  What if the Irish want to help elect Liz Warren in 2020?  Listen and find out! The main segment breaks down the "Defense Distributed" settlement and subsequent litigation -- and along the way you'll learn about Cold War arms sales, the Export Control Act, F-15s, Richard Nixon, and... well, let's just say there's a lot on the table! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding a state supreme court ruling over whether witnesses must face their accusers.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We most recently discussed election law and the relevant statute, 52 U.S.C. § 30121, back in Episode 116 with Beth Kingsley. The seminal Foreign Affairs (1982) article referenced by Andrew is here; and you can also verify the current arms sales numbers from this report in Newsweek. This is the confidential Trump administration's settlement with Defense Distributed; here is the Complaint filed by 8 states, along with the opposition brief filed by Wilson as well as the one filed by the Government.  Ultimately, the Court granted the TRO. You can read the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., and the implementing regulations at 22 C.F.R. § 125.4(b). The Pentagon Papers case is more formally known as New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971). Here's a Harvard Law Review article summarizing Wilson's loss at the 5th Circuit. Finally, check out the author note for (but please do not buy!) the Anarchist Cookbook, for sale on Amazon. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act grants permission for next year's wars. In this episode, we look at how the new law, in partnership with a reckless Executive Order, will provide weapons to terrorists and legalize American wars fought with foreign humans. Also in this episode, learn about the new Ministry of Propaganda (the "Global Engagement Center") that the United States will open in July. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: Congressional Dish 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Highlighted in This Episode National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 Explanatory Statement Title III—Operation and Maintenance Subtitle B—Energy and Environment   Sec. 312. Waiver authority for alternative fuel procurement requirement. The Secretary of Defense can waive the requirement that Federal agencies only purchase alternative fuels if the greenhouse gas emissions are equal or lower to the conventional fuel typically used, as long as he notifies Congress. Sec. 316. Sense of Congress on funding decisions relating to climate change. “It is the sense of Congress that... "decisions relating to the funding of the Dept. of Defense … should prioritize the support and enhancement of the combat capabilities of the Dept" funds should be allocated among the programs of the Dept in the manner that best serves the national security interests of the US decisions relating to energy efficiency, energy use, and climate change should adhere to the principles described above Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances     Sec. 601. Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay. Effective January 1, 2017, the rates of monthly basic pay for military members is 2.1 percent Sec. 604. Reports on a new single-salary pay system for members of the Armed Forces. Gives the Defense Dept one year to report to Congress on a new pay structure: A “single salary system,” which will take effect on January 1, 2018.   Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality Benefits and Operations     Sec. 661. Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at commissaries and exchanges. They are going to test a "variable pricing program” which would price commissary goods “in response to market conditions and customer demand" Sec. 662. Acceptance of Military Star Card at commissaries.       Subtitle F—Other Matters     Sec. 671. Recovery of amounts owed to the United States by members of the uniformed services. Allows the Secretary of Defense is allowed to waive collections of overpayments to military service members if the collection starts over 10 years after the overpayment occurred. The Defense Department will conduct a review of the bonuses paid to California National Guard members from 2004 - 2015, determine how many bonuses were awarded improperly, and determine which ones will be granted a repayment waiver. Waivers will be denied only if the board can make an affirmative determination that the member “knew or reasonably should have known that the member was ineligible for the bonus pay”   Title VII—Health Care Provisions Subtitle A—Reform of TRICARE and military health system     Sec. 701. TRICARE Select and other TRICARE reform. Creates TRICARE Select: “Eligible beneficiaries will not have restrictions on the freedom of choice of the beneficiary with respect to health care providers.” Cost sharing table   Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters Subtitle F—Provisions Relating to Commercial Items     Sec. 874. Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items. Exempts the purchase of “commercial items” from a bunch of procurement laws Sec. 876. Preference for commercial services. Prohibits defense agencies from entering into contracts for services that are NOT commercial services, unless it’s determined in writing that there are no commercial services available. Subtitle G—Industrial Base Matters Sec. 881. Greater integration of the national technology and industrial base. Orders a written plan to be completed by the end of 2017 to” reduce the barriers to the seamless integration between the persons and organizations that comprise the national technology and industrial base" Entities to be “integrated” include government entities, universities, nonprofits, and private contractors (including weapons manufacturers) operating in the United States, Canada and (added) the UK, Northern Ireland, and Australia. Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management Subtitle B—Organization and Management of the Department of Defense Generally   Sec. 915. Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for the civilian personnel workforce and service contractor workforce of the Department of Defense. Repeals the requirement that the Secretary of Defense have policies and procedures to determine the most appropriate cost efficient mix of military, civilians, and contractor personnel to perform the mission of the Dept. of Defense.   Title X—General Provisions Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities   Sec. 1011. Codification and modification of authority to provide support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime of civilian law enforcement agencies. "The Secretary of Defense may provide support for the counter drug activities… of any department or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency for…: "Training of law enforcement personnel of the Federal Government, of State, local, and tribal governments…" “Intelligence analysis services" “Aerial and ground reconnaissance” Sec. 1013. Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia. Extended through 2019   Subtitle D—Counterterrorism   Sec. 1032. Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cub, to the United States.   Sec. 1033. Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.   Sec. 1034. Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to certain countries of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Specifically prohibits transferring anyone to Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen. Sec. 1035. Prohibition on use of funds for realignment of forces at or closure of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.     Subtitle G—Other Matters     Sec. 1090. Cost of Wars. Secretary of Defense needs to post the costs of each the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria wars onto a public website. No due date or web address.   Title XII—Matters relating to foreign nations Subtitle A—Assistance and training   Sec. 1201. One-year extension of logistical support for coalition forces supporting certain United States military operations.   Sec. 1202. Special Defense Acquisition Fund matters. Authorizes the amount of money appropriated to the fund to more than double, from $1.07 billion to $2.5 billion. $500 million must be to purchase precision guided munitions for partner and allied forces   Sec. 1203. Codification of authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism. The Defense Secretary is allowed to spend $100 million per year to “support foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by United States special operations forces to combat terrorism" The money will come from the money appropriated for operations and maintenance  Repeals a provision from the 2005 NDAA that provided $25 million a year for this purpose   Subtitle B—Matters relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan   Sec. 1218. Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to United States military operations. The United States can use $1.1 billion to pay any country that helps our military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and the United States can pay Pakistan for “activities meant to enhance the security situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and for counterterrorism"   Subtitle C—Matters relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran   Sec. 1221. Modification and extension of authority to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition. Extends the authority to “provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition” until December 31, 2018. Sec. 1224. Limitation on provision of man-portable air defense systems to the vetted Syrian opposition during fiscal year 2017. State Dept: “Countering the proliferation of Man-Portable Air Defense Systems is a top U.S. national security priority. In the hands of terrorists, criminals, or other non-state actors, MANPADS - also known as shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles - pose a serious threat to passenger air travel, the commercial aviation industry, and military aircraft around the world. The United States is working closely with numerous countries and international organizations to keep the skies safe for all." The 2015 NDAA authorized the transfer of “man-portable air defense system” or “MANPADs” to the “vetted Syrian opposition”. They are allowed to continue to do so after a 30-day waiting period if a report is submitted to Congress   Subtitle D—Matters relating to the Russian Federation     Sec. 1233. Extension and modification of authority on training for Eastern European national military forces in the course of multilateral exercises. Amends Section 1251 of the 2016 NDAA to extend the authority to pay to train “national security forces” in “multilateral exercises” through 2018. Adds the European Reassurance Initiative to the list of authorized activities, although it has been renamed the “European Deterrence Initiative” This training is allowed to go to NATO countries and “countries that are a signatory to the Partnership for Peace Framework Documents, but not a member of NATO” Sec. 1237. Extension and enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Increases the amount allowed to be spent on “security assistance” to Ukraine by $50 million, up to $350 million A minimum of $50 million MUST be spent on “Lethal assistance” including anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, grenade launchers,  small arms, and ammunition This NDAA adds equipment and technical assistance for a border surveillance network for Ukraine to the list of authorized uses of funding $175 million will be withheld until the Secretary of State certifies that Ukraine has taken steps towards reforms including civilian control of their military and “potential opportunities for privatization in the defense industrial sector”   Subtitle E—Reform of Department of Defense Security Cooperation     Sec. 1241. Enactment of new chapter for defense security cooperation. Repeals the authorization from the 2012 NDAA that allowed civilian employees of the DoD to be “advisors” to foreign defense ministries Inserts a new chapter into law outlining procedures for training and equipping foreign militaries The training can be for the following purposes: Counterterrorism Counter weapons of mass destruction Counter-drug trafficking operations Repeals a law limited the support that can be provided to Columbia & Peru Counter organized crime Border security Intelligence “Operations or activities that contribute to an international coalition operation that is determined by the Secretary to be in the national interest of the United States” Repeals the law that authorizes programs only for counter-terrorism, support of on-going military operations, and border security. The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State will develop and plan train and equip programs together Repeals the law saying that the Secretary of State will be responsible for coordinating development activities The Secretary of Defense is allowed to change the definition of “developing country” “from time to time” The Director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency will be responsible for “all security cooperation programs" The train and equip programs are authorized to provide “defense articles”, training, “defense services”, supplies, and construction valued under $750,000 per project. The “support” programs are limited to five years unless a written justification for extending it is provided or if funding is shifted to another part of the government or another country. 2017 Funding: Will come from: The Operations and Maintenance account, the “defense-wide” section and “Defense Security Cooperation” section = $6.6 billion + $621 million = $7.2 billion Funds for “Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide” = $720 million Funds for “Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for overseas contingency operations” and money for the “Defense Security Cooperation Agency” = $7.1 billion Money appropriated for the “Counter-ISIL fund" in Iraq and Syria can be spent in countries other than Iraq and Syria as long as Congress is told = $1.1 billion Funds for “Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide for overseas contingency operations” = $191 million + $24 million = $215 million Money made available in previous years = unknown Total = At least $16.3 billion   Subtitle H—Other matters     Sec. 1281. Enhancement of interagency support during contingency operations and transition periods. The Secretaries of Defense and State can enter an agreement to swap “support” to each other’s departments during and up to two years after any “contingency operation" “Support” = food, transportation, petroleum, oils, communication services, medical services, ammunition, base operations support, use of facilities, spare parts, and maintenance services. Sec. 1285. Limitation on availability of funds to implement the Arms Trade Treaty. Prohibits any funds being used to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, which is a 2013 UN treaty designed to regulate and limit the international weapons trade. We signed it in September. Sec. 1287. Global Engagement Center By mid-June 2017, the Department of State will create a Global Engagement Center Purpose: “To lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests” Functions Track and evaluate stories abroad that threaten the interests of the US and the US allies and partner nations. Support the creation and distribution of “fact-based narratives” to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States, our allies, and partner nations. Promote “fact-based narratives” to audiences outside the United States The head of the Global Engagement Center will be appointed by the President Any Federal Government employee may be assigned to the Global Engagement Center for a maximum of three years. The State Department can hire domestic and foreign contractors to work for the Global Engagement Center for a maximum of four years each, with a maximum of 50 employees The Global Engagement Center can pay (“provide grants”) to “civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions” to: Collect and store examples in print, online, and on social media of disinformation and propaganda directed at the US, its allies, and partners. To “counter efforts” to use information to influence the policies and stability of the United States, it’s allies and partner nations. The Global Engagement Center will end in December 2024 (8 years after enactment) Sec. 1288. Modification of United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994.   The Broadcasting Board of Governors is a global media agency tasked with “informing” other countries in a way that pursues US national interests (aka: our propaganda networks). BBG networks include: Voice of America Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty Office of Cuba Broadcasting Radio Free Asia Middle East Broadcasting Networks Changes made by NDAA The head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will be a Chief Executive Officer, appointed by the President, instead of a Director who has been appointed by the Board. Extends immunity from civil liability to all board members at Radio Free Liberty/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, or “any organization that consolidates such entities” Sec. 1294. Extension and expansion of authority to support border security operations of certain foreign countries. The 2016 NDAA authorized $150 million per year for each Jordan and Lebanon for border security “support" This provision adds Egypt and Tunisia to the list of counties eligible for “support” funding The money is authorized until the end of 2019 Title LIV—Court-Martial Jurisdiction Detailed procedures for court martial cases Title LX—Punitive Articles A list of all the offenses eligible for a court martial Executive Order Executive Order: Presidential Determination and Waiver - Pursuant to Section 2249a of Title 10, United States Code, and Sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act to Support U.S. Special Operations to Combat Terrorism in Syria, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, December 8, 2016 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: U.S. Strategy and Policy in the Middle East, Senate Armed Services Committee, January 20, 2016. - Available on C-SPAN Witness General Jack Keane Chairman, Institute for the Study of War Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during the key Bush years, 1999-2003. Board of Directors at General Dynamics Timestamps & Transcripts 27:30 General Jack Keane: Partnering for training and military education is essential to raise the level of operational competence. There is no substitute for an effective ground force supported by air power. Air power is an enabler; it is not a defeat mechanism. This is about alliance members providing the predominant military response. It’s not the United States military. The United States military would provide a certain level of support. Hearing: U.S. Policy and Russian Involvement in Syria, House Foreign Affairs Committee, November 4, 2015, Witness Anne W. Patterson Assistant Secretary Department of State->Near Eastern Affairs Ambassador to Columbia during Bush years Ran the drug war for Bush in 2005 Ambassador to Pakistan Bush/Obama Ambassador to Egypt right after the “uprising” Timestamps & Transcripts 16:40 Anne Patterson: We are pursuing four interlinked goals: (1) to defeat ISIS militarily in both Syria and Iraq, (2) to develop a political transition that gives Syria a future without Bashar al-Assad, (3) to ease the suffering of the Syrian people, and (4) to stabilize our allies as they cope with massive refugee outflows. 36:44 Anne Patterson: Patterson: The idea is to have a transitional government, to work on a time table for Assad’s departure—and let me be clear that that’s a critical element of this policy—and then to work on constitutional review, and, ultimately, an election in Syria. That’s the basic outlines of Secretary Kerry’s strategy. Rep. Karen Bass: So, at this point, if there were to be a transitional government, who do you see composing that? Anne Patterson: Well, a number of opposition figures and people already on the ground. It would be key—and this was in the communiqué—that Syria’s institutions—the military, intelligence, police, civil service—would remain intact, so you wouldn’t have a total collapse of state authority. The idea is just to remove Bashar Assad… Rep. Bass: Like that happened in Iraq? Patterson: …and his cronies from power. 1:30:50 Anne Patterson: The president and certainly the secretary has said many times that Assad’s departure is absolutely critical to any future in Syria. 1:32:45 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: Those allies, do they see Assad’s removal from power as imperative to deal with this situation? Anne Patterson: Currently, our European allies, our Gulf allies, and Turkey do see that. They’re absolutely determined that he will not remain in power. 1:47:30 Anne Patterson: There’s broad consensus in the international community that these institutions in Syria would remain intact—the intelligence; the military; the police; the civil service; the ministerial structures, like health structures; and that the goal is to remove Bashar al-Assad and his closest advisors and have this political process that would lead to a new government. 1:56:10 Anne Patterson: Let me stress that that is our goal, to get Assad out. Press Conference: Arms Trade Treaty, US State Department, September 25, 2013 Transcript Secretary of State John Kerry: What this treaty does is simple: It helps lift other countries up to the highest standards. It requires other countries to create and enforce the kind of strict national export controls that the United States already has in place. Additional Reading Article: Rex Tillerson's Company Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over Sanctions on Russia by Andrew Kramer and Clifford Krauss, New York Times, December 12, 2016. Article: Adding 200 more troops to Syria, U.S. deepens involvement by Robert Burns, Associated Press, December 10, 2016. Press Release: Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA, Senator Rob Portman, December 8, 2016. See S. 3274: Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act See H.R. 5181: Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act Article: Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste by Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward, The Washington Post, December 5, 2016. Article: Congress authorizes Trump to arm Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles by Julian Pecquet, Al-Monitor, December 2, 2016. Article: U.S. arms export boom under Obama seen continuing with Trump by Mike Stone and patricia Zengerie, Reuters, November 9, 2016. Report: Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response by Carla E. Humud, Christopher Blanchard, and Mary Beth Nikitin, Congressional Research Service, September 28, 2016. Article: How Many Guns Did the U.S. Lose Track of in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of Thousands. by C.J. Chivers, New York Times Magazine, August 24, 2016. Blog Post: Resurrecting the Special Defense Acquistition Fund (SDAF) and Why It Matters to You by Todd Dudley, LinkedIn, February 23, 2016. State Department Cable: "The best way to help Israel with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad", author unknown, November 30, 2015. Also available in the Wikileaks directory Report: The Defense Business Board's 2015 study on how the Pentagon could save $125 billion, January 22, 2015. Article: Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern by Nafeez Ahmed, The Guardian, August 30, 2013. Article: U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans by John Hudson, The Cable, July 14, 2013. Bill provision: Section 1078: Dissemination abroad of information about the United States, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Article: Iraq, Iran, Syria Sign $10 Billion Gas-Pipeline Dead by Hassan Hafidh and Beniot Faucon, The Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2011. Article: The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism? by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, March 5, 2007. Webpage: Arms Trade Treaty, US Department of State Webpage: Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go, National Priorities Project Document: S. 2943: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 summary, House Armed Services Committee, December 2017. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

A look at the funding for foreign militaries that might become law as part of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the House of Representatives in May. Included is a look at the US funding for Israel's military, the funding for the "drug war" in Columbia, the "new normal" in Africa, the continuation of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the brewing war with Russia. Congress has passed a National Defense Authorization Act for 53 straight years. Money for Israel Congressional Research Service report from April 2014 on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel. After the holocaust, Jewish survivors who had just been put through Hell on Earth needed a place to go. In 1948, the United Nations decided to give them a country. That’s what Israel is- a country created after World War II for the Jewish people. Now, the fair thing to do would have been to give them some of Germany’s land. After all, Germany was responsible for the Holocaust. But instead, because of their religion, the men in charge gave the Jewish people their Holy land around Jerusalem. There was one huge problem with this course of action: The land they wanted for Israel already had people living there, the Palestinians. In 1948, the land around Jerusalem that had been a British colony was split and Isreal was officially created. In the process, Palestinians were kicked out of their homes. The people who were kicked out - most of them Arab - were pissed about it. They’re still pissed, not only about that original injustice but also because of the continued land grabs that have happened ever since. Over the years, the map of Israel has been redrawn, each time more land going to the Jewish people and less land remaining for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been pushed into two bubbles - One is a large chuck in the Eastern part of Israel, which borders the Dead Sea and Jordan called the West Bank. The other chunk is a teeny tiny strip of land in the south part of Israel called Gaza. Gaza is surrounded by Israel on two sides, the sea on one side, and Egypt on the other. Inside that little strip are 1.8 million people, 70% of them refugees from the land that now makes up Israel. In 2005, the Palestinians scored a victory in the smaller bubble known as Gaza. Israeli condo builders had to abandon the home’s they built on Palestinian land - described on the TV as “settlements” - and the Israeli military withdrew their troops from the tiny Gaza strip. However, Israel would still control the airspace over Gaza and the sea off Gaza’s shore, meaning Gaza is still surrounded and controlled by Israel on three of it’s borders; Egypt controls the other. In 2007, the Palestinians elected a political group called Hamas to run their government. Hamas is openly anti-Israel - they say so right in their charter - and the Palestinians would be punished by Israel for their electoral decision. Since 2007, Israel has enacted a blockade, allowing very few products into or out of Gaza. Because of the Israeli blockade, Gaza residents can’t export their products, which means they have few opportunities to make money. Israel has also limited what products can come in: They’ve limited food, medicine, access to doctors, drinking water, energy, etc. In addition to blocking products, the people themselves are not allowed to leave. Gaza is often compared to an open air prison; the residents stuck there and their every move monitored by the Israeli government. The Ralph Nader Hour: The situation in Gaza During this latest Israeli-Gaza war, as of this recording, 1,915 Palestinians have been killed with the UN estimating that over 85% of them are civilians. With their intricate knowledge of the layout and personal details of all the Gazan residents, there’s no way that is an accident. The proof that stands out in my head is the UN school - the United Nations was housing Gaza refugees in a school and told Israel the location 17 times. Israel bombed it anyway. Hamas - the political party currently running Gaza- is also behaving immorally. Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel and has said they won’t stop until the economic blockade is lifted.. They've put up their best fight, launching thousands of rockets but have only managed to kill three Israeli civilians along with 64 Israeli soldiers. The law of the United States is that it is our responsibility to make sure that Israel has a “Qualitative Military Edge” over other countries, which means we need to make sure Israel can defeat any military "through the use of superior military means…” As of April 2014, the United States has given Israel $121 billion dollars, almost all of that going towards the military. Money from the United States makes up a quarter of Israel’s military funding. This is sold to the American public by saying that this spending protects Israel - which it certainly does- and on our end, it creates American jobs. But due to a deal made by the Bush administration, Israel is allowed to spend 26.3% of the money we give them on weapons Israel manufactures itself, meaning that none of that money is coming back into the United States. Israel is the only country in the world allowed to do this with our cash. Iron Dome is a missile defense system manufactured by an Israeli weapons manufacturer - Rafael Advanced Defense Systems - paid for with that 26.3% of the money that we give Israel which they’re allowed to use to pay Israeli weapons companies. We’ve paid over $704 million for Iron Dome; not one penny of that came back into the United States. Raytheon will soon get half the Iron Dome money. Even worse, after we give Israel our money, they can - and do - park that cash in interest bearing accounts with the US Federal Reserve, so not only are we giving them cash, we are paying them interest on our own money. Raytheon is also going to benefit from David’s Sling, another missile defense system which is manufactured by the same Israeli weapons company that makes Iron Dome. We also pay for the Arrow, Arrow II, and Arrow III, which are missile defense systems that we’ve paid over $2.3 billion and counting for. These systems are manufactured in part by Boeing and another Israeli weapons manufacture, Israel Aerospace Industries. On top of cash and missile defense systems, Isreal is also in on the excess defense article game. Israel is authorized to have $1.2 billion of United States’s weapons stockpiled to use and call their own. For 2015, the President requested another $3.1 billion plus an additional half billion for missile defense. This is ~55% of the money we give away to foreign militaries. In addition, Section 1258 says “(c) It is the sense of Congress that air refueling tankers and advanced bunker buster munitions should immediately be transferred to Israel…” Bunker Buster Bomb We have a legitimate way to get out of funding Israel’s military. The Arms Export Control Act says that the United States may stop military aid to countries which use it for purposes other than “legitimate self-defense”. Congress did not do that. Before leaving for their August vacation, Congress quickly passed an additional $250 million for Iron Dome. It was so uncontroversial in the the Senate passed it without a recorded vote and the House passed it 395-8. The extra money law was signed by the President on August 4 and the money was on it’s way. Columbia Another thing the 2015 NDAA is probably going to do is extend the latest version of Plan Columbia for it’s 10th year. Plan Columbia is a program for that allows the Department of Defense to partner with Colombia’s government to fight three groups: The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC). Plan Columbia started in 1999 and it effectively involved the US providing Columbia’s government with a military in return for new laws, although that’s not what the Columbians thought the deal was at the time. The Columbian president in the 1990’s had asked for US money for a national reconstruction plan. He got a military instead. Documentary: Plan Colombia- Cashing in on the Drug War Failure Since Plan Columbia was originally launched in 1999, it has taken $1.5 billion a year from our pockets and sent it to Columbia for the Columbian military's weapons, training, and infrastructure. 20% of the $1.5 billion we give to Columbia also goes towards planes that kill plants by spraying Monsanto Round-Up Ready poison on Columbian farms. The official story is that we’re killing coca plants to stop the drug trade. Columbia’s cocaine production has gone down but the poison is also working, on farms growing food and animals, who are also being sprayed too with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready plant killer. Seven years after we started providing war machines and poison to Columbia, the United States and Columbia signed the Columbia Free Trade Agreement. It was negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration in 2006 and it went into effect on May 15, 2012. It expands profits of the multi-national corporations by eliminating taxes the companies have to pay in order to get their products into Columbia. Columbia can no longer tax 80% of the products that come from multi-nationals; ten years from now, they won’t be able to tax any of them. One of the industries that wanted this deal the most was the agriculture industry. Before the trade deal, Columbia protected their agriculture industry. You could bring in food products from other countries, but it was taxed heavily, sometimes over 100% for products including corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans. You know who profits from those exact crops? A little corporation called Monsanto. So, here you have a Monsanto produced poison being dropped on farms all over Columbia, literally killing Columbia’s domestic agriculture industry. Then, a deal is negotiated that allows Monsanto crops to be brought in tax-free to be sold to Columbians who can no longer grow their own food. If the Columbians still want to grow their own food, they’ll have to buy the genetically modified kind from Monsanto that can withstand the RoundUp Ready poison that rains down from the planes in the sky. If your government were working for corporations and didn’t actually give a crap about drugs, this would be brilliant and effective plan to ensure profits in Columbia. And in Columbia, it’s working. In January 2013, after the trade agreement went into effect, the Associated Press reported “Agricultural products giant Monsanto reported Tuesday that its profit nearly tripped in the first fiscal quarter as sales of its biotech corn seeds expanded in Latin America.” The trade agreement doesn’t just help Monsanto. Thanks to the trade agreement, multi-nationals are now allowed to own 100% of a Columbian subsidiary in the construction, telecommunications, and energy sectors. The product we import the most of from Columbia - by far- is oil and gas. Oil and gas account for 61% of the stuff we get from Columbia followed by metals and coal. The stuff we export the most to Columbia are oil and coal products, accounting for 33% of our total exports to that country. Chemicals and agriculture are #2 and #3. In July, the Financial Times reported that Anadardo, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil, and Repsol are trying to get licenses for offshore oil leases in Columibian waters. International oil companies also want to get their hands on Columibia’s significant deposits of shale oil and gas, tar sands, and coal. There were three targets of the Plan Columbia program specifically listed in the law, and they are telling. FARC is the biggest paramilitary group in Columbia, a large, violent pain in the government’s ass and big time dealers in the drug trade. But the other two groups listed have been attacking oil infrastructure, trying to make life difficult for the foreign companies that are taking Columbia’s natural resources and leaving Columbians out of the proceeds. There’s an entire town devoted to the oil industry - Barrancacabermeja - and the Columbian paramilitaries that fight there are the ELN and AUC, the other two groups that are specifically named as targets in the Plan Columbia program likely being extended by the NDAA. The updated version of Plan Columbia, which is being extended, was created in 2005 by the Bush administration. It gives Columbia’s military 800 soldiers and 600 private contractors. Africa Section 1261 orders a report on the “New Normal” in Africa and expresses Sense of Congress that the US should achieve the “basing” and access agreements needed to support our forces. In addition, it requires an assessment from the Department of Defense on how the US could “employ permanently assigned military forces” to support the mission of the US Africa Command. This report can be classified. Camp Lemonnier is in Djibouti; it's the only US military base we’ve actuality admitted to having. It’s the main operational hub on the African continent and was described by the Washington Post in 2012 as “the busiest Predator drone base outside the Afghan war zone." The US Africa Command, known as AFRICOM, and The East Africa Response Force (EARF) operate from Camp Lemonnier, in Djibouti. The captain of the East Africa Response Force told Stars and Stripes, a military publication, “We’re basically the firemen for AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command). If something arises and they need troops somewhere, we can be there just like that.” While the task force remains on call to fight anywhere AFRICOM needs them, the rest of the troops guard the bases and train militaries that have partnered with us. In total, we now have at least 5,000 troops operating as part of AFRICOM on the continent of Africa. In 2013, AFRICOM conducted 546 missions, up from 172 during it’s first year, 2008. Missions doing what? I don’t know. Just like in Columbia, we are providing militaries for other countries, apparently all over Africa. Here’s a quote from Vice Adm. Alexander Krongard, deputy commander of the task force based out of Djibouti: “I think the heart of our mission is trying to create militaries that are capable on their own of bringing stability, so you can have peace and security in this region,” One of the biggest propaganda tools being used to justify this military buildup is Benghazi. The reason is that “preventing another Benghazi” has been cited repeatedly to justify sending troops, money, and military equipment to countries all over Africa. The 2008 outrage over Joseph Kony was the excuse to funnel at least $550 million to the Ugandan government - much of it going to their military. Joseph Kony has been around for 30 years but we only got involved after oil was discovered in Uganda in 2006. The outrage over the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram is being used to justify the military buildup in Nigeria, a country we get a lot of oil from. In return for access to their oil, we give the corrupt Nigerian government - which has hundreds of thousands of people locked up and dying in military detention camps - we give them hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. After the kidnapping, more US troops were sent to Nigeria’s next door neighbor Chad to expand the use of spying with Predator drones. The Nigerian government was also forced to accept “international assistance” that it didn’t want. That assistance included welcoming special forces from the US, Canada, UK, France, and Israel. The “assistance” included surveillance drones, intelligence operations, and military training. And it’s not just oil that we’re getting in return for our cash and military- we’re getting IMF reforms too. 75% of the citizens of Nigeria are poor and poverty has increased since 2004 despite the nation’s new found oil wealth. The only benefit the people used to get from oil extraction came from a law that said that 50% of the national oil revenue must go to the local governments of the oil-producting countries in the Niger Delta. In 2011, Nigeria's new President declared a State of Emergency in Nigeria and the next day eliminated all fuel subsidies, an IMF plan which causes the citizens of Nigeria to have to spend $8 billion more a year out of their own pockets for the fossil fuels dug out of their own land. Boko Haram - the same group that kidnapped the girls - then stepped up attacks on the government. Since 2009, the group has killed over 900 people fighting what they say is a corrupt regime. Thing is that the people of Nigeria are angry with the government that keeps them desperately poor and they have supported Boko Haram. Why do we want our military in Nigeria? A big part of it is the 3,720 miles of oil and gas pipelines, 90 oil fields, and 73 flow stations that Shell has in the country, which the Nigerian military is not strong enough to protect from Boko Haram and other groups that want the Nigeria’s oil wealth to benefit the people of Nigeria. And now the media is obsessing over an Ebola in that same region of Africa, and the media convincing us that if we don’t intervene immediately we’re all going to die. Ebola has been around for forty years and this latest outbreak has killed about 1,000 Africans. That is sad but it pales in comparison to the death rate of malaria, which killed an estimated 627,000 people in 2012 alone. The miracle cure discovered out of nowhere by the US military comes from the tobacco plant and prompted the spokesman for Reynold’s American, the giant tobacco company that makes the miracle drug, to say that this could mark a step forward in the company’s goal of transforming the tobacco industry both in terms of remolding its image and meeting emerging market demands. All of these stories are being used to build up our military all over Africa, which is what is described officially in legislation as the “new normal”. Along with the base we’ve actually admitted to having in Djibouti, the US military also has drone bases in Ethiopia, Niger, and the Republic of Seychelles. We have regular military bases in Kenya and Uganda. We have a US spying network operating out of Burkina Faso,Mauritania and Chad. We have confirmed troops on the ground in Congo, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda. Just last week, President Obama announced that the US government, World Bank, and corporations will be investing a combined $33 billion in Africa. Corporate America is moving in - and we’re going to pay their entrance fee with money and militaries to shut down any citizen dissent. Afghanistan There are a bunch of provisions in this year’s NDAA to continue the war in Afghanistan. Section 1211: Extends a program that gives $400 million for the war in Afghanistan in 2015. It also says that the Defense Department can accept money from “any person” - and remember, corporations are people now, foreign governments, or international organization” and add it to that $400 million. The permission to use that money won’t ever expire. Section 1212: Extends authority to spend $1.5 billion in 2015 to pay off any country that helps us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Section 1215: If Afghanistan dares to tax the Defense Department or a US contractor, the US will withhold that much money plus 50%. This holds Afghanistan to a deal - “Status of Forces Agreement” - they made with the Bush administration in 2003. Funds withheld by the US taxpayers will go towards paying contractors back for their Afghanistan taxes. Doesn’t expire until Afghanistan signs a new security agreement. Section 1216-7: Confirms that we will be keeping military members in Afghanistan through 2018 and tells the Defense Department to make a plan for it, even though President Obama announced we would be out of Afghanistan by 2016. Iraq Documentary: Why We Did It We're bombing Iraq again to prevent the "bad guys" from getting to Erbil. Erbil is an oil town that houses thousands of Americans who work in the oil industry. Ukraine/Russia Ukraine is really like two different countries. The west side wants to be part of Europe; the east side is more culturally connected to Russia. Ukraine’s elected government was thrown out earlier this year in a coup after the government refused to sign a free trade deal with Europe. Europe wants Ukraine on it’s side instead of Russia’s because Ukraine has some very important gas pipelines that supply gas to Europe and two ginormous natural gas formations have been found under Ukrainians’ feet which the multinationals who benefit from free-trade agreements would love to get their hands on. The law under the old government was that Ukraine’s gas was only allowed to be sold to Ukrainians. The government that was installed quickly signed the trade deal and now Ukraine’s gas is available to be exported. Russia, in response to the coup, took over a part of Ukraine - a dingleberry peninsula hanging off of Ukraine’s coast called Crimea. Russia had a contract with the old democratically elected government for a Russian military base on Crimea and when that government was thrown out, Russia took the land that houses their military base and is full of people who identify as Russian anyway. It really wasn’t that unreasonable a thing to do. This area was literally a part of Russia when my grandparents were born. In response, however, the war mongering psychos controlling our government are escalating this tension with Russia over Crimea to ridiculous heights. And make no mistake- we are central to the Ukraine story. The new government was one hand picked and supported by the United States and Europe. We've given the new government $1 billion, $15 billion in loan guarantees, 300 military advisers, and over $20 million worth of military equipment. The new Ukrainian government has been using our money and weapons to bomb the Russian half of it’s own country and we want Russia to stand down - not that we have any proof that Russia is actually fighting. We appear to be restarting the Cold War. The 2015 NDAA that passed the House, orders the Defense Department to make a plan to defend Europe from Russian attacks on NATO countries and orders a very detailed report on Russia’s military capabilities to be created every year. To punish Russia for taking Crimea, the bill prevents any NATO country from giving Russia excess military articles and prohibits the militaries of the United States and Russia from cooperating on anything as long as Russia is in Ukraine. Furthering the trade war that began with sanctions in the Ukraine Aid bill, the 2015 NDAA is poised to prevent the Defense Department from contracting with Russia’s state weapons company. This may be a problem as the Pentagon has already spent over $1 billion on 88 Russian helicopters for the Afghan military, a contract that may have to be cancelled and the funds shifted to an “American” weapons dealer. The most disturbing clause - prevents implementation of the New Start Treaty which limits the number of nuclear weapons of both counties, until Russia leaves Ukraine. And now Russia is starting to fight back with their own economic attacks. In response to the sanctions which we’ve already placed on Russia, Russia has banned agricultural products from the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, and Norway for a year, which will cost multinationals from those countries billions of dollars in sales. Music Presented in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Bombs Make Terrorists by Dave Gwyther (found on Music Alley by mevio) Honest Gil for Senate in Kentucky