Venezuela.

 If you haven't been paying attention, a humanitarian disaster has been occurring in Venezuela. A little over 5 million Venezuelans have left the country within the past few years, and the economy is in free-fall. Currency devaluation and hyperinflation run rampant. Food is so scarce that Venezuelans have resorted to eating zoo animals out of hunger. Medicine is scarce, as well. 

Relatedly, imports are down over 75%, as most cash on hand is used to service their debts (approximately $150 billion +) and other obligations. 

What should you take away from this?
What should you know?

1) Maduro nor Guaido are, um...not running Venezuela.
Let's put it that way. More about that later.

2) I'm willing to personally invest in the Venezuelan government and PDVSA to the tune of several hundred billion dollars to help get them back on their feet. I have no problem loaning money for a good cause, such as this.

3) Major changes are coming to the way Venezuela runs its oil business.
Profitable changes.

4) As inflation rages, cheap gasoline is around the corner for Americans. It will be here, and relatively soon.

As the public substitutes liquefied natural gas for gasoline (in some vehicles), this will help the consumer to spend, save, or invest that extra cash as they see fit.

It does indeed get better.

"Icy"

 

"Can the West Stop Russia From Invading Ukraine?"

 

A New York Times article this week asked the question preceding in the title above.
The short answer is "No."

The article made some decent points. 

"In the event of an invasion, the United States and its allies have threatened to impose a series of sanctions that would go far beyond those imposed in 2014, after the Russian annexation of Crimea. Mr. Putin warned that imposing new sanctions could lead to a “complete rupture” in relations with Washington."

I would be inclined to agree. 

Almost 100,000 Russian troops are positioned on the border with Ukraine as we speak.
 

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan seem to be on the poaching list too, mind you.
There shouldn't be too much surprise when and how the bear recovers some of its might that it lost several decades ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Again, the answer is "No," especially when geopolitical forces pull Europe and Russia closer together. This means that NATO is just about due to be regarded as functionally obsolete and outdated as an institution. It is approaching the end of its lifespan, and the plug needs to be pulled.

Elsewhere, is anyone else having trouble procuring soft pretzels, bottled water, or anything else from the supermarket? Notice that the price of certain goods like coffee and bacon has gone up recently with the Covid lock downs too? It might seem kind of trivial to complain about these sort of things when people are dying left and right from the virus, but these are just more of the frustrations of dealing with the global pandemic.

The last thing I would like to address today is the JCPOA, otherwise known as the Iran Deal. The National  Interest wrote an interesting article on the subject, calling for striking a re-balance in the renegotiation of the agreement. 

"Correcting this predicament and minimizing the chances of yet another JCPOA breakdown requires building mutual legal and political deterrence into it. Any legal and political procedures that make the violation of and withdrawal from the agreement costly and cumbersome can contribute to this goal. Adding more domestic and international veto players in order for a withdrawal decision to become effective is one such mechanism. This could take the form of exhausting a rigorous internal review process within the JCPOA and requiring the authorization of the UN Security Council and/or the national legislature of the respective parties to complete a withdrawal bid. While these mechanisms could help lock in the parties’ JCPOA commitments by erecting legal and political hurdles against abandoning the deal, devising an international financial compensation scheme for the parties who suffer economic loss as a result of a member’s withdrawal can further raise the costs and lower the benefits of defection for the respective party. Granted, none of these mechanisms would provide fail-safe deterrence against a future U.S. withdrawal, but a combination of such legal and political procedures, a financial compensation scheme, and the credible threat of more drastic Iranian nuclear expansion would minimize the chances of this scenario."

 The author may indeed have a point there. Also, in addition, "anytime, anywhere" access to the actual reactors themselves. We also cannot forget about access to their military sites, where their secret work on ballistic missiles can be facilitated in earnest. Also, a HAARP installation in Saudi Arabia needs to be a  part of a reworked agreement as well. Why? Earth Penetrating Tomography technology will allow a greater degree of surety and security for all involved. (I've mentioned this before, HAARP technology is described in the Bible.)

 Let them live peacefully so long as they are willing to do so.

Now is not the time for war.

23 Minutes in Hell

 

 

Intense testimony by Bill Wiese.

High and Dry.

Slip and fall lawyers on the case.
Ignorance concerning the things of God,
but also ignorance of self.

A found way finds a way.
Seemingly good enough.

(A mind besieged by worthlessness?)

Drive, purpose, and vision rubs off like a communicable disease for which there needn't be a cure.

Case logs and evidence piles up.
The procession of legal proceedings.
Blood and guts.
High and dry.

Passing through.
Passing by.

Foreign Policy Initiatives and Engagement.

As this year approaches its conclusion, I figured it was time for a review of US foreign policy initiatives.

In the latest developments on the Iran deal, President Trump chose to decertify the agreement, as opposed to recertifying, as has been the custom every 90 days. This was done because Iran has not lived up to the spirit of the agreement, and he finds that the deal is no longer in US national security interests, as he properly should have.

The Trump administration has set the stage for a review of all terms and conditions of the arrangement. Congress will have the responsibility of voting to reinstate disruptive sanctions, and there may not be enough support in the body to do so. The option also exists to renegotiate the deal, adding in specific "triggers" or standards that must be met, or else sanctions would be reinstated.

Either way, it is clear to me that Iran needs to be brought to its knees.
Why? Not to suggest overkill, but here are some things to look out for:

-IRGC/Quds activity in the region. Support for terror.
-A ban on Uranium enrichment and Plutonium production.
-Taking apart/downgrading large portions of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
-Anytime/Anywhere inspection capacity, with real-time monitoring of nuclear facilities.
- Ballistic missile technology and military sites, which is not included in this deal.
- Sunset provisions on enrichment.
-"Peaceful" intent.

(What I would like to make clear here is that Iran's capacity to create nuclear weapons  must be curtailed.)

We need to be honest, and sit down with both the Russians and Iranians in this case, to forge a path forward. We need to lean on Moscow to apply pressure to its client state in Tehran. We've been in talks with the Iranians on ISIS, as well. This is of mutual benefit to both nations.

We also need to lean on the Chinese, as well. Why?
Well, first off, we need assistance in curtailing North Korean capacity for nuclear war.
In exchange, hostile exercises on the peninsula would cease, packaged with guarantees of safety provided to Pyongyang. We need peace on the peninsula.

(Vis-a-vis the Chinese, forged alliances in the Indian/Pacific/South China Sea need to be forged, as maritime assets need to be leveraged to provide security for these shipping lanes.)

We also need to have a chat with the Chinese about the future of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan has been supporting the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/The Haqqani Network for some time. So has American foreign policy in the past. Essentially, the same groups were fostered by US foreign policy through Pakistani intelligence in decades past. So, now that there appears to be a shift in US foreign policy, some degree of inertia is to be expected here. You can't stop and turn an aircraft carrier in a matter of seconds. It's just not possible nor feasible. This is where the Chinese and the OBOR initiative come into play. By engaging the Chinese, this seems to be a way to provide a reasonable degree of security and stability. As I've stated previously, the Chinese have had their own struggles with terrorism and instability. This would be a good opportunity for the Chinese to get involved.

We have plans for the Arabian Peninsula and Northern Africa, as I've clearly stated.
The Saudis are well aware, and so is the rest of the region.

The US and our allies will operate smoothly, given that all involved are willing to help life go off without a hitch.

Wheeling and dealing requires cooperation with all involved, and if everyone's on the same page, that's exactly what will transpire.

Thanks.

Choreography.

In the following article, I would like to lay out why, with further and deeper review of the evidence, I believe that the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, American support for the Mujahideen, and the Afghan conflict was not a clever trap set by Americans to bankrupt the Soviet Union, but rather collusion and choreography on the world stage in order to foster jihad to further Western aims, as well as to carve up the region and exploit resources.

I liken understanding this to looking at one of those images on the back of a cereal box.
You place your eyes close to the box, and back away, as the image comes into focus.
It's impossible to see if you're looking at it out of context.

Let's start here:

Brzezinski admitted in 1998 that US aid first went to the Mujahideen in July of 1979, or before the Soviets invaded. Not after. What Brzezinski doesn't seem to want to admit is that this pretext set the stage for the brutal conflict that would eventually leave Afghanistan with a tribal government and a newly equipped army led by Osama Bin Laden, which could later be used as a patsy to further Western aims later on.

I'll tell you what I believe happened.
I believe that the US fully supported a Soviet intervention in Afghan politics by supporting a military coup that would bring a leftist regime to power whose policies were considered "godless" by many in Afghanistan.

The Soviets sent in advisors to "advance socialism" in the nation. Some reforms, such as land redistribution and women's literacy classes were on the agenda.

These reforms, unsurprisingly, triggered and allergic reaction in the countryside, as mullahs thought that their authority was being undermined. Calls for jihad, unsurprisingly, went out across the Islamic world.

Papers were signed, and in July of 1979, the first American aid to the Mujahideen in the form of communications equipment. Roughly $20 billion in total would be funneled in through Pakistani intelligence, as well as deadly weapons like the Stinger Missile.

The government in Kabul asks the Soviets for assistance while Afghan President Turaki's Prime Minister Amin pushes ahead with these reforms. Amin initiated a crackdown on opposition, having enemies rounded up and executed.

Turaki went to Moscow, to discuss how to create peace, and logically keep his power.
When in Moscow, I believe that actions ensued that led, ironically, to the deposition of Turaki and not Amin. Action indicated that Amin should go, so that losses could be cut, allergenic reforms slowed, and power retained.

These plans against Amin were "leaked out" of the Soviet Union, and when Turaki returned to Kabul, Amin had him arrested and executed.

I mean, it seemed that Turaki was getting in the way, and that Amin was being handled by Soviet intelligence. What are the chances of something like that happening accidentally?

I mean, if you want a well-funded and trained terrorist army to prevail, peace is no good, right?
As a matter of fact, the Soviets even seemed to throw out the bit of disinformation that Amin was a product of the CIA, distracting from the connections that they themselves had developed.

The Soviets finally invaded in December of 1979, and the conflict would drag on until 1989, after some $20 billion was funneled indirectly to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

The communist government would fall, and the stage was set for the 9/11 attacks, the US war in Afghanistan, linked to the war in Iraq, the creation of the Islamic State, and a conflict in Syria.

Evidence suggests that the US and the Soviet Union/Russia have been planning on carving up the region and exploiting resources, all reaching back to at least the 1950's.

Fostering and exploiting jihad for Western aims is one logical way to accomplish these aims.

Look at the cereal box and think about it.
It's all connected.