WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT SO FAR?

We are once again in the realm of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.The outrageous action of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s agent in killing and unarmed citizen has been morphed into an action of self defence and the victim being characterised as a civilian terrorist who had weaponised her vehicle. The on the spot video of the event is completely at odds with this explanation. The whole world is watching and yet the United States President and his Secretary of homeland Security have come up with this blatant lie. It is on video. It can be seen. It Shows what happened. No ICE agents were threatened in any way. The woman was shot dead and the car went out of control and crashed into parked vehicles. There was no threat at all. The film has gone round the world and still the lie is repeated. Ms Noem, dressed up like Lt. Colonel Kilgore from Apocalypse Now, spouted the lie to the public without even blinking. The mayor of the City of Minneapolis rightly called her claims bullshit. He was clearly very angry.

This is not a question for debate, no matter who or how the ‘authorities’ in the United States try to push the lie and distort the fact of what people can see with their own eyes. The world has eyes and can see and hear the horror. Whether any justice will actually prevail is another mater. The perpetrator of the killing was immediately whisked away, no doubt out of guilt and to prevent him or her from being challenged or indeed arrested by local law enforcement. 

We also have, in relation to the Venezuela incident, obfuscation of a different kind from the British Government. Here I am sort of willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Most people with any knowledge of International Law have stated very clearly that the action taken by the United States was contrary to law. When asked what the UK position is in relation to a direct question “Did the United States break the law?”  The answer is repeatedly “They will have to set out their legal justification for their actions”. The United Kingdom finds itself unable to just say “Yes”, so it is phrased differently. Let me explain. If someone has broken the law, they either admit it or claim they are not guilty. If they claim they are not guilty, they must either show that the evidence against them falls short of proof or provide some form of defence for their actions. In the case of the action in Venezuela, the entire world, again, has irrefutable evidence of the facts which are clearly in contravention of international law. By saying “They will have to set out their legal justification for their actions” the British Government is actually saying what the United States did was against the law and they will have to provide a defence, which is a cack-handed way of saying ‘Yes’. They are trying to be diplomatic so as not to offend US sensibilities. 

So far as Greenland is concerned, where no action has yet been taken, the Government can quite clearly say to the United States “We advise you not to do anything as it would be in contravention of international law as well as the Nato Treaty to which you are a signatory” That’s easy, nothing has happened yet. 

In any event we are in some sort of Alice in Wonderland world with a Queen of Trumps, or is it hearts, shouting “Off with their heads” at every opportunity. So far as the United States is concerned it is straight out of Disneyland. The rest of the world just had to lump it. On the Today programme the minister of state said we live in a changed world of hard and soft politics and one has to adjust as one goes along. Bullshit. The world is the same world and one lunatic has been let out of the asylum but is unfortunately in possession of a great arsenal. It either has to be taken away from him or he must be removed. In other words, the bully and his stooges are in the playground and must be dealt with. We need to get a grip. What a start to the new year. I had such hopes on day one. That doesn’t seem to have gone very well, has it?

HERE WE GO AGAIN

On the 1st January 2026 I had intended writing a blog and had headed it with “Beginnings”. I did not start it and procrastinated. Then the Venezuela fiasco hit the headlines. I was nonplussed. What to say? Maduro is not exactly someone to support. His actions in his own country towards his fellow citizens have not been praiseworthy to say the least, but the American intervention is most definitely wrong and illegal. Can it really be justified. Absolutely not, thought I. What to say and how to say it?

So who would have thought that I would agree with the likes of Ben Wallace who spoke very well. This morning on the Today program there were two interviews conducted by Emma Barnett at around 10 minutes past 7 am. The first with the former US Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands and the second with former Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. He began by commenting that everything Ms Sands said, bar one thing (Iceland gaining Independence) was untrue. Although she claimed to be speaking only for herself, it was pure Trump propaganda. Mr Wallace, on the other hand, was very clear that  a much more robust view must be taken by the European Community of Mr Trumps actions, 

It is clear that Mr Trump acts with  complete disregard for International law or indeed the rule of law generally. He acts only in his own interests, which are not necessarily in the interests of the American public. His actions are effectively chaotic, impulsive and contradictory from moment to moment. He has made various threats about sanctions against Russia and Putin, in respect of Ukraine, on at least eleven occasions, and failed to act on any on them. He has consistently insulted and acted against other nations’ sovereignty in his ridiculous overblown rhetoric and now violated international law with his acquisition of Venezuela, running roughshod over that nation’s property. 

This violent military action, leaving many people dead behind it, to effectively extricate Mr Maduro and his wife, has met with such little resistance or condemnation, that he feels emboldened, and now seeks to do the same with Greenland, and probably any other nation where he can gain oil or other minerals to line his and his supporters pockets. 

None of this is about American security but is all about Trump’s psychotic narcissism and is  effectively a deflection from his clear involvement with the Epstein debacle and the fact that he will almost certainly have to face trial for his actions on the 6th January 2021 in due course (and probably other matters). At present he sees himself as king of the world.

We have all been here before over the centuries. Empire builders of all shapes and sizes have come and gone, some more successful that others, but on the whole a destructive force that has set civilisations and societies back, having to bear the pain of their appalling actions. The Napoleon complex exhibited by the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Caligula and numerous others seems to have taught us nothing. Mr Trump is of the same breed and needs to be treated as such and not placated to. It is the heart of darkness and will end in horror.  

The effective kidnapping of a bad man, should not give one pause. The rule of law and the duty of care are more paramount than ever if the human race is to survive. We seem to have arrived at gangsters moving in on gangsters and supporting gangsters, with Donald Corleone Trump at the top of the heap exercising his power with his henchmen surrounding him and his supportive sheep loving every minute of it. The spewing of untruths by the likes of Carla Sands, Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Pamela Bondi, Nigel Farage and others of their ilk does not change the actuality of what is going on. This is a very bad and ignorant man, being pandered to by some very bad people and some very evil people. 

I know I am not alone in thinking these things. I despair of current government leaders (not only in the UK but across the the globe) who feel that in oder to maintain  some kind of equilibrium they must find diplomatic ways of dealing with Mr Trump and console him into doing what might be the right things. He needs to be shaken up. He will only understand a strong united front. As the mother of Parliaments, the British Prime Minister should take the leadership. The rule of law demands it.