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?