Loud Mouth of the Month

 Putin and all the crap he says allows him to have the monthly prize as "Loudmouth of The Month".

He isn't going to Nuc anyone as he knows it would mean the end to his bullshit life. He has lied to the Russian people for years and years to maintain his power grip. America and the rest of the world have no desire to control Russia as he has taken it for a ride.

Soon the Russian people will learn how this SOB has screwed them over for years. All his buddies are rich and the common hard working Russian has shit for a life. 

Wake up people of Russia and toss that trash leader out along with the other rich people who have stolen your life. 

Biden has Caused this

Shortages in baby formula and tampons plague the Biden administration which keeps claiming they are handling it, yet the shortages continue.

Truth Hurts

President Biden’s proposed visit to the “West Bank” is promising to end up becoming a fruitless trip to an artificially-coined destination supposedly inhabited by a mythical ancient “Palestinian people”.

This scenario is far removed from the biblical and historic realities that had existed for 3000 years prior to April 24, 1950—when Biden’s destination was called “Judea and Samaria” – the ancient and biblical heartland of the Jewish people.
Biden’s Press Secretary—Karine Jean-Pierre –exposed Biden’s – and her—apparent ignorance of these indisputable facts when announcing the President’s forthcoming visit in these terms: 

“The President will also visit the West Bank to consult with the Palestinian Authority and to reiterate his strong support for a two-state solution, with equal measures of security, freedom, and opportunity for the Palestinian people.

United Nations resolutions and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) propaganda has used Jean-Pierre’s faux narrative since 1967 in a concerted effort to deny the Jewish people have any right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem under article 6 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter.

This post-1967 narrative differs from that used on 1 December 1948 when a conference organized in Jericho and attended by numerous Arab delegations including mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General and military governors from all districts, and other notables adopted the following resolution:

“Palestine Arabs desire unity between Transjordan and Arab Palestine and therefore make known their wish that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Transjordan. They also recognize Abdullah as their King and request him proclaim himself King of new territory.”

The Jericho Conference came after:

• The Mandatory Power – Great Britain – had granted independence on June 27, 1946 to Transjordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine located East of the Jordan River
• Transjordan had invaded Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem– 4% of the Mandate territory located West of the Jordan River – on May 15, 1948—driving out all the Jews living there as it assumed control of these areas.

The Jericho resolution confirms:

• There was then no identifiable “Palestinian people” – only “Palestine Arabs”.
• The leaders of the “Palestine Arabs” were not calling for the creation of a second Arab State in the territory formerly comprised in the Mandate for Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital –in addition to Transjordan.

Despite International and Arab League objections—unification of these two exclusively-occupied Arab territories—comprising some 82% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine located on both sides of the Jordan River—was achieved on April 24, 1950 – resulting in:

• “Judea and Samaria” being designated the “West Bank”
• The newly-unified entity being named “Jordan”
• “Palestine Arabs” living in the “West Bank” becoming “Jordanian citizens”
• A two-state solution in former Palestine:  one Jewish State called Israel in 18% of former Palestine and one Arab State called Jordan in the remaining 82% of Palestine.

 

Interesting

he Jericho Conference came after:

• The Mandatory Power – Great Britain – had granted independence on June 27, 1946 to Transjordan – 78% of the territory comprised in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine located East of the Jordan River
• Transjordan had invaded Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem– 4% of the Mandate territory located West of the Jordan River – on May 15, 1948—driving out all the Jews living there as it assumed control of these areas.

The Jericho resolution confirms:

• There was then no identifiable “Palestinian people” – only “Palestine Arabs”.
• The leaders of the “Palestine Arabs” were not calling for the creation of a second Arab State in the territory formerly comprised in the Mandate for Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital –in addition to Transjordan.

Despite International and Arab League objections—unification of these two exclusively-occupied Arab territories—comprising some 82% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine located on both sides of the Jordan River—was achieved on April 24, 1950 – resulting in:

• “Judea and Samaria” being designated the “West Bank”
• The newly-unified entity being named “Jordan”
• “Palestine Arabs” living in the “West Bank” becoming “Jordanian citizens”
• A two-state solution in former Palestine:  one Jewish State called Israel in 18% of former Palestine and one Arab State called Jordan in the remaining 82% of Palestine.

Xi Rewrites History

BEIJING (AP) — Hong Kong is preparing to introduce new middle school textbooks that will deny the Chinese territory was ever a British colony. China's Communist rulers say the semi-autonomous city and the nearby former Portuguese colony of Macao were merely occupied by foreign powers and that China never relinquished sovereignty over them.

It's not a new position for China, but the move is a further example of Beijing’s determination to enforce its interpretation of history and events and inculcate patriotism as it tightens its grip over Hong Kong following massive protests demanding democracy in 2019.

“Hong Kong has been Chinese territory since ancient times,” says one new textbook seen by the AP. “While Hong Kong was occupied by the British following the Opium War, it remained Chinese territory.”

It is one of four sets of textbooks being offered to schools to replace those currently in use, all stating the same position, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post newspaper reported earlier this week.

Hong Kong was a British colony from 1841 until its handover to Chinese rule in 1997, with the exception of Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945. Its colonial status was the result of a pair of 19th century treaties signed at the end of the first and second Opium Wars, along with the granting of a 99-year lease in 1898 to the New Territories, which greatly expanded the size of the colony.

China’s Communist Party, which seized power during a civil war in 1949, says it never recognized what it calls the “unequal treaties” that the former Qing Dynasty was compelled to sign following military defeats.

In the late 20th century — with China unwilling to extend the lease on the New Territories, and the colony not viable without them — Britain entered into protracted and often contentious negotiations with Beijing over conditions for the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule.

Ultimately, China took control of Hong Kong in 1997 under a “one country, two systems" arrangement that would keep the city's economic, political and judicial systems distinct from those in mainland China for 50 years. That was laid out in a 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration registered with the United Nations, although China now refuses to recognize the agreement.

HAS THIS ISSUE COME UP BEFORE?

In 1972, just months after the China seat at the United Nations was transferred to Beijing from the Republic of China government that fled to Taiwan during the civil war, the government acted to remove Hong Kong and Macao, which reverted to Chinese rule in 1999, from a U.N. list of colonies, effectively stripping them of their right to self-determination.

At a time when European nations had granted independence to other colonies, China feared the same could happen to the British and Portuguese enclaves it wanted back. “The settlement of the questions of Hong Kong and Macao is entirely within China’s sovereign right and does not at all fall under the ordinary category of ‘Colonial Territories,'" China's representative said at the time.

Mary Gallagher, who teaches Chinese studies at the University of Michigan, said then-Chinese leader Mao Zedong wanted to ensure that Hong Kong would remain part of China. “So Hong Kong moves between the Chinese empire and the British empire, but loses its right to determine its own future,” she said.

WHY IS HONG KONG CHANGING TEXTBOOKS NOW?

The new textbooks are part of broader changes to education following the 2019 protests, in which many students participated and some played leadership roles.

The texts are for liberal studies classes, which the government overhauled last year after pro-Beijing lawmakers and supporters said they encouraged opposition and activist thought. The classes now focus on themes such as national security, patriotism and identity.

The textbooks promote the official view that the protest movement was the result of foreign agitation and threatened national security. The Beijing government used such arguments to pass a sweeping National Security Law for Hong Kong in 2020 curtailing free speech, criticism of authorities and political opposition.

Authorities have launched a National Security Education Day on April 15, with students encouraged to learn more about national security and take part in educational activities that emphasize the importance of protecting China.

WHERE IS THIS LEADING?

The new textbooks are part of a push to bring Hong Kong's institutional values more closely in line with those of mainland China, especially in the areas of politics and history. Increasingly, Chinese leader Xi Jinping is imposing his vision of strongly nationalistic and increasingly authoritarian rule on the region.

China has sought to eradicate any memory of the military's 1989 bloody suppression of student-led protests centered on Beijing's Tiananmen Square, citing pandemic concerns to ban once huge public commemorations in Hong Kong on the June 4 anniversary.

“The Communist Party has a monopoly of the truth and of history in China,” said Steve Tsang, a Chinese politics specialist at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. “In the Xi approach to history, facts are merely incidental. Only interpretation matters. And only one interpretation is allowed.”

The Staff: There is the truth and then there is what Xi decides.

 

Here is an American Dirty Company

BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager that oversees $10 trillion in client funds, has positioned itself as a socially conscious firm. However, the company is choosing China over the United States as it advances its environmental and social priorities, according to Will Hild, executive director of Washington-based nonprofit Consumers’ Research.

Hild said BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is “selling out the interests of American consumers and American companies in the United States, in return for personal favors for BlackRock in mainland China,” during a recent interview with EpochTV’s “China Insider.”

BlackRock and ESGControlling America but Benefiting China—With Will Hild

Fink has been one of the most prominent advocates for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment, which is investing in companies that agree to uphold certain environmental, social, and governance standards.

However, according to Hild, ESG “is an excuse for Wall Street to push politics into corporate America.” In other words, Wall Street is pushing ESG policies that “could never be achieved at the ballot box.”

BlackRock has also taken up the position of supporting a net-zero emission future. The company’s website tells its clients that “climate transition creates a historic investment opportunity.” In a 2020 letter to CEOs, Fink wrote that “climate risk is investment risk.”

While BlackRock has pushed U.S. companies such as ExxonMobil to embrace green energy, it hasn’t taken the same approach with Chinese firms, according to Hild.

“Ironically, Blackrock controls about the same amount of shares, about  7 1/2 percent, of PetroChina as they do Exxon, but they don’t engage in any of the same behavior when it comes to that company,” he said. ”I think if they did, Larry Fink would find himself not welcomed in mainland China very quickly because we know how that government acts.”

PetroChina is the listed arm of China’s state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). In February, Russian state-owned energy company Gazprom inked a 30-year deal with CNPC, paving the way for Russia-to-China natural gas via a new pipeline linking the Russian Far East with northeastern China.

Hild said BlackRock’s excuse for not pushing Chinese firms is “so absurd.”

“The excuse that they use is that China is still a developing economy, and so we cannot force the same rules on them,” he said.

In 2021, BlackRock sided with hedge fund firm Engine No.1, which replaced new directors on ExxonMobil’s board, believing that the oil giant had responded too weakly to the climate crisis. Citing a Wall Street Journal report, Hild said the board subsequently considered divesting itself from two gas and oil projects in Mozambique and Vietnam.

Hild said the projects would have “served American consumers at the pump so that prices could have been brought down.” 

“Effectively BlackRock and Larry Fink are using America as China’s carbon offset. They are not putting pressure on China to decarbonize,” he said. “And so they are putting up corporate America on an unlevel playing field here in the United States, against their rivals in China. And they’re using American investment dollars to do that.”

One favor BlackRock received from the Chinese regime was being granted the right to start the first wholly foreign-owned mutual fund business in China, according to Hild.

In August 2021, BlackRock Fund Management Co., BlackRock’s business in China, launched a mutual fund product in China, making it the first mutual fund offering by a wholly foreign-owned company, according to China’s state-run media.

Consumers’ Research Warns US Governors About BlackRock’s Retirement Fund Investments in China

Many state governments in the United States have invested their pension funds with BlackRock. According to a 2021 report (pdf) from Consumers’ Research, Washington, Florida, and New York were the top three investors, investing $13.8 billion, $10.7 billion, and $9.8 billion, respectively,

The report also warns about BlackRock putting investors’ money in Chinese companies with ties to the Chinese military, such as China’s biggest chipmaker, SMIC.

“BlackRock’s investment choices are not only risking the security of U.S. pensions, but the security of our nation as a whole,” the report reads.

With the United States facing record-high inflation, Hild believes that BlackRock’s investment decisions, which help industrialize China while deindustrializing the United States, aren’t benefiting pensioners.

“It’s going to hurt their returns as pensioners. And it’s going to hurt them at the gas pump and the grocery store and all the other places they spend money,” he said.

Representatives for BlackRock didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.

 

 

French Helping Russia

So-called exemplary company

In France, Thales is not just a public company. There are three arguments to support this assertion.

1) The company specializes in the manufacture of systems for military, aerospace and maritime purposes

2) The company's shares are listed on the Paris Stock Exchange

3) It is not so much the private shareholder (the Dassault family with its 24.62% share) that is important, but the French government and its 25.67% share. Simply put, a company that is more than a quarter controlled by the French government, exports components that kill Ukrainians.

Saw an article about a French company selling equipment to Russia but doesn't come as a surprise. Remember, France helped the Nazis in WW2 at the start and their Navy had to be destroyed by allied forces before they could be used to help Germany.