Does NATO Need to Wean Itself Off The US?

The most recent NATO summit resulted in most members agreeing acquiescing to Trumpˋs "proposal" (a.k.a., 'demand') that its members commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defense which, broken down, means that around 3.5% of a given nationˋs GDP is to be committed to actual military spending while the remaining can be spent on infrastructure that supports the military in some way, shape, or form. The 5% goal is to be met by 2035. But the agreement may not be because of Trump made the request or that the leaders of those NATO nations thought that Trump was right.

To try to get his way, Trump has also levied tariffs on Canada and the EU, which includes most NATO members,  in order reach trade deals that produce favorable trade outcomes for the US. Trump's tariffs will hurt the economies of the NATO nations from which there is suppose to be an increase in military spending. This kind of mixed message is like telling a runner to run faster while injuring one of their legs.

We should also note one other thing. While Trump is not hesitant in slapping tariffs on allies, so far his tariff policies toward Russia, despite the horrendous atrocities that it visits on Ukraine, have remained unchanged--that is until recently. Trump has just threatened to apply tariffs to Russian imports if it doesn't agree to a peace deal in 50 days. Here, we need to remember why Trump received the name 'TACO,' which means Trump Always Chickens Out. Israel also gets a free ride here despite the atrocities that it commits against the Palestinian people. When one views both the attacks that Russia and Israel practices against their targets as well as the end goals of the two leaders of those nations, we might be tempted to regard Netanyahu as the Vlad Putin of the Middle East. Of course, the same can be said of Hamas. 

Having seen Russiaˋs invasion of Ukraine and noticing Russiaˋs renewed interest in its military resources near Finland, some in NATO are expecting a Russian attack on a NATO nation by the year 2029. And it isn't just the leaders of some European nations who feel uneasy with Russia, many citizens from those European nations have increased anxiety too. Because of Trump's inaction to Russia's war of aggression, we might also want to consider the question of how much does Trump owe Putin for his 2024 election win? Only a few journalists whom I have read or heard have considered that question. Putting all of that together, how much can NATO nations trust Trumpˋs verbal commitment to Article 5 of NATOˋs collective defense agreement is difficult to answer. 

Here we should note that there are 3 possible responses the US could employ should Russia attack a NATO member nation: do nothing while possibly talking a good game, rush in to defend a fellow NATO member nation, or attack NATO nations to show Putin that the US has undeniably aligned itself with Russia. And so was NATOˋs collective decision to follow Trumpˋs demand a recognition that they need to become less dependent on, if not totally independent from, the US in terms of trade and military aid?

We should note that Russia has already been attacking NATO nations. And it has been doing so in the same way that it has orchestrated the shift in the US's geopolitical alignment. My personal opinion is that many of the authoritarian with hierarchy movements rumbling through Europe and North America are tools of Russia. Evidence of that claim can be found in Russiaˋs support for such movements as well as their statements of support for Russia's aggression. The AfD in Germany provides an example here. These movements often employ a façade of being an ethnocratic movement in order to secure a base of support within the population, but the desired end of the candidates supported by these movements is to install an oligarchy. BTW, Russiaˋs oligarchy also presents itself as a religiously-based ethnocracy.

Will a Russian military attack  a NATO nation in the near future? Seeing Russiaˋs difficulties in Ukraine, an attack against a NATO member when NATO, not counting the US, is well-armed would seem unlikely. And so now we are looking at a doubled-edged window of time when it would be least costly for Russia to attack a NATO nation while NATO is still too dependent on the US to face Russia's military without US help.

We have one other consideration to mull over here. That is Europe's independence from NATO includes developing a coordinated nuclear deterrent which includes a new command post for the release of nuclear weapons. That command post would be shared by France and Germany. But what happens to that command post if what has happened in the US happens in one of them?

And so NATO members need to wean themselves off of their financial and military dependence on the US. That means that NATO members must find suitable markets outside of the US for their goods, increase their development and production of quality weaponry, and invest substantially into all kinds of research. To buy time, which includes appeasing some of the demands made by Trump, NATO members must continue to support Ukraine so that even if Russia should conquer Ukraine, as I believe is inevitable, its success in Ukraine will take long enough for NATO to buy time to become economically and militarily independent from the US. 

 

Did Putin Win Our Election?

There is a conspiracy theory that I want everyone to consider. Now the only evidence I have for my theory is the news itself and so don't automatically believe my theory. Instead, let time tell if my theory is true? My theory says that Trump made a deal with Putin. The deal stipulated that if Russia used enough disinformation to get Trump elected, the latter would be a Vassal President who would be subservient to the former. Vassal can mean a person or nation that is subservient to another. And so in exchange being subservient to Putin, Trump avoids at least one prison sentence. In addition, Trump gets to forge domestic policies that are economically beneficial to himself, his fellow oligarchs, and his wealthy peers. If my theory is true, then Trump made deal for himself in a very timely fashion.

If my theory is true, then it was Putin who won the 2024 Presidential Election. That is because he is the one who gets to holds Trump's reigns while Trump is in control of the nation. And that would make Putin and his oligarchy the new deep-state for America.

The evidence that supports my view is circumstantial in that Trump's foreign policy decisions are the drastic reversal of America's usual policies toward Putin.

The circumstantial evidence includes Trump's economic threats and attacks are mostly on NATO nations first. His threats are not just economic, they are physical in that he is threatening to annex one NATO member and the land that is loosely supervised by another. Such threats threaten to divide and seriously weaken Russia's strongest rival: NATO. And now, the Trump Administration is joining far right groups, like the AfD in Germany, in siding with Russia in the Ukraine War. Part of that includes Trump's blaming Ukraine's President Zelensky for Russia's invasion.

 I would be remiss not to mention what America's new conservatives get out of this deal. By riding in on Trump's coattails, they get to implement Project 2025 which concentrates Washington's power, rather than weakens it, on the President who can then enact policies that will make it impossible for conservatives to lose control over the government. There is no need to point out how Project 2025 is working out.

Again, don't believe my theory at first. Let the news tell us how correct that theory is.

With Members Like US, Who Needs Russia?

The article below was originally scheduled to be posted two weeks ago in response to the implementation of Trump's tariffs. Because the tariffs were put on pause, I wrote another article. This article has not been updated since the pause in the tariffs except to put in this preface.

 Trump seems to be publicly announcing his enemies list by his actions and words. From his responses to the horrific airline accident and some of his EOs, one such enemy is DEI. But we might want to add another one to that short list.

That next entry is indicated by Trump's plans. His unwarranted 25% tariff on Canada provides a hint regarding one of his enemies. His 10% tariff on the EU is rationalized without providing any context, and his plan to take Greenland from Denmark's control is another. After all what do Canada, Denmark, and most of the EU have in common? It's NATO. 

Here we need to go back to our government's belief that Russia was working to promote Trump's chances at being elected in the past 3 elections. We need to go back to Trump's publicly stated admiration for Vlad Putin and other dictators over the past several years. And we should note that Trump criticized Zelensky for fighting back against Russia's invasion.

Plus, Trump is telling NATO members how much of their own GDP they should contribute to defense and if they fail to meet that mark, he would not defend them against Russian attacks. Here we should note that while the treaty requiring NATO members to defend each other is a binding, how much of a given nation's GDP contributes to defense is not. And while he initially said that the minimum percentage of a member's GDP dedicate to defense should be 2%, he has upped that to 5%.

As for his tariffs, yes, Trump is imposing tariffs on Canada, EU nations, Mexico, and, reluctantly because of his warm feeling for its leader, China. But the proposed tariffs on our neighbors are 25% while the tariffs on the EU and China will be 10%. That means that China is being treated as an equal or better than our allies.

One of Trump's stated reasons for the tariffs on Canada has to do with the border and fentanyl trafficking. But, according to a CBC broadcast, only around 1% of the fentanyl trafficked into the US comes from Canada. The USCBP's own data supports that estimate. Similar comparative statistics show how illegal crossings from Canada are minuscule compared to those coming from Mexico. And yet, they both are receiving the same penalties in tariffs. 

Along with that are Trump's arrogant statements that Canada should become our 51st state. Such a prospect might horrify Texans if Texas was a province in Canada, it would be around the 2nd or 3rd smallest province. Trump's claim is that Canadians would have lower taxes. It is at this point that we see who one of Trump's gods is and why he doesn't understand people. Trump can be bought and so he believes everyone else can be too.

And then there are Trump's threats against the EU nations because of their restrictions on importing our food products. Here we should note that Trump's protests against the EU's restrictions on our food product are without context. Trump doesn't mention why the EU doesn't allow many US food products to be imported. Issues such as preserving small farms, keeping environmental regulations in the production of agricultural products, and additives that are in our foods are prohibited in European foods provide reasons why the EU doesn't import many, if not all, of our food exports. One could look at Trump's tariff threats here as his way to impose his views on environmentalism, climate change, and food safety on Europe. It isn't that the EU treats us badly; it is that the EU answers to a higher authority in terms of standards for both the environment and health in the production and consumption of food.

There is more than one motive behind Trump's tariffs. One of those motives is that they are used to reduce tax rates for Americans--especially the wealthier ones. Such is basically an attempt to get other nations to pay for the government services that Americans access. And reducing those tax rates is a campaign carrot Trump offers during elections.

Yes, we have large trade deficits. And, yes, Trump is right in pointing out the problems that nations like China and Mexico significantly contribute to. But neither Canada nor the EU nations significantly contribute to any problems. And yet Canada is singled out like Mexico and China are and the trade problems regarding food was pointed out without providing the context.

Certainly Canadians rightfully see Trump's tariffs as a threat to their sovereignty. Trump's tariffs on Canada is an economic blitzkrieg because of their immediacy amount. And so we see in Trump's EOs an attempted shifting of power in the Western Hemisphere. But perhaps what Trump aims for is larger than that. Perhaps, with his attacks on the EU, Perhaps Trump is aiming to create a geo-political shift of power where Trump is taking the US out of NATO and into an accord with Russia and China. Or perhaps Trump sees the US being able to stand by itself for as long as he is President because, in his mind, he is that great of a leader. In either case, we would be out of NATO.

And so when we put together the threats against the holdings of a NATO member along with economic threats against the economies of other NATO nations along with claims that he would not defend certain NATO nations from attack, all of that indicates that NATO, and Canada, might have to prepare for a future where the US is not just missing in action, it is an adversary.

On Lessons Not Always Learned From The Past

 I've been watching a lot of documentaries on the two World Wars in the 20th century, and in particular World War I. And one of the interesting things we can learn from those documentaries is how the end of World War I contributed to the beginning of World War II.

Of course, the stipulations from the Treaty of Versailles contributed much to the beginning of World War II, especially in Europe. But the deliberations at Versailles also contributed to that war's Pacific theater. For Japan has been one of the allied nations in World War I. We don't think of it that way because it is easy for us to think that war as only having a European theater. But because opponents saw opportunity in attacking each other's colonies, World War I was a global war.

As one of the allies, Japan was attacking an area in East Asia held by Germany. Their participation there meant that they became part of the talks at Versailles. Japan was completely ignored at those deliberations. And so Japan eventually felt the need to establish their own empire in order to gain respect from other nations which was denied to them during the talks at Versailles. 

Of course the effects of the Versailles Treaty also led up to World War II in Europe. From the overwhelming hardships caused by the economic punishments to the forced admission that Germany was responsible for the war to loss of land and to the drastic reduction in Germany's military, that treaty laid the groundwork to the acceptance of extremism that took the form of Nazism. And Hitler and Nazism began to gain popular support because they promised to erase the effects of the Versailles Treaty.

As with Japan, Hitler planned to recover Germany's significance in the world by working to establish an empire. Hitler started breaking the Versailles Treaty by rebuilding Germany's military. He also helped the economy with public works projects. 

Another facet here is that Hitler's empire started with recovering what many Germans felt entitled to: recovery of the Rhineland, which had been lost because Germany could not keep up with paying reparations. 

Then Hitler appealed to a sense of entitlement in the takeover of Austria. And then Hitler argued that because they were Germanic people in the Sudetenland, that Germany was entitled to take control of that land. His invasion of Eastern Europe was also out of a sense of entitlement because of how densely populated Germany was and the belief in how inferior the slavic people were to the Aryan race. 

Now I am not saying that Russia is entitled to regain territory lost from since the end of the Russian Empire under the Tsars or were part of the Warsaw Pact. But we must understand why Putin would feel entitled to invade Ukraine.

Another motivation for World War II was relief from the extreme economic hardships that Germany was suffering. 

So there are three factors caused by how World War I ended which led to the beginning of World War II: the seeking for significance, the sense of entitlement, and escaping economic hardships with the seeking of prosperity.

It seemed that we applied those lessons at the end of World War II as seen in how we treated both Germany and Japan. We helped those nations to recover and sought to enforce a peace without attempting to humiliate them. However, are we still using those lessons learned in how we respond to today's enemies?

Consider our treatment of Russia. Not only have we broken the understanding that Bush I and Gorbachev had regarding the reunification of Germany by moving NATO eastward, by assuming to be the sole superpower after the dissolution of Soviet Union, we have attacked its sense of significance. 

How did we attack its sense of significance? We started by moving off NATO eastward to lands that were formerly part of the Russian Empire under the Tsars and later on part of the Warsaw Pact nations. Some of those nations border Russia itself. Such would be comparable to the Soviet Union getting Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War or if Russia or China had courted Mexico into aligning itself with one of them to the extent of hosting their military bases.

Here, we must understand that Russia sees itself as a superpower that is equal to us. And so we should take note of some precedents that our nation has set because of its superpower status. Our nation's example has shown that superpowers can invade whom they want for whatever reason they give with impunity. If Russia's idea of being significant means being a superpower like the U.S and being able to act with impunity like we do, we have contributed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by some of what we have done in the past.

The same applies to China as it now sees itself as a superpower. That means China could easily prove itself by invading another nation with impunity. That is because that is what superpowers like the U.S. can and actually do.

But seeking significance isn't the only reason why Russia has invaded Ukraine. Putin has said that the Ukrainian people and Russian people are one people. And because of history, it is likely that Putin feels entitled of his view of the relationship between the Russian and Ukrainian people. Please understand that I am not saying that Putin is right. I am simply speculating at the logic that Putin is employing. 

After all, when Hitler started to take over other nations, he wrongfully thought that he was entitled to do so. But his decision was based on what he felt entitled to do as the leader of Germany. And he successfully marketed that reason to his people. The same applies to Putin and his current invasion of Ukraine and any thoughts about invading the other nations that were formerly part of Russia either under the Tsars or under the Bolsheviks.

Handling Putin's sense of entitlement regarding his attempt to conquer Ukraine must must include accommodating his flawed sense of fairness without unnecessarily surrendering any nations to him. If indeed, one of Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine is a historical-based sense of entitlement, that means that his invasion of Ukraine is not an assault on NATO and Western Europe. And so we cannot afford to portray his invasion that way. But by accommodating his flawed sense of fairness, we can perhaps get a glimpse of how far Putin will go in trying to conquer and rule over Ukraine. And Europe has already seen some original historical narratives of such past invasions by tyrannical dictators. At the same time, there is significant difference between the past and now in that, if what is being said is an accurate enough analysis of Putin's invasions, Whereas Napoleon and Hitler drew now boundaries for their own imperial dreams, that is not the case with Putin.

And what has been said about Russia, also applies to China.

If we add to the above the sanctions being forced on Russia, we could be providing another incentive for Russia to invade some other nations. Significant enough economic hardships can cause some nations to attack others just as economic suffering provided another reason for Germany to invade its neighbors.

Of course, we must find minimally provocative ways to successfully resist Russians invasion against Ukraine. But those ways must account for what could bring success for Ukraine without escalating the conflict. And it is our ability to accommodate by understanding Putin and his perspective which is crucial here. Also, we cannot afford to intervene in ways that makes Russia's war against Ukraine a war that eventually pits Russia against NATO. For such a war like that could easily lead to nuclear exchanges that could spell the end of civilized human life on earth.

After Russia's war against Ukraine, or perhaps during it, we must find ways to reduce the reasons why a nation, especially a superpower nation, would attack another nation. Without condoning the evil practiced by an aggressive nation, we must find ways to give it significance in ways that would influence it not to attack other nations. And we must ensure that no nation is economically suffering so that it would attack another nation in order to relieve their economic distress. The more we do all three of those things, the more we show that we have learned from past wars on how to prevent future wars.

How To Approach Putin As A Hostage Taker

Last week, this blog described part of what Putin has done with his invasion of the Ukraine was using the whole world as a hostage (click here for last week's blog article ). He did that by implying a possible use of nuclear weapons on anyone helping the Ukraine by putting his nuclear forces on high alert. 

Last week's article went on to discuss the growing lack of self-restraint that we see in the world today along with the questioning of our government's knowledge of Putin's mental state. I mention all of these things because they should play a role in how the world respond to Putin but seems to be significantly absent.

Fortunately, President Biden has directed aid to the Ukraine without making probable direct confrontations between  the U.S. and Russian forces. In fact the same could be said for all NATO forces. But despite the caution exercised, I have fears of a nuclear exchange occurring. And like the old commercial for Lays Potato Chips, my fear is that once nuclear weapons are used, leaders will not be satisfied with just one nuclear exchange. That fear caused me to watch the British version of the American movie The Day After (click here for a brief description ) called Threads (click here for a brief description ). I picked the movie Threads because I could watch it for free. In that movie, what started as a confrontation between Soviet and American forces in Iran over oil led to a limited nuclear exchange and that exchange led to other exchanges until there was a full scale nuclear war. 

In any event, despite the wisdom of lowering the probability of direct confrontation between American or even NATO forces with those of Russia, we need to further revise our current approach to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. And the reason for that is precisely because of what was written last week: Putin has made the whole world his hostage. And thus, the world's leaders should include hostage negotiation tactics and strategies in its approach to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. It's not that the world's approach to Putin  should be reduced to that of some kind of hostage negotiation. But it is that hostage negotiation approaches should be a major part of how the world's leaders approach him.

Having said that, we should realize that calling Putin a war criminal, though true, doesn't help. It doesn't help because for America to complain about other nations committing war crimes and breaking International Law is like the pot calling the kettle black. For though we Americans like to tell ourselves that we, unlike many other nations, practice the Rule of Law, the fact is that it is the nations with the strongest militaries that try to enforce the Rule of Law on the rest of the world while they themselves practice the Rule of Force. Thus, the hypocrisy of nations like America accusing Putin of war crimes and not abiding by the Rule of Law can only unnecessarily irritate the hostage taker, Putin, and that is not what one should want to do when engaging in hostage negotiations.

If we didn't live in the nuclear age, we could better afford to use our military to stop the Russian invasion even though it still might not be the wisest choice. But we live in the nuclear age. And our top priority right now must be to avoid a nuclear exchange. That doesn't mean that we should sit idly by while a tyrant with imperial dreams dancing in his head has his way with nations that he feels entitled to invade. But it does mean that we need, along with providing support for the Ukraine and some sanctions that target Russia, constant communication between Western leaders and Putin. We need open lines of communication between all of those leaders. We also need to employ the services of leaders of those nations that either continue to choose to business with Russia or those who side with Russia, none of whom want to see a nuclear exchange. It is the leaders of those nations who can provide a reality check for Putin should he be considering using nuclear weapons at all during the invasion of the Ukraine.

Perhaps, the worst approach is to make Putin seem like the target. What Biden said about how Putin should not be the leader of Russia had already been said in the economic sanctions that have been applied against Russia. For it seems that the replacing of Putin as the leader of Russia is a strategic goal  at least for Biden. Here we should note that we should not feel safe from a nuclear war because we are employing  economic sanctions rather than using military confrontation. Why? WW II, especially its European theater, should provide a sufficient reason not to. That is because wars have started over economic sanctions. Yes, we should use some economic sanctions; but we can go too far with them.

Despite the fact that Putin doesn't deserve to be a leader, he should not be the target of our actions. Rather, the invasion of the Ukraine itself should be. And we need to keep in mind that what we absolutely cannot afford to have is even the possibility of a nuclear exchange over the invasion. Yes, it would be preferable for Putin to get what he deserves. But again, the Rule of Law is applied only to the weak, not the strong. And that is our reality in the nuclear age.

ONIM For April 3, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of the story.

Christian News

• Once Saved, Always Saved? The Answer's Complicated -- Christian Today (UK)
• Lord Carey: Donald Trump Is A 'Good Samaritan' President Who Speaks For The 'Left Behind' -- Christian Today (UK)
• Church Of England Implementing New Rules To Prevent Clergy Sexual Abuse -- Christian Today (UK)
• The Other Billy Graham Rules -- Christianity Today
• Prison Fellowship Fights The Other 48,000 Forces Keeping Former Inmates From A Second Chance -- Christianity Today
• How 1,000 Pastors Pursue Racial Reconciliation -- Christianity Today
• RAAN Statement On Sexuality And Human Dignity -- Reformed African American Network
• The Real Reason The Benedict Option Leaves Out The Black Church -- Reformed African American Network
• The Acropolis Of The Word Of Faith Movement -- Reformed African American Network
• And Jesus Said Unto Paul Ryan -- New York Times
• White House Plan To Help Pay For Border Wall Is A Long Shot -- Yahoo News
• Protecting The Flock -- Mortification Of Spin

World News

• Study Finds Suspicious Circumstances Still Leading Cause Of Death In Russia -- The Onion
• Trump Signals New Hope For Obamacare Overhaul, Says 'Do Not Worry!' -- Fox News
• Australia Scientists Uncover Dinosaur Footprint That May Be World's Largest -- Reuters
• Trump Poised To Sell Away Privacy Protections For Internet Users -- Guardian
• Government Watchdog To Review Trump's Use Of Mar-A-Lago -- Washington Post
• Paul Manafort's Puzzling New York Real Estate Purchases -- WNYC
• Bill O'Reilly Apologizes After Making Racially Charged Joke About Congresswoman -- CNN
• The Platform Press:: How Silicon Valley Reengineered Journalism -- Columbia Journalism Review
• Taxpayers Pick Up The Tab For Trump's Pricey Golf Excursions --  Los Angeles Times
• The NFL Has Effectively Blackballed Colin Kaepernick -- Washington Post 
• With Congress Gridlocked, Scott Walker Wants Trump To Ok Drug Tests For State Health Coverage -- Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel
• The Public Favors Cutting Defense Spending, Not Adding Billions More, New Survey Finds -- Philly.com
• Study Finds White Working Class Increasingly Dying 'Deaths Of Despair' -- Chicago Tribune
• Energy Department Climate Office Bans Use Of Phrase 'Climate Change' -- Politico
• Britain Sets Historic Brexit Process In Motion -- Wall Street Journal
• U.S. Judge Finds That Aetna Deceived The Public About Its Reasons For Quitting Obamacare -- Los Angeles Times 
• Why Israel Detained Omar Barghouti -- ZNet
• Yemen: Trump Expands U.S. Military Role In Saudi War As Yemenis Brace For Famine -- Democracy Now
• Trump Makes Labor-Law Violators Eligible For Federal Contracts Again -- NY Magazine
• Why So Many Teachers Need A Second Job To Make Ends Meet -- Washington Post
• Israel Approves First New Settlement In Decades -- New York Times
• EPA Decides Not To Ban A Pesticide, Despite Its Own Evidence Of Risk -- NPR
• Pa. Senator Blames  Body Heat For Global Warming -- YDR.com
• Borrowers 'Chilled To The Bone' As DOE Reneges On Student Loan Forgiveness -- Common Dreams
• Judge Throws Out $4 Million Tainted-Water Award To Dimock Shale-Gas Families -- Philly.com
• Pushing Palestinians Off Their Land--By Pumping Sewage Onto It -- 972 Magazine
• Congress Raises Alarm Over US Confrontation With Yemen's Houthis -- Al Monitor
• Scholar: Moscow See Hypocrisy In Allegations After U.S. Interfered In Russian Elections In 1990s -- Democracy Now
• Questions, Answers About The Legal Immunity Process -- Yahoo News
• Russian Submarines Increase Combat Patrols To Cold War Levels -- Sky News
• Trump Officials Defend Immigration Arrests At California Courthouses -- Reuters
• No, Wealth Isn't Created At The Top. It Is Merely Devoured There -- Guardian
• Lawsuit Accusing Trump Of Inciting Rally Violence Gets Green Light From Judge -- Huffington Post
• Low-Wage African American Workers Have Increased Annual Work Hours Most Since 1979 -- Economic Policy Institute
• The Many Scandals Of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet -- Atlantic
• Anti-Occupation Peace Demo In Jerusalem -- Yahoo News
• Tillerson To NATO: Get It Together In The Next Two Months, Or -- Foreign Policy 
• Germany Balks At US NATO Spending Demands -- Yahoo News
• Baby Boomers Ruined America, According To This Generation X Author -- Market Watch

Protest News

• How Protests Forced Ecuador's Upcoming Runoff Presidential Election -- Waging Nonviolence
• 10 Ways Movements Can Encourage And Support Whistleblowers -- Waging Nonviolence

Standing Rock Sioux--DAPL News

• Audio Shows That Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Objected To Pipeline Two Years Ago -- PBS
• North Dakota Oil Output set To Rise As Controversial Pipeline Opens -- Reuters

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Tax Cuts Don't Lead To Economic Growth, A New 65-Year Study Finds -- The Atlantic
• Noam Chomsky: Trump's First 100 Days Are Undermining Our Prospects For Survival -- Truthout
• Russia Creates 'Unstoppable' Hypersonic Zircon Missile With Navy Destroying 4,600MPH Speed -- Yahoo News
• I Am An Arctic Researcher. Donald Trump Is Deleting My Citations -- Guardian
• Trump Signs Order Undoing Obama Climate Change Policies -- BBC
• U.S. To Send More Troops To Iraq, As Pentagon Probes Reports Of Hundreds Of Civilian Casualties -- Democracy Now
• What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Rural Poverty -- In These Times
• Innocent Man In Los Angeles Freed After Serving 20 Years For Attempted Murder -- The Root
• Black Americans Working More--With Little To Show For It -- ZNet
• State Department Drops Human Rights As Condition For Fighter Jet Sale To Bahrain -- Washington Post
• North Carolina Just Passed A Repeal Of Its Anti-LGBT Law. But It's Not A full Repeal -- Vox
• Disabled Or Just Desperate? Rural Americans Turning To Disability As Jobs Dry Up -- Washington Post
• Google Voice Search Records And Keeps Conversations People Have Around Their Phones--But The Files Can Be Deleted -- Independent
• U.S. Boycotts U.N. Talks On Nuclear Ban While Spending Trillions To Modernize Nuclear Arsenal -- Democracy Now
• Venezuela Muzzles Legislature, Moving Closer To One-Man Rule -- New York Times
• El Salvador, Prizing Water Over Gold, Bans All Metal Mining -- New York Times
• Amnesty: Hundreds Of Iraqi Civilians Killed In U.S. Airstrikes After Being Told Not To Flee Mosul -- Democracy Now
• Understanding Angry Mob At Middlebury That Gave Me A Concussion -- New York Times
• US Warns Israel On 'Unrestrained' Settlement Building -- Yahoo News