Author: admin

Post Content

48-year-old Sarah Hartsfield, a former US Army sergeant, has been arrested and is in Chambers County Jail following accusations of murdering her fifth husband, Joseph Hartsfield.

Authorities have determined Joseph was injected with deadly insulin levels and that his wife delayed calling for help until it was too late.

Hartsfield’s insulin levels were tremendously high for several hours preceding his wife activating for help in January. His glucose monitor gave off a warning before Sarah took any action.

This new incident follows nearly five years after she killed her then ex-fiance, David Bragg, claiming to have done so in self-defense.

Sarah has a long rap sheet full of legal trouble. In March 1996, she was accused of assaulting her second husband, Michael Traxler, at their shared Rio Bonito house.

Though she remained detained for a week, the charges were later denied. Later on, she was up for trial due to the death of David Bragg in 2018. Then Minnesota investigators uncovered enough evidence to reopen the case and enforce justice.

Her first husband, Titus Knoernschild, expressed relief in her ultimate capture, saying, “I am glad she has finally been caught for who she is. I’m just sorry another person had to die to get her caught”.

Her son from her third marriage, Ryan Donohue, expressed his prior knowledge of her behaviors, confessing he anticipated her downfalls.

Sarah Hartsfield remains detained in Chambers County Jail, where she has uploaded two notes to the judge. The first note told him she fired her attorney and requested a replacement; the second asked for her $4.5 million bond to be reduced.

Sarah Hartsfield is accused of a wicked crime, now being accounted for through the justice system. Those affected by her actions, including the families of her ex-fiancé David Bragg and her first husband, can find peace knowing this criminal has been caught and that justice will be served.

The violence endangers regional stability and the normalization process between once-belligerent countries.

By Yoni Ben Menachem, JNS

Israel and the United States were surprised by the outbreak of the war in Sudan. Their working assumption was that an agreement on the establishment of a civilian government would soon be reached, but the negotiations on its establishment failed due to power struggles between Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the commander of the Sudanese army, and Gen. Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, which turned into a civil war.

In coordination with the United States and the United Arab Emirates, Israel took an unprecedented step and is trying to mediate between two generals who are now the rulers of Sudan and who claim to represent the Sudanese people after they deposed the previous ruler, Omar al-Bashir, in a military coup in 2019.

Foreign Minister Eli Cohen invited al-Burhan and Dagalo to come to Israel and conduct negotiations on a ceasefire in Sudan under Israeli auspices.

Israel has familiarity with the two sides and can significantly influence both.

Security sources point out that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has a good relationship with al-Burhan, with whom it is working on the issue of the normalization agreement reached in October 2020, while the Mossad has a good relationship with Hemedti on security and counterterrorism issues. It also coordinates operations on the internal situation in Sudan with Gen. Abdel Rahim Dagalo, Hemedti’s brother and deputy in the headquarters of the Rapid Response Forces.

Al-Burhan and Hemedti did not reject the Israeli offer outright but neither did they respond positively, and contact with them continues.

Israel fears that Sudan will fragment into a long civil war that will not only eliminate any chance of reaching a peace agreement between the two countries but will destabilize the region.

A blow to the normalization process

Sudan disintegrating into a long civil war could split and divide it into small countries. If this scenario were to materialize, it could mean that a peace agreement between Sudan and Israel would not be signed, which would damage the mutually beneficial normalization process between Israel and the Arab countries that the “axis of resistance” led by Iran is trying to thwart.

Media sources in Iran and Hamas spread the conspiracy theory that the Israeli mediation initiative is intended to subject Sudan to Israeli control as part of an Israeli-American effort to split Sudan and Arab countries and to create an Israeli leadership that will lead certain Arab countries politically, economically and socially.

Yousif Izzat, the political adviser to Hemedti, gave an interview to Israel’s Kan News a few days ago in which he claimed that the capital Khartoum and the Rapid Response Forces are subject to attack by the Sudanese army just as Israel is subject to attacks by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and other organizations. Izzat was a representative of Sudan at a JCPA conference recently held in Jerusalem.

Hamas cites the ties of Sudanese generals such as Hemedti to Israel to claim Sudanese leaders are hostile towards Palestinians.

Hamas accuses the Arab countries of standing on the sidelines and not acting in Sudan, which makes it difficult for foreign parties including Israel and the United States to intervene in an attempt to create a political reality in Sudan that will serve their interests.

The balance of power is now changing in the Middle East as the United States is gradually withdrawing and the Iranian axis with China and Russia is growing in influence.

Therefore, it is critical that Israel and the United States prevent a protracted civil war in Sudan, which has the potential to destabilize the entire region and undo the normalization process underway since the UAE and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords in September 2020.

The post Israel is willing to mediate in Sudan’s civil war appeared first on World Israel News.

What started as a date-night experiment for two young Israelis is now a full-fledged vegan chocolate company with a recent $3 million US investment.

By Elana Shap,  ISRAEL21c

Although Daniel Bareket grew up in Harduf, a kibbutz known for its excellent vegetarian restaurant, he only stopped eating animal products after he moved to Tel Aviv at the end of his army service.

That he and his future wife would one day develop award-winning dairy-free milk chocolates, produced and sold all over Israel and in the United States, was far beyond his imagination.

It all started after he met Elya Adi, a vegan since the age of 16. On their first official date, Bareket suggested they get into the kitchen to try and make a dairy-free milk chocolate together.

“I knew she was a chocoholic and vegan and this drove me to ask her if we could come up with something,” he recalls.

It was far more challenging than they expected. “The problem is that liquids don’t blend well with oils in the cocoa butter so that ruled out adding a plant-based milk. We tried dehydrated milk and even vegan baby formula, which was disgusting,” says Bareket, who was working in high-tech at the time.

The couple realized they needed to educate themselves and spent hours accessing online resources in order to understand all the variables. At this point, Bareket tells ISRAEL21c, making vegan chocolate was still a hobby, with no business plan even remotely in mind.

It took a year of experimenting to obtain a creamy texture and a delicious flavor. What made all the difference was combining dehydrated soy milk (ordered from Canada) with coconut and feeding it into their new ultra-fine grinding machine.

Successful crowdfunding

With both their careers at a turning point, they decided to do a crowdfunding campaign for upscaling their vegan milk chocolate with the aim of raising 13,000 shekels (about $3,500).

“We landed up raising seven times that amount in only one day. Probably one of the most successful crowdfunding campaigns ever,” Bareket says, still with disbelief at the achievement.

With this cash injection, they were able to open their first factory in Jerusalem in 2016. They named the brand Panda, after Elya’s nickname for Daniel.

Made in 14 flavors (including peanut butter cream, caramel & sea salt and cookies & cream) and sold in Israeli health-food stores and supermarkets, the new dairy-free milk chocolate met with such a good response in the local market that the couple decided to investigate the US market.

Cracking the code

Their research revealed that more than 50 percent of US households include plant-based items in their food purchases. Growth came not mainly through veganism catching on but also through flexitarians who were aiming to reduce animal products in their diet; Meatless Monday followers; and the lactose-intolerant segment.

However, on a research trip to the US, the now-married couple discovered something even more surprising. While supermarkets stocked a wide variety of dairy-free ice cream and plant-based cheese, non-dairy milk chocolate bars and snacks were hardly to be seen.

“Either nobody had cracked the code to make a tasty vegan chocolate or there was no demand from the consumer, which was hard to believe. We went with the first theory,” says Bareket.

To test the US market, an online store was opened in September 2022. Panda was renamed 7th Heaven due to trademark issues, and positive feedback soon started to roll in.

“Customers said they couldn’t believe that something so delicious and creamy was made without a drop of dairy. The market we were looking for was definitely out there,” Bareket relates with pride.

First US investor

Then another lucky break occurred. “We got an email from a man named David who found us online when looking for vegan chocolate for kashrut reasons. He had tried several types of chocolates until he discovered Panda and fell in love with the product and the taste. And, he wanted to invest.”

“David” turned out to be David Schottenstein, a consumer products entrepreneur behind Thomas Ashbourne Craft Spirits (Sarah Jessica Parker and other celebrities are partners).

He also roped in Peter Hess, veteran agent at Creative Artists Agency that represents A-listers such as Ariana Grande, George Clooney and Harry Styles. Through Hess, negotiations are currently underway to include a celebrity in the next 7th Heaven advertising campaign in the US.

Fair Trade

The $3 million raised from the investment group is intended to get the 7th Heaven line into the mainstream market (at present it is sold only in New York, Miami and California) by the end of the year.

And it has facilitated Panda’s R&D team in Tivon, Lower Galilee, to work on a range of new vegan chocolate products that will be dairy-free competitors to well-loved and well-known chocolate products in the American market.

The company is also focused on retaining its Fair Trade label, sourcing cocoa from ethical suppliers in Ghana and the Ivory Coast and being as sustainable as possible (vegan snacks and bars produce two-thirds fewer the greenhouse gases than do dairy products).

Bareket says the company is constantly looking for innovative ways to make production, packaging and shipping processes more Earth-friendly.

“Because, as far as we know, you can’t find chocolate on any other planet,” he quips.

The post ‘7th Heaven’: How date night turned into a $3m Israeli vegan chocolate company appeared first on World Israel News.

The other day, while flipping through radio channels in my car in an effort to find the latest NBA news, I came upon the conservative radio program Clay and Buck. One of the hosts was warning listeners about the probable presence of FBI provocateurs at pro-Trump rallies. Such agents were easy to spot, he claimed. […]

Kevin McCarthy is heading a 20-member delegation of American lawmakers.

By JNS

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) arrived in Israel on Sunday, where he will meet with top officials and become the second-ever holder of his post to address the full Knesset.

McCarthy is leading a 20-member delegation of Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

He was received at Ben-Gurion Airport by his Israeli counterpart Amir Ohana and then traveled directly to the Western Wall in Jerusalem before heading to the Knesset for a formal dinner.

“Israel, you are a blessed nation,” McCarthy wrote in the Western Wall visitor book, adding: “Our shared values unite a bond that will never break.”

On Monday, the speaker will visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and lay a wreath in honor of the 6 million Jews exterminated by the Nazis and their helpers during World War II.

He is also slated to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the afternoon, Ohana will open the Knesset’s summer session and speeches will commence, including McCarthy’s address in English.

Welcome to Israel, @SpeakerMcCarthy!

(Photo: Noam Moshkovich | Knesset Press Office)

ברוך הבא לישראל, יו״ר בית הנבחרים של ארה״ב קווין מקארת׳י!

(צילום: נועם מושקוביץ | דוברות הכנסת) pic.twitter.com/SR6XMCENZv

— Amir Ohana – אמיר אוחנה (@AmirOhana) April 30, 2023

Ohana earlier this month described McCarthy as a “steadfast supporter and longstanding friend of Israel,” and noted that it would be the top Republican official’s first trip outside the U.S. since assuming his post in January.

“This is a clear expression of the strong and unbreakable bond between Israel and its closest ally, the United States of America,” added Ohana.

McCarthy said the U.S. relationship with the Jewish state remained “as important as ever,” adding that the visit would be special coming on the heels of Israel’s 75th Independence Day.

McCarthy late last month expressed his backing for the Netanyahu government amid an ongoing national debate in Israel over the judicial reform initiative.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu is an Israeli patriot, statesman and most importantly, a great friend of the United States,” McCarthy wrote. “Free societies have vigorous and open debate. Israel is no exception.

“I support Netanyahu, and America’s support for Israel’s strong, vibrant democracy is unwavering,” he added.

Newt Gingrich was the only other House speaker to address the Knesset plenum, having done so in 1998.

The post US House speaker arrives in Israel, will address Knesset appeared first on World Israel News.

Le guerre divampano dal Sudan all’Ucraina. Cresce di conseguenza la spesa militare mondiale. L’Europa ha speso nel 2022 in armi e operazioni militari  il 13% in più rispetto al 2021, registrando il più forte aumento da 30 anni a questa …

The post Arma di Guerra: La Cancellazione della Storia | Grandangolo – Pangea appeared first on Global Research.

From Ireland to the US, Jim Larkin helped organize some of the key labor struggles and movements of his day. Larkin also tried to build an Irish communist party, but his independent spirit clashed with a heavy-handed bureaucratic line from Moscow and London.

Jim Larkin in a November 8, 1919 mug shot taken at the time of his arrest for “criminal anarchism” in New York state. (In Revolutionary Radicalism: Its History, Purpose and Tactics (Albany, NY: J.B. Lyon Co., 1920) via Wikimedia Commons)

The Irish syndicalist trade-union leader James Larkin was one of the towering figures of the radical workers’ movement in the early twentieth century. He achieved fame — in the words of Lenin — as “a remarkable speaker and a man of seething energy” who “performed miracles amongst the unskilled workers.”

Larkin led celebrated struggles in Belfast and Dublin during the run-up to World War I. He formed the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union (ITGWU) as well as an armed workers’ militia, the Irish Citizen Army, and spent time in prison for his militancy.

However, after he helped found the Communist Party in the United States and was jailed once more for doing so, Larkin became the subject of fierce criticism from communists during the late 1920s for failing to build a revolutionary workers’ party in Ireland. “The first and most pressing duty of communists,” one British party member wrote in 1929, “is to expose Larkin and drive him out of the working-class movement.”

Negativity toward Larkin still dominates the narrative. Historian Emmet O’Connor subtitled his 2015 biography of Larkin “Hero or Wrecker?”, and came down firmly on the latter side of the argument.

This article will ask whether Larkin deserves all the blame that has been heaped upon him. I will use evidence from the Moscow archives of the Communist International, the Comintern, to argue that much of the onus for the failures normally ascribed to Larkin must at least be shared with the Comintern itself, and with the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), whose “Colonial Department” oversaw Comintern Irish policy.

Larkin and the Comintern

The 1920s were difficult years in Ireland. The country had just experienced two and a half years of armed insurrection against British rule, followed by a bloody civil war. The most right-wing elements in the national movement triumphed over their opponents and ruthlessly went on the attack against workers’ wages and conditions. There was virtually no resistance to this offensive from the reformist labor leaders who backed the newly established “Free State.” Ireland’s workers were roundly defeated and demoralized.

The Irish syndicalist trade union leader James Larkin was one of the towering figures of the radical workers’ movement in the early twentieth century.

Internationally, matters were no better. In the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks were in retreat. Their 1917 revolution hadn’t spread to the industrialized West, and with the defeat of the German communist uprising in late 1923, the notion that Russia could go it alone, building “socialism in one country,” gained traction among the growing Soviet bureaucracy, with Joseph Stalin at its head. This perspective became more national and self-serving than international, marking a sharp break from the Bolshevik tradition pursued by Lenin.

This was the world to which Larkin returned from his American prison cell. Almost immediately, he was at war with the renegades at the head of his old union, the ITGWU, grouped around the leadership of William O’Brien. In 1924, when Larkin was attending a Comintern congress in Moscow, where he was elected to its executive, his militant supporters formed a breakaway union, the Workers’ Union of Ireland (WUI), after ITGWU bosses had deployed armed soldiers against them.

At the time, Comintern policy was against breakaway unions. However, Larkin took charge of the WUI on his return to Ireland, and the Comintern accepted it into its trade-union wing, the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU). The split in the Irish labor movement persisted for decades, but in the immediate aftermath, it poisoned relations between Larkin and his political mentors, the CPGB.

From the outset, as Comintern documents reveal, the CPGB took an entirely hostile attitude toward the WUI. Citing Comintern policy, it refused support to the WUI during its sometimes life-and-death industrial battles, and even demanded that the Comintern compel Larkin to disband the new union and seek readmission to the treacherous ITGWU. This was something that neither he nor his followers could ever agree to.

While the British communists blamed the split on Larkin’s ego, he believed that they had betrayed him. Larkin felt that they lacked a proper understanding of the Irish situation and were acting toward him in an overbearing, “imperialistic” manner.

This hostility between Larkin and the British communists was never overcome, but Larkin was not alone in his criticism of their attitude. The Indian communist leader, M. N. Roy, also denounced the CPGB’s imperial hauteur, while other communists from colonial countries, including Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh, found a similar inclination prevalent in the upper echelons of the Comintern itself by the mid-1920s.

Alchemists of Revolution

The Comintern had tasked Larkin with building a mass-based workers’ party in Ireland, and the CPGB sent one of its leading figures, Bob Stewart, to guide his work. In May 1925, Stewart came close to getting a party off the ground, but abandoned the plan at the last minute when Larkin withheld his imprimatur.

The Comintern had tasked Jim Larkin with building a mass-based workers’ party in Ireland.

This is an event that has gone down in communist history as Larkin’s moment of treachery. In his memoirs, Stewart made no reference to any of Larkin’s serious concerns about how the CPGB and Comintern had acted toward him in the past, offering the following conclusion instead:

Big Jim would never accept the democracy of a disciplined Marxist party. He always had to be at the centre of the stage. . . . and to join a party where the emphasis is put on collective work was not for him.

This may have been partially correct, but it was very far from the whole story. Larkin himself never spoke publicly about the matter, but he made his views clear in a letter to Comintern president, Grigory Zinoviev:

A Party cannot be brought about simply by drafting a decree in a room. . . . but people come along and dare to venture that at a certain hour or on a certain day a certain event will take place. Like some of the old astrologers or alchemists they want to write a formula and then make a hocus-pocus and, lo and behold, we have pure metal. . . . We believe that a natural birth resulting from the necessities of the time is the appropriate way [and] our immediate needs require what may be called local tactics beyond world tactics.

Stewart’s mission had been to launch an Irish party at the very time when Stalin’s power was growing. Under Stalin’s authority, communist parties throughout Europe and the wider world were being beaten into shape to ensure unquestioning support for “socialism in one country.” Larkin’s resistance to being sucked into this process, evident in his assertion of the rights of a national section against central diktat, remained instinctive, however, and was never intellectualized.

In the meantime, relations with the CPGB took another nosedive. The Comintern had ordered the CPGB to mount a campaign in the UK for the withdrawal of British-based trade unions from Ireland. These unions were generally pro-empire, and their members frequently scabbed during WUI strikes.

However, the CPGB point-blank refused to implement Comintern policy — in sharp contrast to its adherence to the line on breakaway unions. Now it argued that implementing the new policy would jeopardize its own influence within the unions.

For Larkin, the CPGB’s open defiance became a major grievance, and the Comintern’s failure to force the British party to obey orders deepened his alienation from the Moscow center. This all made the task of the next Comintern agent to arrive in Ireland, the Norwegian communist Christian Hilt, infinitely more difficult.

“Orders Were Orders”

Hilt arrived in the summer of 1927, with Irish parliamentary elections due to be held in September. On Comintern instructions, Hilt — supported in person by the CPGB’s Jack Murphy — insisted that Larkin stand. Larkin himself argued that this was a waste of resources because, as an undischarged bankrupt, he wouldn’t be able to enter parliament even if he was elected. “I was against fighting, but I was overlooked,” he later complained. “Moscow had determined that we should proceed, and as orders were orders, we obeyed.”

Larkin’s primary objective in the 1927 election was to see the right-wing Labour Party defeated.

In the election, Larkin’s primary objective was to see the right-wing Labour Party defeated. To this end — and in keeping with the Comintern’s then-policy of forming blocs with bourgeois nationalist movements — he allied with Éamon de Valera, leader of the nationalist Fianna Fáil party. Several prominent British communists came to help in the campaign, but they followed their own agenda, urging workers to vote Labour. Larkin complained bitterly about the CPGB’s disruptive interference — and the Norwegian, Hilt, agreed with him.

Despite the confusion caused by British meddling, Larkin was elected but, as he had predicted, was unable to take his seat. As he saw it, he had been forced, against his will, into a very costly, exhausting, and ultimately futile campaign by people who thought they knew better than he did about how to conduct the struggle in Ireland. Yet the Comintern perceived this as an opportunity to capitalize on Larkin’s reemergence into the limelight, and it dispatched another agent, Jack Leckie, with instructions to immediately form an Irish workers’ party.

Leckie’s Moscow handlers had promised that £150,000 (in today’s money) would be waiting for him in Dublin to finance the party and produce a new workers’ paper. Failure to send the cash, he warned them, “would make me appear ridiculous, neutralize my influence, and prevent me carrying out successfully the tasks entrusted to me.” And, he added, it would deepen the rift with Larkin. His warning proved entirely prophetic. There was no money awaiting him, and no explanation for its non-arrival.

A furious row with Larkin ensued. Jack Carney, Larkin’s closest associate, told Leckie that “everyone was becoming embittered” because “the centre continued to make promises which were left unfulfilled.” According to Carney, the problem was exacerbated by “interference from English party representatives [and] the comrades locally were sick and bitterly disappointed with the whole affair.” Leckie packed his bags and left Ireland, furious at the Comintern for letting him down.

In the midst of all these problems, the CPGB and the Comintern had gone behind Larkin’s back to send senior Irish Republican Army (IRA) officers to Moscow in an attempt to win new friends who could help them bypass Larkin. When Larkin found out, he was incensed, as he considered the IRA to be petty-bourgeois terrorists. And worse was to come.

The Unreasoning End

Early in 1928, the Comintern adopted a dramatic change of line. This ushered in an era of ultraleftism in communist politics that owed more to developments within Russia — where Stalin was forcibly collectivizing the land — than it did to the needs of workers internationally.

Under the new “line,” Larkin was ordered not just to form a united front with the IRA, but to wage all-out war against de Valera, his ally of a few months previously, even though de Valera’s politics remained unchanged. But what really irked Larkin was the fact that no Irish representative had participated in shaping the new line in Moscow. Stalin’s Comintern now worked through orders from the top. The end of Larkin’s troubled relationship with Moscow was fast approaching.

Stalin’s Comintern now worked through orders from the top. The end of Larkin’s troubled relationship with Moscow was fast approaching.

The immediate issue that led him to finally sever ties was the arrival in Ireland of the Soviet company, Russian Oil Products (ROP). Larkin saw this as an opportunity to showcase the superiority of socialist enterprise over the capitalist variety. Instead, ROP acted like the worst capitalists, offering wages below union rates, and employing workers who had scabbed during WUI strikes.

Larkin complained bitterly about this to Moscow, but he got no satisfaction. This was simply the final straw. In the summer of 1928, Larkin resigned his seat on the Comintern executive, while the WUI disaffiliated from RILU. His four-year association with Soviet Russia was over.

Larkin wasn’t the only former syndicalist-turned-Bolshevik who broke away at the time. Alfred Rosmer and Pierre Monatte in France, James P. Cannon in the United States, the Russian Victor Serge, and the Catalan Andreu Nin all split from the Comintern. While they expressed opposition to Stalin and support for Leon Trotsky, Larkin remained silent on the struggle within the Soviet communist movement.

Yet it was no coincidence that his growing disillusionment coincided with Stalin’s rise, and it was hardly surprising that claims of Trotskyist sympathies were leveled in his direction. Jack Carney’s response to these allegations is illuminating:

I would rather be a Trotskyite and be wrong than be right among those at the centre who play fast and loose. We have paid a bitter price for our affiliation with the centre and the centre in return has acted worse than any group of social democrats. Someday they will receive a kick in the unreasoning end of their anatomy.

While Larkin wasn’t a Trotskyist, he was always more syndicalist than Bolshevik, with little inclination to submit to strict party discipline. But the purpose of the discipline to which he was expected to submit can’t be separated from the process. In the era of “socialism in one country,” as the Comintern was reshaped to do Stalin’s bidding, Larkin’s instinctive resistance turned to disillusionment, and finally to divorce.

A Defeated Army

The domestic context in which Larkin was operating also shaped his despondency. As the great American novelist James T. Farrell noted:

After defeat, the Irish labor movement needed someone to lead it who could remould a defeated class. Larkin was a great and courageous agitator, but not a leader of a defeated army.

Yet if Larkin wouldn’t do Moscow’s bidding, others would. Several young Irish workers, among them Larkin’s son and namesake, James Larkin Jr, were selected to attend the Lenin International School in Moscow, where the next generation of leaders of the world’s communist parties were trained. Their daily lessons began with instruction on the “errors” of Trotsky and the infallibility of Stalin.

At the end of their studies, the Irish students returned home to organize the party that Larkin had failed to deliver. This was to be an organization that would faithfully follow the line from Moscow, even when such loyalty was damaging to the party’s own prospects and to the cause of socialism in general.

In the meantime, Larkin himself retreated both personally and politically. Disenchanted and world-weary, he moved further and further away from the cause that had once inspired and impelled him. He ended his political career as a member of parliament for the same Irish Labour Party whose betrayal of the working class he had once railed against with such passion and zeal. It was a sad finale for the greatest labor leader Ireland has ever known.

China has resumed construction work on a military base in the United Arab Emirates in defiance of displeasure by the United States, leaked intelligence documents have revealed.

The suspected Chinese military facility near Abu Dhabi is part of plans to create a global network of military facilities at ports across the Middle East, south-east Asia, and Africa by 2030.

The post TAKEOVER? China resumes construction of military base in UAE, US losing clout appeared first on World Israel News.

Post Content