14 Comments
User's avatar
Susan Becraft's avatar

This dovetails with what Ken Klippenstein recently wrote about the changes to Homeland Security. The government is determined to curtail our Constitutional rights by any means possible.

Thank you for disclosing this.

P.S. Has any member of Congress raised hell about having not been briefed on this?

Expand full comment
Joe Hefferon's avatar

The most disturbing note in this piece is that IDF-uniform-wearing Mast is on weekly calls w Rubio directing foreign policy

Expand full comment
X K's avatar

"... IDF-uniform-wearing Mast..."

Holy s***! had to look it up on [Dumbya's] Interweb to see what's up with that. As with countless times already since Jan. 20th of this year, that line from "Rosemary's Baby" comes to mind, "This is no dream, this is really happening!" Concerns over dual loyalty don't apply, he's clearly a Zionist devoted to Israel, in Congress only to protect and advance its interests. of course at the US taxpayers' expense. More 2,000 lb. bombs anyone?

No doubt about it, "Israel 'R' Us" and "Invasion of the Country Snatchers."

Expand full comment
Marian Gillis's avatar

Rep Mast said that their must be a transactional benefit, in order to Recieve aid. What doesthat Actually mean?

How soon must the transaction be completed? Who must benefit from the transaction? How must they benefit?

Expand full comment
moq'iti's avatar

How does the U.S. State Dept. envision benefitting from aid to a fascist Middle East country engaged in a genocidal operation? How is the transaction measured? In bodies?

Expand full comment
X K's avatar
Jun 5Edited

I take it to mean that no matter how dire the situation you are in, how bereft of means, sustenance, and the necessities of life you may be, you still gotta pay up, now, for unspecified assistance at some to-be-determined time in the future.

Expand full comment
Jynx Houston's avatar

RUBIO IS AN UNBELIEVABLE & VERY PATHETIC TRUMP PIMP.

Expand full comment
Sean's avatar

The newest generation of the ruling class apparently didn't get taught the importance of soft power by the previous generation of the ruling class.

They are torching all the good will that America has, and relying on a military that hasn't fought a peer or near peer adversary in 80 years, and has lost MULTIPLE wars to countries that are not their technological peers. They somehow think, that they can just muscle their way around global politics, with that losing record?

Morons.

Expand full comment
George M's avatar

The key word "control" connotes limiting another's freedom, a chilling idea. The controller is in charge and will not tolerate divergent ideas, speech and behavior. Sounds like Project 2025. The gentle art of diplomacy, friendly persuasion over mutual interests and a search for a growth in a common good to be shared and enjoyed over time through respectful understanding--ideals!

Expand full comment
Meredith Hobbs's avatar

The main function of the State Dept, as best I can tell, is to serve as a front for the CIA and US dirty wars. Cf Libya. So now the mask is off. They -- whoever that is -- are dispensing with the window dressing of humanitarian, diplomatic and cultural programs altogether.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

The changes that this administration is implementing within the State Department, in my view, are unlikely to bolster the United States' standing on the world stage. Instead, these alterations may very well lead to greater isolation and alienation from our global allies and partners.

Looking back on his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed a vision for the United States that leaned towards a more isolationist foreign policy approach. He advocated for "America First" policies, which encompassed a significant reduction in American involvement in international conflicts and a focus on domestic issues that resonate more directly with American citizens.

As we observe these developments, it becomes evident that the administration appears poised to fulfill Trump's vision of prioritizing national interests at the expense of international collaboration. This shift raises concerns: by retreating from our role as a leader on critical global issues—such as climate change, human rights advocacy, and international security—are we not potentially jeopardizing our own security? In distancing ourselves from crucial diplomatic relationships and multilateral agreements, we may be inadvertently creating an environment where threats can flourish unchecked. The question is: will this strategy truly safeguard our nation or lead us into a more precarious position?

Expand full comment
Dawn Reel's avatar

The U.S. collaborates internationally? Leads in climate change and human rights? Ha, ha, ha, boo hoo. 😭 The world would be far better off without Amerikkka. We need leadership like Burkina Faso! 🇧🇫

Expand full comment
Laurie Tanenbaum's avatar

Welcome to life under fascism.

Expand full comment
Nick Calomino's avatar

Creepy. My country embracing a totalitarian view and forsaking a democratic view. Creepy. This keeps up, it's a call for rational folks to protect themselves, because our government is wilfully going crazy.

Expand full comment
ErrorError