FDA falsely claims Stevia unsafe

FDA-generated stevia myth

by Don Hank  May 24, 2015

One recent “viral” email making the rounds claims that the natives of Paraguay have used the intense sweetener stevia as a contraceptive and that it can cause infertility. This raises suspicions because primitive societies are known for performing fertility rites so that women will reproduce. Primitive societies generally would never do just the opposite and seek a contraceptive method.

The FDA works hand in glove with the sweetener manufacturers, also warns that a supposed infertility effect is ascribed to Stevia (with no data to back this claim), and has so far refused to assign it the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) designation.

I have been translating patents relating to sweeteners for about 35 years and it would be hard to maintain that I am not a specialist on this subject. Interestingly, while patents relating to aspartame and sucralose (artificial sweeteners sold, for ex, as NutraSweet or Equal and as Splenda) often mention the known untoward effects of these substances, none of the patents (Japanese, German, Chinese, French, etc.) that I have translated mention any health drawbacks of Stevia. If you try to tell a Japanese, for example, that you think stevia is unsafe, they will think you are insane. Their medical profession does its homework and would never fail to report any untoward side effects of Stevia if there were any.

Typical Japanese web site describing stevia as safe (in Japanese): http://tenkabutsu.com/stevia.

Stevia is a natural sweetener whose sweet principles (stevioside and rebaudioside) are the only intense sweeteners in nature without an off-taste. (Licorice, for ex, is also a natural sweetener but its sweet principle glycyrrhizin has a peculiar off taste. Non-intense sweeteners, or bulk sweeteners, are generally sugar alcohols such as xylitol, mannitol, maltitol, etc., and we aren’t discussing them here).

Stevia is a plant that grows to about a foot or more and its leaves are sweet. I have grown it myself to sweeten my coffee.

It is indigenous to Paraguay and the natives have been using it as a sweetener for years.

It is grown in various parts of South America, Asia and elsewhere, and is marketed in various countries. I believe it is available in the US but the FDA refuses to classify it as GRAS. This is highly unusual because almost all natural substances that have been used for centuries in any country are automatically classified as GRAS by the FDC unless the native people who have used it have reported side effects. No Guarani Indians have issued such reports and they have used it for centuries. Further, according to the EUFIC, Stevia sweeteners are approved for use in many countries including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil and Malaysia.

So why might the FDA be out of step with the world?

Well, both Splenda and Nutrasweet / Equal are sold by American companies (JW Childs, Boston, and Merisant). In the case of Splenda, there is a British component in a joint venture, namely, Tate and Lyle, but Johnson & Johnson also sells it.

On the other hand, aspartame, which is known to be harmful to phenylketonurics and actually carries an FDA warning to that effect, is listed as GRAS by the FDC.

This is very suspicious to me.

Here is what Wikipedia says, raising more suspicion.

In 1991, after receiving an anonymous industry complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled Stevia as an “unsafe food additive” and restricted its import [THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. AN ‘ANONYMOUS’ COMPLAINT DOES NOT MERIT SUCH A RESPONSE! — DON],.[40][59][60] The FDA’s stated reason was “toxicological information on Stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety.”[61]

Since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of Stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.[40] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against Stevia “a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry”.[62] To protect the complainant, the FDA deleted names in the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.[40]

Stevia remained banned until after the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit Stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive – a position that Stevia proponents regarded as contradictory because it simultaneously labeled Stevia as safe and unsafe, depending on how it was sold.[7]

Early studies prompted the European Commission in 1999 to ban Stevia’s use in food in the European Union pending further research.[63] In 2006, research data compiled in the safety evaluation released by theWorld Health Organization found no adverse effects.[33] Since 2008, the Russian Federation has allowed stevioside as a food additive “in the minimal dosage required”.[51]

In December 2008, the FDA gave a “no objection” approval for GRAS status to Truvia (developed by Cargill and The Coca-Cola Company) and PureVia (developed by PepsiCo and the Whole Earth Sweetener Company, a subsidiary of Merisant), both of which use rebaudioside A derived from the Stevia plant.[64] However, FDA said that these products are not Stevia, but a highly purified product [THAT IS NONSENSE. STEVIA IS NEVER SOLD IN UNPURIFIED FORM. IT TASTES TOO BITTER FOR THAT. IN FACT, IN THE BUSINESS, STEVIA SWEET PRINCIPLES ARE SIMPLY CALLED STEVIA. THIS IS JUST AN EXCUSE FOR THE FDA TO WRIGGLE OUT OF ITS ORIGINAL BAN ON THE PRODUCT!–DON].[65] In 2012, FDA posted a note on its website regarding crude Stevia plant: “FDA has not permitted the use of whole-leaf Stevia or crude Stevia extracts because these substances have not been approved for use as a food additive. FDA does not consider their use in food to be GRAS in light of reports in the literature that raise concerns about the use of these substances. Among these concerns [NOTE: BASED ON AN ANONYMOUS REPORT, AS STATED ABOVE BY FDA. THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS BEYOND BELIEF–DON] are control of blood sugar and effects on the reproductive, cardiovascular, and renal systems.”[66]

So how has this Stevia scare affected me personally? Right now, I am now sipping iced tea sweetened with Stevia.

Soros predicts the past with uncanny accuracy

Soros predicts the past with uncanny accuracy

by Don Hank   May 22, 2015

George Soros just warned that something that just happened might happen.

Soros is portrayed as a pundit by the msm. But in fact, he is generally a step or two behind the times and keeps coming in way late with his “predictions,” as I showed here.

In the above-linked article George absurdly warns:

 Allowing China’s yuan to be a market currency would create “a binding connection” between the two systems. An agreement along these lines will be difficult to achieve, Soros said, but the alternative is so unpleasant. “Without it, there is a real danger that China will align itself with Russia politically and militarily, and then the threat of third world war becomes real, so it is worth trying.”

 Excuse me, George. There is no “danger that China will align itself with Russia politically and militarily.” Unless you were temporarily off the planet during the recent Russia-China joint exercises in the Mediterranean and during the obvious show of military solidarity in Red Square, with thousands of Chinese and Russian soldiers marching in full view of the world, then you ought to know that these two countries have already firmly and unequivocally aligned with each other both economically and militarily! So why pretend it never happened and that you are predicting it? Is that all you’ve got, George?

Yes, George, of course the RMB must join the basket of currencies, but even if it does not, the RMB has already been accepted with open arms by almost all of our “allies,” who, unlike the lagging US, have established RMB clearing centers in their capitals. I pointed that out here back in December of last year. And then I mentioned here that our allies had fled the World Bank for greener pastures at the Chinese-founded AIIB and I gave a likely explanation for just why they did, namely, that they were tired of being bullied.

Like the US government, George is leading from behind. When almost all US allies were weighing joining the Chinese bank AIIB, Obama warned them not to be so hasty. But they ignored this empty warning.

So what did Obama do? He led from behind, flip-flopped and endorsed the AIIB, with the proviso that they run it as the US runs World Bank — incorporating “social safeguards,” which in Obamaspeak means that they must push gay marriage. But of course, this bullying by the US is one of the reasons China decided to found the AIIB in the first place.

The rest of the world is making all of the major choices for the US government and for its toadies like Soros. Soros’ above-cited statements on this were throw-aways. Any analyst worth his salt knew that.

Soros is pretending to make predictions but in reality he is reciting recent history. But in a nation where no one notices, he can do that all he wants and the msm will keep featuring his predictions of the past.


China-Russia deal opens door to Christianize China

By Don Hank  May 21, 2015

A few months ago I read and forwarded an article reporting that China would be the biggest CHRISTIAN country in the world within about 10 years.

China already has a large and growing Christian population.

But this (open link below) is Phase II. China has authorized the ordination of Russian Orthodox priests in China.

This is BIG news for traditional Christians. Just as China appears to be in the process of replacing the US dollar with the RMB, and just as our allies rush to the new Chinese bank AIIB, opposing the bullies in the World Bank, which insists that loan recipients be “gay friendly,” we learn that it has plans to introduce Russian Orthodoxy to China.

You say “so what”?

If so, you may not have noticed that over the past 2 decades or so, the entire West is falling into the trap of “gay marriage.” Both Christians and people with common sense abhor this trend.

Russian Orthodoxy makes no bones about opposing this trend, even as Pope Frances makes overtures to gays, saying “who am I to judge”. (Er, the Pope?).

Many American conservatives still think God has his corporate headquarters in Washington. They are blind to the fact that DC is the HQ of God’s arch-enemy. If the gay marriage issue is the barometer, then some might say God has moved house and is taking up residence in Eurasia and the Far East.

He’s done likewise before when the Hebrews turned their backs on Him.

Keep your eyes open and watch what happens in the East, where the wise men came from. There are still a few wise men there.






My analysis of Stratfor’s take on the world

My analysis of Stratfor’s take on the world

by Don Hank  May 19, 2015

A Stratfor article penned by Editor-in-Chief George Friedman, and appearing

here, dances around the real issues in the usual Neocon manner, not naming the real issues that are affecting our existence — including the real reasons ISIS is winning in the Middle East. Publications like Stratfor are one of the main reasons US foreign policy has failed and as a result of their shallow and misleading reporting, we are now reaching the final stages of our hegemony (note that Friedman’s article absurdly mentions hegemony only in the context of Russia, as if that country were the only one guilty of trying to play the hegemon!). The reader of this article is given a chance to respond in a form for submission. I decided to send in my 2 cents worth. Here it is:


In 1973, the US government, astoundingly, became a mercenary force working almost exclusively for the Saudis after the signing of the petrodollar agreement in 1973. Behind the scenes the US, while pretending to defend “democracy” and “freedom,” was in fact defending Wahhabism against the less violent Shiite branch. Our wars benefited the Saudis and cost the US. Your analysis of course omits any reference to this out of political correctness. Further, while you mention the World Bank and IMF, you fail to point out that these institutions have been transforming themselves into agents of radical social change, refusing to lend to nations that do not support “Western values,” which are strictly a construct of the oligarchs and are detached from the founding Judeo-Christian values of the West. Moreover, the US smacked BNP Paribas with a record 9 billion dollar fine for doing things that were perfectly legal in France! Russia and Europe both took note of this bullying, and this lack of moral authority on the part of the US government, and therein lies the real problem. Further, regardless of certain weaknesses, the Chinese have a real economy based on labor and the fruits thereof, whereas the US central bankers have made a casino of the economy and are running it into the ground with Keynesian games. Neither Russia nor China play these children’s games. As a result, China’s economy is burgeoning, despite the difficulties, which are mostly a result of US errors and the resulting weakening of our economy. The Europeans noticed this abuse of the banking system years ago when US banks cynically sold them worthless derivatives, backed up by our dishonest rating agencies. In response, the Europeans started establishing RMB clearing centers in major capitols like Brussels, Berlin, etc, and then shocked the Washington establishment by deserting the World Bank/IMF and fleeing to the AIIB, despite Obama’s warnings. All of this dedollarization effort was inevitable and could have been foreseen 2 years ago. But Stratfor never talked about dedollarization, the elephant in the room. I did a search on your site and the word did not come up! Meanwhile, our oligarchs played ostrich and now none of them seem to have a solution to the problem they created. When Stratfor starts writing straightforwardly about these issues, it will become a leader again and acquire a paying readership. And you won’t have to keep begging people to subscribe. People are hungry for the truth. Why not turn over a new leaf and start giving them what they need and want? And make money at it?

Western policies ignore potential consequences

by Don Hank  May 13, 2015

A major problem with Western thinking and behavior is that it is based on assessments with little or no context, in terms of time, place and factors that will affect the outcome of our policies.

For example, our irresponsible war mongers in politics and media are pushing hard for war in Ukraine but they never remind the public that Russia is a nuclear power and comes in a package with China, another nuclear power. Likewise, they push for war with Iran without mentioning that Russia and China are Iran’s mighty allies, who while they may not have expressed themselves in this regard, are likely waiting in the wings to defend their ally from aerial bombardments with which it is threatened daily.

In terms of LGBT “rights,” the elites omit the corollary issue of adoption. Adoption to “gay” parents almost invariably involves one of 2 scenarios:

  1. One of the couple acquires a child that is only related to one of them. The other parent is deliberately left out of the child’s life. In the case of a lesbian couple, one partner will find a sperm donor and once he becomes the bio father, he is cut out of his child’s life forever, by arrangement — without consulting the child, who is thus treated as a commodity. In the case of a male couple, one of them donates his sperm to a mother in a business arrangement, and once she becomes a bio mom, she is cut out of the child’s life forever.

No matter how much the child is brainwashed, he or she will be left with a life long yearning to know the parent who was removed and harboring a feeling that he or she was used as a pawn in an adults-only game.

  1. The couple adopts a child through an adoption agency. In this case, the child grows up without knowing what a normal male-female relationship is and has difficulty in later life understanding these roles. This on top of the fact that he or she will never know the biological parents. The child is a guinea pig in a heartless social experiment.

In a word, the system results invariably in institutionalized abuse. And our heartless “liberal” society has created the legal conditions to perpetuate this child abuse.

US society is sick. White people get beaten to a pulp in many black communities just for being white, thanks to liberation theology and critical race theory. A sitting US president is the face of this twisted situation, using his bully pulpit to suggest that blacks are constantly being exploited by whites. He is partly right. Our liberal left system treats blacks like inferiors, suggesting to them that they are mentally incapable of getting an education that would lift them out of poverty and crime. Thus, liberals, through their special treatment of blacks, are virtually screaming “you can’t make it on your own.” An amazing number of us accept it all, zombie-like. Our brain power has gone down the drain, along with our spiritual discernment and our relationship to the Almighty.

Life in the US is livable only through faith in the Savior. Outside of that it is truly a life long prison sentence and we keep re-electing our prison wardens.


How the petrodollar perpetuates Islamic terror

March 14, 2015

How the petrodollar perpetuates Islamic terror

By Donald Hank

Casey Research has done an outstanding job of explaining the origin and workings of the petrodollar.

To summarize their analysis, In 1971, Richard Nixon killed the gold standard, unconstitutionally circumventing congress. This deed is far more egregious than Watergate in the harm it did to the US people.

To keep the dollar’s value propped up without gold, Nixon, at Kissinger’s instigation, struck an ingenious deal with Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal. The US would protect Saudi oil fields and protect them from enemies (Iran, Iraq, the Soviet Union, etc.) in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding payment in US dollars for their oil.

This meant that the US could print essentially unlimited numbers of dollars and the value would never drop. This explains why the Fed could launch quantitative easing (QEs 1, 2, etc.) and not trigger another Weimar type inflation cycle.

But several countries are fouling up the works. Iran, Russia, China and the rest of the BRICS countries are deliberately dedollarizing world trade by using currencies other than the dollar in their purchase of oil and other commodities. European countries are going along with this.

I had dealt with dedollarization here, and specifically the role the China’s yuan (RMB) plays in that process here.

We are being assured by both the msm and the conservative press that the reason the US is sanctioning Iran is that that country is allegedly developing a nuclear weapon. Yet Pakistan, another Muslim country, has nukes and the same politicians and media wringing their hands over Iran are blithely ignoring them. Just as they are ignoring N. Korea, which is run by a certified nut. In fact, according to none other than Israeli news outlet Haaretz, Israel, which is squealing the loudest about Iran’s nukes (of which neither hide nor hair is yet to materialize) has at least 80 nukes of its own. Likewise, we are told that the reason Russia is a rogue is that it has annexed Crimea and aided the pro-Russians in Eastern Ukraine (which are being bombed by the US-backed Kiev junta). Yet Crimea held a referendum and over 90% said they wanted to leave Ukraine. Now when Scotland held a referendum to do likewise and end its relationship with the UK, this was regarded as perfectly acceptable by the Western powers. One referendum was illegal but the other was perfectly acceptable. No explanation given.

Now, returning our eyes to the ball, recall that when a group of Saudis attacked the Twin Towers and Pentagon in 2001, GW Bush stood with a group of firemen at ground zero and declared on national TV “The people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us.” Since 15 of the 19 people who knocked down the buildings were Saudis, the other 3 were close allies of that country and all were sponsored by the Saudi royal family, one would have expected the US military to hold Saudi Arabia accountable.

Instead, Bush first waged a campaign in Afghanistan and then one in Iraq, and when Baghdad fell and Saddam Hussein was captured, Americans, in a fog of bewilderment, managed to mentally conflate the losers of these wars with the “people who knocked down these buildings.” That piece of theater was a work of deceptive genius.

What had Bush accomplished?

He had cleverly given the Saudis tacit – or was it express? – permission to terrorize the Christian West as the first step in the Islamization of our region, all under the petrodollar agreement. The Saudis owned us. If they backed out of the petrodollar agreement, our economy was toast.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the refugee waves generated by the Iraqi conflict, coupled with the anti-Christian EU leadership, contributed mightily to the Islamization of Europe, which is now a work in progress that is well underway and is sowing terror on that continent. (Notice that the Saudis were not present in the Charlie Hebdo march in Paris).

The US, ie, US 2 (the shadow government, or deep state, which is sharply antagonistic to US 1, We the People – I have outlined this dichotomy here) was still propping up the petrodollar in perfect harmony with the Sunni Saudi government and, to solidify relations, was throwing in a handsome bonus for the Sunni radicals supported by them, namely, permission to wage terror. (Another juicy bonus is the opposition of US 2 and partner Israel, to Shia Iran, the nemesis of the Sunnis in Riyadh).

Today, the same process is underway and has advanced greatly.

But how do the US shadow government and its allies expect to win this desperate gamble that they put into motion in the early 70s?

It appears as if they have run through their repertoire, from abandonment of the gold standard to the petrodollar and all the costly wars and placating of the Saudis by tacitly supporting Islamization via wars and other subterfuge, to the sanctions against the dedollarizing countries.

None of these sanctions is really working and will predictably fail in the long run. Worse, sanctions and wars will be useless against the player of last resort, China, which can and almost certainly will use the RMB as the weapon of choice against the dollar (as I pointed out here, of all the world powers, China has the only currency backed up by real economics, not debt – ie, reprobate Keynesianism, which I dissected here).

And if there is an American Kim Jong-un loose somewhere in the State Department or Defense Department, he will be no match for the full arsenal of both Russia and China, which the Chinese believe can wipe out the US in an instant, as shown by my translation here.

So who will bail out US 1 – you and me – when the dollar falls?

China, of course. There is no way they will let their biggest trading partner fail.

Of course, they will dictate the terms. Including sanctions for bad behavior. It is doubtful that regimes sponsoring Islamic terror – like the US/Saudi tag team – will get off lightly following this changing of the global guard.

What is wrong with Russian studies in the US?

This article is long and may be a bit specialized for many, but if I may sum it up, it shows that US universities offering Russian studies are stuck in a cold war mind set that hardly captures the essence of today’s Russia. In other words, Russian area “specialists” don’t generally know beans about today’s Russia and are the ones behind US foreign policy in this area. Sound good to you? It is a set up for disaster and the disaster is happening in the Ukraine.

I got a glimpse of this attitude, a kind of low-key Russophobia in academe, when I was looking around for a college to study Russian on the Master’s level. Astoundingly, while undergraduate Russian courses were of course, offered in the Russian language, I found that the biggest name colleges in the US did not offer any of these “Russian” courses in the Russian language. The courses were given in English and many of the profs had only a rudimentary command of the Russian language.

Yuri Grinberg, a prof I met while studying Russian at Colby College in Maine, took me aside one evening over Russian pastries at his on campus cottage and told me that he had once met the head of the Yale Russian department. Yuri was a native Russian and had a glass eye. He looked me in the eye with his biological eye and said to me in his native tongue “you may find this hard to believe but you speak Russian better than the head of the Yale Russian department. His Russian was terrible.” At the time I didn’t know whether to believe it. I had never completed an undergraduate course in Russian, although I had read extensively in the language on my own.

Years later as I was casting about for a suitable graduate school for Russian, I called Harvard, Yale and other big schools and asked them point blank whether they taught their Russian courses on the graduate level in Russian and they told me no. A friend of mine who was working on a Master’s in Russian at Yale had told me that he was forgetting his Russian while there!

I later met a young lady who was taking a graduate course in Russian at Bryn Mawr and she urged me to take the grad course in Russian there. She said they were eager to give away scholarships.

So I drove there to meet with the department head.

I decided to be sneaky and as we were seated in her office I expressed fear that my Russian may not be good enough for her class. My only real fear was that the course would be in English.

She “reassured” me saying that all the courses were given in English and that we would be required only to read English translations of the Russian classics.

I turned on her angrily and said “how can you call these Russian courses if they are in English?”

Now let me add here that I had discovered years earlier that the graduate courses in other European languages on most campuses were given in the respective languages so that Russian was a standout. Even then I took this as a sign of Russophobia. Considering the virulent Neocon hatred of Russia pervading US politics, I am now convinced that I was right in my assessment.

So I wound up taking the course at a small no-name college near my home offered by an eccentric prof named Dr. Richard Fortune, who turned out to be brilliant.

Anyway, here is the story for those who are interested in why so many US “Russia area specialists” seem to hate Russia:


Don Hank




GOOD NEWS: Austria files criminal complaint over alleged NSA snooping

by Don Hank on May 5, 2015

Why is this good news? Germany is one of the few countries in Europe that still wants sanction against Russia, not because Russia has harmed Germany in any way but because the Neocons in Washington told her she must. They can’t articulate their reasons any better than Merkel but she sees her partner across the pond as a means of staying in power so she is hedging her bets. Thus she is a lapdog of the Neocons who sound like they want war with a nuclear superpower, which comes in a package with another superpower. Feel safe yet? You betcha you don’t!
Several other countries in Europe and also a lot of German citizens are sick and tired of Merkel groveling at the feet of Washington every time she is told to heel. A lot of Americans are also sick of the war games, which are held mostly to appease the Saudis in exchange for the perpetuation of the petrodollar.
European media are saying that Merkel has so far insulated herself from these spying charges, and scapegoats are being found to preserve her Hintern intact.
But this news that Austria is seeking criminal charges for this unprofessional behavior could be a game changer. Charges are only charges. But the stench of a conviction would be wafted all the way to the top of the hierarchy.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=RN1gxgPd (from @AP)

US foreign policy a lot worse than libertarians think

US foreign policy a lot worse than libertarians think

by Don Hank  May 4, 2015

The blog Americans for a Free Republic recently ran an informative article relating to the origin and nature of Neoconservatism, showing that these people are anything but conservative and are in fact statists who advocate a strong central government and US hegemony in the world. Every American needs this information.
However, the article introduces the usual misconception about the wars that Neocons advocate. Thus they write of Neocon Frank Gaffney:

“Gaffney has been a longtime advocate of interventionist U.S. foreign policies, ever-increasing military budgets, and aggressive attacks upon the Islamic world.” [my emphasis]

This wording makes it seem as if the Neocons are anti-Muslim when they are really quite friendly toward the most violent Muslims. Since 1973, when Nixon-Kissinger entered into the petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia, all US military conflicts have been conducted almost exclusively to support Saudi foreign policy in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding payment for oil in US dollars. This propped up the dollar artificially but, shamefully, made mercenaries of the US military, unbeknownst to the American people. The most vital point that we all miss is that US attacks were selective upon the Shiite world and secularist regimes in the Middle East, not upon the Sunni world and hence, not upon the Muslim world per se, as is habitually repeated. (Even though Saddam was a Sunni, he was first and foremost a secularist, which rankled the Saudis).
The Saudis are mainly Sunni Wahhabis, the most violent and intolerant sect (anti-Christian, for example) in the world. This notion that the Neocons are anti-Muslim is simplistic and will lead to tragic mistakes in foreign policy if translated into practice. In fact it already has.
You are aware that the Neocons, including most Democrats and Republicans (notably John McCain and Lindsay Graham) seem to harbor a visceral hatred of Syria and Iran.
Syria is in the hands of a Shiite (specifically Alawite, a Shiite subsect), Bashar al-Assad, while Iran is Shiite majority. For the sake of reference, there are 600 Christian churches in Iran vs none in Saudi Arabia. The Neocons do not attack the Saudis or other Sunni non-secular regimes. They attack Shiites and secular regimes as stated above, which is why they are intent on ousting Assad and bombing Iran. After centuries of dhimmitude, Israel also feels obliged to follow the Saudis’ lead, in order to gain a certain immunity from terror attacks, and you will have noted that ISIS has so far pursued a hands-off policy toward Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, with US Neocons’ blessings, that will give them points with the Saudis.
In the case of Kosovo, Neocon-led US forces attacked a Christian (Russian orthodox, or Pravoslavny) regime and carved out a Muslim state from it, and the Saudis funneled money into this new state, showing that here again, there was zero American interest in this war but considerable Saudi interest. Again, as incredible as it seems, the US was acting purely as mercenaries. There is no other plausible explanation. In fact, a Spanish forensic team sent by the UN to Kosovo after the war found that the “genocide” on which the war was justified had never happened.
Thus the US elites are not attacking Islam. They are attacking Saudi Arabia’s enemies and thereby supporting Sunni Wahhabism — in exchange not for oil but for petrodollar support. This is far worse than simply attacking the Muslim world, as theorized by most critics of Neocon policies. The theory that US attacks are anti-Muslim is widely held by libertarians but is a tragic misconception because it leads to policies that pander to and apologize to Muslims at large – which includes (Sunni, ie, Wahhabi) ISIS – when we should be apologizing primarily to the Shiites and to the victims of countries like Iraq and Libya, who lost their leaders, their political stability, security and infrastructure as a result of US mercenary intervention on the Saudis’ behalf – both US political parties are equally culpable.
Alternatively, this lumping together of all Muslims leads to a mindset toward Muslims as expressed by the conservative mantra: Kill them all and let Allah sort it out. This too supports the Neocons, who are thereby given tacit permission by conservatives to attack any Muslim country and hence to continue killing Saudi enemies as the sheeple doze in tacit acquiescence.
In summary, the US oligarchs support the most dangerous Muslims against the less violent and more tolerant ones.

Further reading

Fox News pretends unconfirmed report is confirmed

Fox News pretends unconfirmed report is confirmed

Posted by Don Hank  May 2, 2015

A friend just sent me the below linked report

which says

“Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for NORAD, declined to confirm the incursion to The Times, but said that no jets were dispatched to intercept intruding aircraft.” [other reports have maintained that jets were dispatched–Don]

Then after admitting that the report is unconfirmed, they cheekily continue

“The incident was the first Russian bomber incursion of a U.S. or Canadian air defense zone this year.”

Now wait, if it is unconfirmed, you can’t call it an “incident” or a “Russian bomber incursion” because you have admitted no one knows if it really happened or not. Honest reporters (back when they existed) would, in such a case, say “the alleged incident.” But now an allegation by an unnamed source is considered a verified fact.
So why do you think Fox News would bother to issue an unconfirmed report and pretend it is a fact? Hint: Their reports tend to support the Neocons and their source is a Neocon rag.
Yet the average American will read this unconfirmed non-report of a Russian incursion and assume it is all true and that Russia is about to nuke us so we had better nuke them first.
BTW, the cited source, the Washington Free Beacon, is itself a Neocon rag. One of its editors is married to the daughter of Bill Kristol, a RINO supporting Neocon, while the other is reported to have served as McCain’s communications director.
Yeah they can be trusted. NOOOOT.
I recommend you give reports from the Washington Free Beacon and Fox News a pass.