Creepy warmonger, a staunch neocon and neoliberal Joe Biden
Biden is the quintessential swamp rat, having served in Washington, almost continuously, since Jan 1973.
This warmonger voted for the Iraq War (which should disqualify him for running for any public office) and is up to the neck in the dirt of
Clinton-era deregulation. Like Hillary, he also is a symbol of destruction of Libya, Syria and Ukraine by Obama administration; He
also was
instrumental in EuroMaydan coup which destroyed the standard of living of ordinary Ukrainians. His narcoaddict son fleeced Ukraine to the tune of
several millions a year
Biden is dyed-in-the-wool in the wool neocon and neoliberal. His real constituents wear pinstripe suits and works on Wall Street
and in corporate headquarters. He is the only 2020 candidate who voted for Iraq war. As a part of Obama administration he was instrumental
in Libya and Ukraine disasters. He created a sinecure for his cocaine addicted sun in Ukraine in the form of the board member of oil
and gas company Burisma and prevented corruption investigation of the company by Ukrainian authorities by forcing the firing of
the Chief Prosecutor by President Poroshenko) . Kind of mini Clinton cash scandal. Al-in-all he is a fossilized remnant of Clinton wing
of Democratic Party.
When people learn about his voting
record his ratings will probably drop:
Iraq War supporter? Check. Clinton was pilloried by the left and the right alike as a wild-eyed hawk; her vote in favor of the Iraq
invasion haunted both her 2008 and 2016 campaigns. ...Let's be clear: If he runs, Biden will be the only candidate -- out of
up to 20 Democrats running for the nomination -- to have voted for the Iraq War.
Friend of Wall Street? Check. Clinton had a Goldman Sachs problem; Biden has an MBNA problem. Headquartered in his home state
of Delaware, the credit card giant MBNA was his biggest donor when he served in the Senate. In 2005, Biden threw his weight behind
a bankruptcy bill, signed into law by President George W. Bush, that shamefully protected credit card companies at the expense of
borrowers.
Champion of mass incarceration? Check. Clinton took flak for supporting the 1994 crime bill, which helped push up the U.S.
prison population, introduced new federal death penalty crimes, and hugely exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice
system. And Biden? Well, he wrote the damn thing!
Establishment-friendly? Check. Biden arrived in D.C. in 1973; he spent 36 years in the Senate and eight years in Obama's
cabinet. When
Trump tries to run again as an anti-establishment outsider in 2020, what will Biden's response be?
Loser? Check. Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2016, at the second attempt, having been defeated by Obama eight years
earlier. For Biden, it would have to be third-time lucky.
Biden is 76 and he is one of the oldest candidate, older then Trump. As Trump sarcastically noted during a CBS interview last year
running against Biden would be “a dream,” noting that Barack Obama “took him out of the garbage heap” to make him his running mate in
2008: Biden unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and in 2008, both times dropping out after poor
showings. That was evidence, Trump said, that Biden “by himself could never do anything.” (
The Washington Post )
Biden biggest and only strength is that he is well known establishment neoliberal. It is also his biggest weakness. It is well known
that Biden is beholden to Wall Street (Strategic
Culture).
In 1978, Biden worked for Wall Street by voting to rollback bankruptcy protections for college graduates with federal student
loans. Six years later he did the same to vocational school graduates. In 2005, he worked with Republican allies to pass the Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which put traditional “clean slate” Chapter 7 bankruptcy out of reach for millions
of ordinary Americans and thousands of small businesses. The bill put bankruptcy filers under far stricter Chapter 13 rules, turning
countless citizens into de facto indentured servants of finance capital (including the many credit card companies headquartered
in Delaware.) Biden backed an earlier version of the bill that was too corporatist even for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
He voted against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers of the costs of only making minimum
payments.
In 1979, Biden recognized campaign donations from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that permitted soft-drink producers to skirt
antitrust laws. That same year he was one of just two Congressional Democrats to vote against a Judiciary Committee measure to increase
consumers’ rights to sue corporations for price-fixing.
Biden strongly supported the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and commercial banking
by repealing the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act. This helped create the 2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession.
Biden naturally supported the corporate-neoliberal North American Free Trade agreement and the globalist investor rights Trans-Pacific
Partnership deal.
All of this and more in Biden’s record is richly consistent with the beginning of his political career. He’s been an unapologetic
corporatist from the start. As Branko Marcetic noted on Jacobin last summer:
“In 1984, the Washington Post specifically named him, along with Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, as one of the best-known
figures among that era’s Democratic Party’s ‘neo-liberals,’ who ‘singled out slimming the role of government and pushing new technology’….Biden
built his career advertising himself as someone who refuses to toe the progressive line. He proudly boasted of defying liberal
orthodoxy on school busing, for instance. But throughout his career, that boast has most often taken the form of bashing liberal
‘special interests.’ Biden toured the country in 1985 chiding…unions and farmers for being too narrowly focused, and complained
that Democrats too often ‘think in terms of special interests first and the greater interest second.’ In the latter case, Biden
was specifically complaining about their opposition to his calls for a spending freeze on entitlements and an increase in
the retirement age” (emphasis added).
Politically all he time in congress Biden is a classic corrupt, beholden to insurance companies and large banks
Third Way neoliberal similar to Bill
and Hillary Clinton. He spend years attacking progressive “special interests” while crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans in major
instances that were decidedly unhelpful to the working class.
He also excels in Clinton-style corruption: The most
well-known
case is Biden’s relationship with MBNA, a major credit card company based in his home state that was his largest single donor between
1989 and 2000. By sheer coincidence, Biden voted against a measure requiring credit card companies to warn consumers of the consequences
of making only minimum payments and voted four times for an industry-supported bankruptcy bill that made it harder for financially strained
borrowers to get protection from creditors. Another coincidence: MBNA hired Biden’s son, Hunter, as a lobbyist straight out of law school,
and later hired him as a consultant from 2001 to 2005 — the same years Biden was helping to pass the bill.
Another coincidence: MBNA hired Biden’s son, Hunter, as a lobbyist straight out of law school, and later hired him as a
consultant from 2001 to 2005 — the same years Biden was helping to pass the bill.
Another side of neoliberal corruption are exorbitant speaking fess. Biden has long been prolific on the speaking circuit. By 1979,
he was one of the Senate’s top twenty-five earners of outside income — and, along with twenty-two others on that list, voted against
a bill to limit such earnings. As early as 1977, his speaking-fee income was among the highest in the Senate, totaling $22,596 that
year (almost $94,000 in today’s dollars) for a practice that even then was controversial. And while he did sponsor a bill that year
to bar senators from taking such fees, he clearly wasn’t bothered by its failure, continuing to rack up thousands of dollars in fees
from pro-Israel groups and others in the ensuing years, and commanding $100,000–$200,000 per speech
today.
Biden can close connection with lobbyists. Many Biden’s longtime staffers
became lobbyists From 1989 to 2008 the industry
donated $344,400 to him, more then the $300,000 given
to him by finance and credit card companies. He openly proclaims himself a neoliberal:
This hints at the larger issue with Biden: at a time when left-wing populism is increasingly accepted as the antidote to Trump
and the GOP’s nativist and corporate-friendly pitch, Biden stands as a remnant of precisely the sort of left-averse, triangulating
Democratic politics that Hillary Clinton was relentlessly criticized for personifying.
If you don’t believe me, there’s someone else who can tell you all about it. His name is Joe Biden.
In 2001, Biden was specifically asked by the National Journal about whether or not he thought a “populist message” was
an effective one. This was his response:
[Bill] Clinton got it right. I was one of those guys in 1987 who tried to run on a platform that Clinton basically ran on in
1992. And that is, for a lack of a better phrase, his “Third Way.” It worked. It’s where the American people are. It’s where the
Democratic Party should have been. Al Gore abandoned it without an alternative, and [Sen.] Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] thinks we
lost because we didn’t take care of Ralph Nader’s voters. One of the things I’m most angry about in the [aftermath of the] 2000
election, we’re now renegotiating as a party what the hell our message should be and who we are, when for me it was settled in
1992 ….
The idea now, and it’s credible, is that class warfare and populism is the way we should conduct the next election. We do that
[and] George Bush will be a second term president, regardless of how bad a job he may do.
In fact, even in today’s political climate, Biden
continues to
defend the ultrarich from criticism
— “I don’t think five hundred billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. The folks at the top aren’t bad guys,” he said last year
— suggests his views haven’t shifted much in the last seventeen years.
Biden’s always been a traitor of his class. In 1984, Washington Post specifically mentions that he (with Gary Hart
and Bill Bradley) is the best-known Democratic Party “neo-liberal”. Politician that subscribes to deregulation, slimming the role
of government and pushing new technology
Biden also spent the 1990s voting for a
string of neoliberal policies:
NAFTA, one of the most devastating political defeats for unions in recent memory, and one where Biden was a crucial vote that switched
to help it pass; the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which he had earlier decried as “mak[ing] Herbert Hoover’s economic
policy a constitutional mandate,” a claim that if anything understates the case; Clinton’s appalling welfare reform; and the repeal
of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall prohibition on banks engaging in risky securities dealings. He did this all while moaning endlessly
about excessive government spending.
Being the establishment candidate has a lot of advantages. One is money. Biden got over 6 million in his chest the day he announced
his candidacy.
His speeches are full of platitudes and balderdash. Biden has no new political ideas and have no clue how to deal with the crisis
of neoliberalism in the USA (one of the side effects of which was the election of Trump). His sole point is "I am better then
Trump."
MUNICH – Vice President Joe Biden warned Saturday that the U.S. stands ready to take pre-emptive action against Iran if
it does not abandon nuclear ambitions and its support for terrorism...."We will draw upon all the elements of our power — military
and diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement, economic and cultural — to stop crises from occurring before they are in front
of us,"
Not long after the turn of the twentieth century, Biden enthusiastically voted for the greatest foreign policy disaster of the twenty-first:
the Iraq War (“I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again”). It was the worst of a pattern for Biden, who backed Margaret
Thatcher’s war in the Falklands and was one of the key figures pushing for NATO’s eastward expansion in the 1990s, a needless provocation
of Russia that the famed Cold War diplomat George Kennan, speaking more than a year before Vladimir Putin took office, presciently denounced
as “the beginning of a new cold war.” Biden’s strategy for Afghanistan is indistinguishable from the one the Trump administration is
now pursuing, and his “counterterrorism plus” approach — the use of drone strikes and special forces anywhere in the world — became
Obama’s anti-terror policy, one that visited death and carnage to a long series of countries and fueled the very threat it was supposed
to extinguish.
Needless to say, Biden isn’t just pro-Israel — he’s one of the
most Israel-friendly politicians of his generation.
That creates problem with accessing his loyalty to this country. See for example this YouTube video:
Through speaking fees and campaign donations, Israel has been good to Biden his whole career, and Biden’s been good right back, from
pushing for more US aid to voting to move the embassy to Jerusalem — another extremist policy Trump cribbed from Biden and his friends
— and even chiding the Bush administration for its criticism of Israel’s assassination program.
But being “the best friend of Israel”
in the Obama administration didn’t get him far with Benjamin Netanyahu, who openly rebelled against the US under Obama, and humiliatingly
announced new illegal settlements in the middle of an official visit from Biden.
The "putsch" that intelligence agencies organized after Trump election as well as gambit to appointed the special prosecutor were
not unprecedented (JFK assassination is probably one close instance, Nixon removal is another). But it enjoyed full and continues
support of Justice department and several key Obama administration officials, including Obama himself.
Obama has had an outstanding record of dirty tricks and connections to intelligence agencies, even by Democrat standards
with Bill Clinton and Hillary as stalwarts in this area. His state senate campaign, the Senate campaign…and it would explain some
oddities in the 2012 Presidential campaign. Not to mention 2016.
Obama White House was not only aware of the intelligence agencies operation
against Trump - but possibly was directing it (FBI
Spying On Trump Started In London, Earlier Than Thought, New Texts Implicate Obama White House). To hide traces the intelligence
agencies targeting of Trump associates wouldn't occur on U.S. soil, Obama moved them to London. London was the center of the "Operation
Crossfire Hurricane" - the code name given to the early official Trump-Russia investigation.
Some now accuse the
UK of colluding with the Obama administration and Clinton campaign to influence the 2016 US election.
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016 election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely
homegrown affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact, they were lifetime beltway insiders
occupying the highest positions of power in the US government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lesser and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama such a blight on the nation's well-being.
To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state
and practitioner of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make their living along
the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
So we can talk about the participation or implicit support of the putsch by at least two departments (Justice Department (which
includes FBI) and the
Department of State) as well as several key figures of Obama administration, especially Susan Rice and Samantha Powell.
Fmr. FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom argues the FBI planned to destroy Donald Trump's presidency (Dec 19, 2017). In his Fox
interview said that there was a "cabal" of FBI personnel around Comey as well Justice Department. He asks an interesting question:
"Why Trump Justice Department does not comply with congressional subpoena?".
I realize that Clinton wing of Democratic Party (soft neoliberals) and their supporters which include a part of Wall Street, large
part of Silicon valley and most MSM progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking
him down. So they joined efforts with the neoconservatives. That's why war-mongering against Russia is now OK for them and Democratic
party now is just another War Party (as was evident from Hillary campaign).
Many people who detest Trump view Russiagate as the most effective path to achieve Trump’s impeachment, so this desirable end justifies
whatever means. that makes them very similar to supported of Ukrainian Maydan, which removed Yanukovich and installed far right junta
with a lot of unsavory characters. But to me it look like Trump surrendered after just 100 of anti-Russian smear campaign launched by
neocons. So why they still want to finish him? So it must be more to it; there might be some skeletons in the closet
revealing of which previous administration and their factions in intelligence services the are afraid to death . Because their
action is as close to sedition as one can get. In other words they went va bank by unleashing on Trump Steele dossier
(va bank is a common expression among Russian and German speakers. which means to put everything at risk in order to win. And nowhere
it is more clear then in sordid case of Steele dossier.
RussiaGate can be viewed as "American Maydan" story. Ukrainian Maydan was about Yanukovich removal. Yanukovich
who was a neoliberal wanted to bargain more before signing EU memorandum and postpone its signing despite pressure. At this point
EU and the USA decided that he crosses the line and decided to remove legitimately elected president of Ukraine by force.
Similarly Trump wanted to reach some level of detente with Russia (at least during the election campaign) rightly considering
the level of hostility achieved under Obama dangerous and counterproductive (to the extent that Obama might be controlled by Brennan
it might be not Obama personal fault). In this sense Trump also crossed the line (with the only difference that he did it during
he election campaign) and at this point all power of neocons and neolib including their factions in intelligence agencies was unleashed
for his removal.
That's why Steele dossier was created and advertized: as part of anti-Trump coup d'état by the neocons, Clinton neoliberals and parts
of the US intelligence services. In both case the interests of the USA and national security suffers. In a way both neocons and
neoliberals are elements of foreign influence that do not care much about ordinary Americans. In any case now two third of US
population now is brainwashed into adamantly anti-Russian mindset, increasing the risk of the major war
First let's discuss the historical origins of the term “color revolution”. The latter is a new subversive tactics
which was successfully used as a means to triggering “regime change”, which have emerged in a large number of countries in the course
of the last decade, especially in xUSSR space (Georgia, Ukraine, Modlova, Russia, etc). But the key methods of "color revolution" coup
d'état can be traced to Chilean coup d'état or even earlier.
The “color revolution” is a US intelligence operation which consists of covertly supporting as well as infiltrating protest movements
with a view to triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy template. The objective of a “color revolution” is to
manipulate or delegitimize elections (if the winner in nor desired candidate), foment social unrest and use the protest movement to
topple an existing legitimate government. Formatting social unrest is done via media (and achieving media dominance is an important
step in unleashing a color revolution) which serve important role in any color revolution. Similar to the role of aviation in
modern wars. With the only difference that it drops propaganda bombs. The goal is always the same -- to install a compliant pro-neoliberal,
pro-US government (“puppet regime”).
The main underlying features of color revolution is that those activities are structured as intelligence operation and some
players might not even understand that they are puppet of pretty nefarious scheme and believe in noble slogans that are on the
surface of events. A lot of technologies in color revolution was taken from Trotskyite and Bolsheviks handbooks. That include
the role of students as foot solders of regime change, Attempt to capture media as the first step, digging dirt on key figures
of existing government (corruption is the favorite change in such revolutions). Color revolution added several new features:
massive financial infusion to keep unrest going, coordinating role of neoliberal NGO and think tanks in particular country, penetration
into and use of law enforcement for deposing the members of the current government (typically on corruption changes).
This contact bombardment of public with negative information about the current administration and "outsize" role of intelligence
agencies we can observe in the current campaign to de-legitimize and depose President Trump. Instead of corruption changes
they use the change of cooperation with country which they demonized and present as adversary -- Russia. That why
some call this color revolution Russiagate. As James Petras observed (Imperial
Power Centers, July 24, 2017):
With the ascent of Donald Trump to the US Presidency, imperial rulership has become openly contested terrain, fought over amid
unyielding aspirants seeking to overthrow the democratically elected regime.
While Presidents rule, today the entire state structure is driven by rival power centers. At the moment, all of the power seekers
are at war to impose their rule over the empire.
In the first place, the strategically placed security apparatus is no longer under Presidential control: They operate in coordination
with insurgent Congressional power centers, mass media and extra-governmental power configurations among the oligarchs (business,
merchants, arms manufacturers, Zionists and special interest lobbies).
Sectors of the state apparatus and bureaucracy investigate the executive, freely leaking damaging reports to the media, distorting
fabricating and/or magnifying incidents. They publicly pursue a course with the goal of regime change.
The FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and other power configurations are acting as crucial allies to the coup-makers seeking
to undermine Presidential control over the empire. No doubt, many factions within the regional offices nervously look on,
waiting to see if the President will be defeated by these opposing power configurations or will survive and purge their current directors.
The Pentagon contains both elements that are pro as well as anti-Presidential power: Some active generals are aligned with
the prime movers pushing for regime change, while others oppose this movement. Both contending forces influence and dictate imperial
military policies.
The most visible and aggressive advocates of regime change are found in the militarist wing of the Democratic Party. They
are embedded in the Congress and allied with police state militarists in and out of Washington.
Engineered protest movements are carefully planned and well financed (to the extent of create a caste of "professional protesters").
Again the key feature of all color revolutions is that they are essentially intelligence ops performed via NGO and similar organization,
with huge role of the US embassy as the coordinating center. They use non-governmental organizations and opposition media to recruit
protesters. Creation of powerful opposition media is the necessary prerequisite step in preparation of the color revolution. The
protest need to be televised in order to amplify their significance (preferably out of proportion and TV is perfectly suitable for that,
using the necessary angles to create impression of huge crowd and interviewing patsies to show deep discontent), and create a critical
mass of discontent among the population. Again, the change of corruption is the favorite delegitimization tactics in such events
(and who in modern political life is not corrupt, or do not have skeletons in the closet?). As if it can be stopped by the
"regime change" (often after color revolution corruption and looting of the country becomes much worse, reaching like was case with
Russia in 1990th and Ukraine in 1990th and after 2014 really epic scales). Often even more corrupt oligarchs come to power as
a result, only more subservant to multinational corporations. And BTW its multinationals such as GE which control the US media
too. How convenient.
Looks like McCabe, Rosenstein, Clinton, Morell, Brennan et al have betrayed the US Constitution by treating the national security
services’ staff as their personal servants for political (and material) gains.
Biden steered billions of dollars in aid to the Ukraine, while his son, Hunter Biden, raked in millions through a deal with a Ukrainian
energy company. "This blurs the ethical line so much that you can't even make out the line anymore. What Hunter Biden did may
be technically legal, but it is grotesque abuse of elite sun privileges. This is as bad as the Clintons getting money from
Pinchuk.
Biden has also long been criticized for his creepy contacts with women and girls, and was even referred to as “Creepy Uncle Joe Biden”
by the Washington Post.
The Great America PAC, according
to The Hill, dumped six figures into the ad titled "Creepy Joe." The minute-long video showcases children watching a television screen
of Biden accuser former state Sen. Lucy Flores (D-NV) explaining the "mortifying" interaction she had with the then-vice president
during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. As the audio of the interview continues, the ad cuts to images of Mr. Biden touching
young girls' faces, arms, and shoulders, and pressing his face up against them and kissing their head.
But that's just one of this character flaw. That is another one.
In public appearances, he is known to deviate from prepared remarks at will.[162]
According to political analyst Mark Halperin,
he has shown "a persistent tendency to say silly, offensive, and off-putting things";[161]
The New York Times writes
that Biden's "weak filters make him capable of blurting out pretty much anything".[159]
Journalist James Traub has written that "Biden's vanity
and his regard for his own gifts seem considerable even by the rarefied standards of the U.S. Senate."[134]
The question arise: Why a comfortably retired politician with so much dirty lining and skeletons in the closet risks (including
but not limited to his Ukrainian connections and his son corruption) all this humiliation that will follow. Is he is already senile
enough and does not understand that? Add to this his inability to keep his tong in his mouth and you can anticipate a disastrous,
humiliating run.
The question arise: Why a comfortably retired politician with so much dirty lining and skeletons in the closet risks
(including but not limited to his Ukrainian connections and his son corruption) all this humiliation that will follow. Is he is
already senile enough and does not understand that?
Add to this his chronic inability to keep his tong in his mouth ('I
am a gaffe machine' ) and you can anticipate a disastrous, humiliating run. He even made a gaffe about his intentions to run for
the White House. In march 2019, a month before announcing his intention to run he
accidentally let it slip, saying at a dinner for the Delaware Democratic party that he has “the most progressive record of anybody
running”. After cheers from the crowd Biden seemed to recognize the mistake, and jokingly gave the sign of the cross, saying he “didn’t
mean it”.
Infamously in 2015, while Ashton Carter was being sworn in as the secretary of defense, Biden
put his hands on his wife Stephanie’s shoulders, rubbing them and appearing to whisper in her ear. “Joe Biden, We Need to Talk
About the Way You Touch Women,”
Gawker
wrote at the time, collecting a series of photo ops in which Biden appears to behave in an overly familiar way with women, young
and old alike. “America Shouldn’t Tolerate ‘Biden Being Biden,’”
Time remarked.
Biden’s awkward behavior over the years is not limited to what he has said, but also how he acts. Several women have recently come
forward to say he has made inappropriate physical contact with them, leaving them feel uncomfortable.
He called himself a gaffe machine (The
Guardian, April 29, 2019):
The 2008 election wasn’t the first time Biden ran for president. After it was revealed that Biden had taken to adopting language
used by then British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock – not only turns of phrases but taking parts of his biography as his own on
stump speeches – Biden dropped out of the 1988 race.
Clips of the speeches were put together by challengers, damaging Biden’s reputation.
Biden initially called it a “tempest in a teapot” at the time, but after further accusations of plagiarism were reported, stretching
back to his days in law school, he stepped down.
As troubling as some of his misstatements might be, and as serious some of the concerns people have about Biden’s retrograde positioning
among a new crop of progressive candidates, a sizable percentage of the US electorate finds the often goofy Biden charming.
It didn’t hurt matters that Obama often reacted to them with bemusement. “I don’t remember exactly what Joe was referring to,
not surprisingly,” Obama quipped after a typically confusing statement from Biden about the passage of a stimulus package in 2010.
In 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke about the prospect of squaring off against Biden if he had ended up running.
“I think I’d match up great,” he said. “I’m a job producer. I’ve had a great record, I haven’t been involved in plagiarism.”
We may yet get to see how that works on the 2020 campaign trail. Trump is not exactly gaffe-free, to put it mildly. “I hope it’s
Biden,” Trump said again last month. “When I say something that you might think is a gaffe, it’s on purpose. It’s not a gaffe. When
Biden says something dumb, it’s because he’s dumb.”
“I am a gaffe machine,” Biden admitted in December when asked about potential liabilities of his campaign. “But my God what a
wonderful thing compared to a guy who can’t tell the truth,” he said.
This was the basis for the
hilarious series of
Onion articles from the Obama years that portrayed Biden as a kind of aging Dukes of Hazzard character.
the OMB expects slower growth in the long run. It projects gross domestic product growth
running slightly over 2% on average annually between fiscal 2022 and 2031, while the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office pegs growth at less than 2% on average over the same
window. Either growth rate is anemic, making more "broadly shared prosperity" unlikely as
well.
...
It may be that raising federal spending turns out to be a winning formula for Democrats in
2022. Then again, it may not. Especially since Mr. Biden would hike taxes high enough to eat up
more GDP than in any 10-year period in American history, according
to the American Action Forum's Gordon Gray. The spending binge would also increase the nation's
public debt to 117% of GDP""greater than the previous record GDP percentage that Washington
clocked in the year after World War II.
Recent polling suggests the Democrats' approach may not help them in the midterms.
... Democrats may be counting on Republicans to emphasize "culture war" issues rather than
deliver a focused, principled attack on the president's orgy of spending and tax increases.
This isn't to suggest issues like defunding the police, critical race theory and border
security are unimportant. But in 2022, as in most years, the economy will likely be the real
congressional battleground. The sooner Republicans recognize that, the better.
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of
"The Triumph of William McKinley" (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
I don't believe policies matter any more. In 2020, democrats secured a permanent upper hand
for themselves which is mail-in ballots.
Kenneth Johnson
WSJ headline---"Yes, It's Still The Economy, Stew ped"
If....by the summer of 2022....inflation is 4%+....we're in a recession....and
unemployment is 6%+....the Democrats will lose the midterms....I hope.
If none of those things is true....they may 'dodge a bullet'.
Any other opinions?
Ron Hoelscher
They have lost the culture war and do not seem to realize it.
As far as spending, when an economy evolves to have very few people controlling the 90% of
the economy then the governing party must resort to handouts to the 90% to stay in power.
I think the Romans called it "bread and circuses." Trump was the circus, now people want
some bread.
Believe it or not, the president says that human rights R us.
Hear that, BLM? Women? Asian Americans? Hispanics? homeless? heavily indebted students? .
. the list goes on.
Biden said so, May 30, 2021
"I had a long conversation -- for two hours -- recently with President Xi, making it clear
to him that we could do nothing but speak out for human rights around the world because
that's who we are. I'll be meeting with President Putin in a couple of weeks in Geneva,
making it clear that we will not -- we will not stand by and let him abuse those rights." . .
here
..reminds me of Aeschylus: "In war, truth is the first casualty."
"... No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides. Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the right amount of detail and scope. ..."
"... Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is. ..."
"... This is exactly the kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better. ..."
I'm a professor at the University of California San Diego and I'm assigning
this for a graduate class.
No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides.
Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is
highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the
right amount of detail and scope.
I could not disagree more with the person who gave this book one star. Take it from me: I've taught hundreds of college students
who graduate among the best in their high school classes and they know close to nothing about the history of US settler colonialism,
overseas imperialism, or US interventionism around the world. If you give University of California college students a quiz on
where the US' overseas territories are, most who take it will fail (trust me, I've done it). And this is not their fault. Instead,
it's a product of the US education system that fails to give students a nuanced and geographically comprehensive understanding
of the oversized effect that their country has around our planet.
Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies
of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native
American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations
and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is.
A case in point is Puerto Rico's current fiscal and economic crisis. The island's political class share part of the blame for
Puerto Rico's present rut. A lot of it is also due to unnatural (i.e. "natural" but human-exacerbated) disasters such as Hurricane
María. However, there is no denying that the evolution of Puerto Rico's territorial status has generated a host of adverse economic
conditions that US states (including an island state such as Hawaii) do not have to contend with. An association with the US has
undoubtedly raised the floor of material conditions in these places, but it has also imposed an unjust glass ceiling that most
people around the US either do not know about or continue to ignore.
To add to those unfair economic limitations, there are political injustices regarding the lack of representation in Congress,
and in the case of Am. Samoa, their lack of US citizenship. The fact that the populations in the overseas territories can't make
up their mind about what status they prefer is: a) understandable given the way they have been mistreated by the US government,
and b) irrelevant because what really matters is what Congress decides to do with the US' far-flung colonies, and there is no
indication that Congress wants to either fully annex them or let them go because neither would be convenient to the 50 states
and the political parties that run them. Instead, the status quo of modern colonial indeterminacy is what works best for the most
potent political and economic groups in the US mainland. Would
This book is about much more than that though. It's also a history of how and why the United States got to control so much
of what happens around the world without creating additional formal colonies like the "territories" that exist in this legal limbo.
Part of its goal is to show how precisely how US imperialism has been made to be more cost-effective and also more invisible.
Read Immerwhar's book, and don't listen to the apologists of US imperialism which is still an active force that contradicts
the US' professed values and that needs to be actively dismantled. Their attempts at discrediting this important reflect a denialism
of the US' imperial realities that has endured throughout the history that this book summarizes.
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" is a great starting point for making the US public aware of
the US' contradictions as an "empire of liberty" (a phrase once used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the US as it expanded westward
beyond the original 13 colonies). It is also a necessary update to other books on this topic that are already out there, and it
is likely to hold the reader's attention more given its crafty narrative prose and structure
Read less 194 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
This is exactly the
kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments
existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction
into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better.
The author of this compelling book reveals a history unknown to many
readers, and does so with first-hand accounts and deep historical analyses. You might ask why we can't put such things behind
us. The simple answer: we've never fully grappled with these events before in an honest and open way. This book does the nation
a service by peering behind the curtain and facing the sobering truth of how we came to be what we are.
This is a stunning book, not to be missed. If you finished Sapiens with the feeling your world view had
greatly enlarged, you're likely to have the same experience of your view of the US from reading this engaging work. And like Sapiens,
it's an entirely enjoyable read, full of delightful surprises, future dinner party gems.
The further you get into the book the more interesting and unexpected it becomes. You'll look at the US in ways you likely
never considered before. This is not a 'political' book with an ax to grind or a single-party agenda. It's refreshingly insightful,
beautifully written, fun to read.
This is a gift I'll give to many a good friend, I've just started with my wife. I rarely write
reviews and have never met the author (now my only regret). 3 people found this helpful
This book is an absolutely powerhouse, a must-read, and should be a part of every student's curriculum in
this God forsaken country.
Strictly speaking, this brilliant read is focused on America's relationship with Empire. But like with nearly everything America,
one cannot discuss it without discussing race and injustice.
If you read this book, you will learn a lot of new things about subjects that you thought you knew everything about. You will
have your eyes opened. You will be exposed to the dark underbelly of racism, corruption, greed and exploitation that undergird
American ambition.
I don't know exactly what else to say other than to say you MUST READ THIS BOOK. This isn't a partisan statement -- it's not
like Democrats are any better than Republicans in this book.
This is one of the best books I've ever read, and I am a voracious reader. The content is A+. It never gets boring. It never
gets tedious. It never lingers on narratives. It's extremely well written. It is, in short, perfect. And as such, 10/10.
I heard an interview of Daniel Immerwahr on NPR news / WDET radio regarding this book.
I'm am quite conservative
and only listen to NPR news when it doesn't lean too far to the left.
However, the interview piqued my interest. I am so glad I
purchased this ebook. What a phenomenal and informative read!!! WOW!! It's a "I never knew that" kind of read. Certainly not anything
I was taught in school. This is thoughtful, well written and an easy read. Highly recommend!!
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
"... Asked about the issue, Biden began, "I believe we should go back to what existed when I came to the Senate 120 years ago" – a statement that supporters defended as a joke. He then noted that there were only 58 filibuster motions in 54 years, through 1971, but five times that many in 2020. He may have forgotten that all of last year's motions came from his party, which was then the Senate minority. ..."
WATCH: Biden adds fodder to dementia speculation as spirited response on filibuster reform degenerates into word salad
Leah Millis 170
President Joe Biden apparently had some crucial things to say about reforming
the Senate filibuster, the legislative speed bump against ruling-party dominance, but his descent into unintelligibility left his
plans a mystery.
Speaking on Thursday at his first formal press conference since taking office – having taken almost twice as long as any president
in 100 years to invite reporters to ask questions – 78-year-old Biden at times struggled to express his thoughts, particularly on
the filibuster. At issue was the longstanding Senate rule that makes it more difficult for the ruling party to force through partisan
legislation, which Democrats have called for eliminating now that they control the White House and both chambers of Congress.
Asked about the issue, Biden began, "I believe we should go back to what existed when I came to the Senate 120 years ago"
– a statement that supporters defended as a joke. He then noted that there were only 58 filibuster motions in 54 years, through 1971,
but five times that many in 2020. He may have forgotten that all of last year's motions came from his party, which was then the Senate
minority.
BIDEN: "I believe we should go back to a position of a filibuster that existed just when I came to the United States Senate
120 years ago." pic.twitter.com/7X7VKDkLcn
"Do you think he knows?" former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker asked on Twitter. "He's either cynical or incompetent."
Biden said he supports reform, such as requiring opposition senators to actually deliver marathon filibuster speeches to block
action on a bill, and spoke of his desire and ability to "get things done" in the Senate. But then the mental wheels appeared
to come off.
"The best way to get something done, if you hold near and dear to you that you uh, um like to be able to uh anyway," Biden
said. "I, we're going to get a lot done. And if we have to, if there's complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster,
then we'll have to go beyond what I'm talking about."
Biden drifted off similarly as other reporters came back to the topic. "Our preoccupation with the filibuster is totally legitimate,
but in the meantime, there's a lot we can do while we're talking about what we can do with the filibuster," he said.
After agreeing with a previous statement by former president Barack Obama that the filibuster is "a relic of the Jim Crow era,"
meaning it's racist, Biden was pressed on why he wouldn't therefore abolish it. After a long pause, Biden said, "Successful electoral
politics is the art of the possible. Let's figure out how we can get this done and move in the direction of significantly changing
the abuse of even the filibuster rule, first. It's been abused from the time it came into being by an extreme way in the last 20
years. Let's deal with the abuse first."
Apparently mystified by Biden's comments, the reporter asked if that meant he was moving closer to eliminating the filibuster.
"I answered your question," he replied.
The performance likely did little to inspire confidence at a time when Biden was perceived by many to be avoiding being put in
a position of having to speak off script. A Rasmussen Reports poll earlier this month found that 50% of Americans aren't confident
that Biden is physically and mentally fit to be president, and 52% were troubled that he hadn't held a press conference. It took
until day 65 of his administration to hold such an event.
*** Please Note: Russia is not weak considering that it has the ability to nuke America in
to ashes within 30 minutes, or any other bunch of idiots that chooses to step over her red
lines. Okay the US has 350 million people compared to 150 million Russians, but the US is
irrevocably divided and Russia is fully united even the Muslim minority is united with the
State in Russia. A divided house can not stand no man can serve two masters. On top of that
the US has no moral values whereas Russia is a Christian country where marriage is between a
man and a woman, by State law. Biden can fly all the queer flags he likes but he still leads
a divided nation with a corrupt State comprised of dual passport holders, amoral materialists
and deluded mentally challenged idiots like Waters and Pelosi.
"... Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of international relations. ..."
"... in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was bizarrely appointed as ambassador. ..."
"... Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken , Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen Donfried , and State Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia. ..."
"... Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that the Maidan would lead to consequences like these. ..."
"... importantly, this 'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging ..."
"... the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were actually quite deliberate and planned ..."
"... the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda. ..."
The rejection
of Matthew Rojansky's candidacy as a Russia adviser to Joe Biden represents an escalation, and
not a departure, from a pervasive bipartisan American pattern of dangerous ignorance about
Russia in the post-Soviet era.
It was reported last week that Joe Biden's government would not be hiring Rojansky, of the
Kennan Institute think tank, to help form policy towards Russia. Though the analyst is known as
a moderate realist regarding Russia issues – in other words, he is not a virulent
anti-Moscow ideologue – he was considered too controversial to be allowed a hearing
during White House deliberations on policy regarding the world's largest country.
Rojansky's sin? Unlike many of the current crop of foreign policy officials, he actually has
some expertise and experience on the subject.
While the scholar's fate may be a glaring and extreme
example of an anti-Russia mindset in Washington that is counterproductive, it represents
only a new low, and not a change from a pervasive bipartisan pattern in the post-Soviet
era.
Those who aspire to, or attain, the most powerful executive position in the United States
have shown a disturbingly willful ignorance of Russia. I learned from a former State Department
official that, in response to a renowned Russia expert attempting to brief presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little
interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold
war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content
to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of
international relations.
Similarly, an American business executive told me that, during a lunch with him and other
leaders of commerce at the US Embassy in Moscow in 2012, then-Vice President Joe Biden showed
no interest in his interlocutors' suggestions that it was in the US' best interests to partner
with Russia after they offered social, economic, and strategic justifications for their
view.
Biden seemed to see the meeting as an opportunity to lecture on his position rather than to
learn or seek insight on Russia.
Moreover, once a US president is in power, the advisers that are appointed to counsel the
commander in chief about Russia have been less than impressive from the 1990s onward.
Condoleezza Rice served as an expert in the George Bush Senior administration and was
wrong about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. During her stint as secretary of
state in the second term of the junior Bush administration, her Russian counterparts who spent
significant time with her made the observation
that Rice was "a Soviet expert, and not a Russia expert."
There was little improvement in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were
given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was
bizarrely appointed as ambassador.
According to investigative journalist Gareth Porter, advisers to Obama were so utterly
incompetent that those serving in the administration really didn't think Russia had the ability
or inclination to counter Washington's provocative actions in
Syria, and therefore they did not plan for that possibility. This incompetence was also
highlighted by Obama's public comments to the Economist in 2014, in which he claimed that
Russia didn't make anything, immigrants didn't go there, and male life expectancy was 60 years
– three claims that anyone with actual expertise on Russia should have easily known were
false.
In fact, at that point, Russia was the second most popular migration destination in the
world, after America itself, while average lifespans have been converging with those of the US
over the past decade. As for manufacturing, Obama said these words at a time when the US, for
instance, was totally reliant on Russian rockets for access to space, having retired its own
unreliable Space Shuttle fleet. If he had access to a competent adviser on the subject, would
he have made these mistakes?
Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint
Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken ,
Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen
Donfried , and State
Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous
ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little
on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia.
Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has
put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating
the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine
and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that
the Maidan would lead to consequences like these.
It takes a special kind of hubris for the US political class to keep thinking they can get
away with this level of sloppiness in understanding the world's other nuclear superpower
– a country so massive that it straddles two major continents and is the sixth largest
economy in terms of purchasing power parity – without serious consequences. At what point
will God's providence run out?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia
Relations," available at Amazon. She blogs at http://natyliesbaldwin.com/ .
"Washington has a dangerous & destructive pattern of wilful ignorance on Russia in
post-Soviet era" It is not just wilful ignorance per se. Without a 'perceived enemy', the
narrative for Russia will fall apart. Ditto China, Iran, N Korea et al.
But importantly, this
'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military
complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be
regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging, but with the antiquated contents
remaining intact.
dotmafia 6 hours ago 6 hours ago
Good article, but, the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others
were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were
actually quite deliberate and planned. In the example of Obama's remarks to The Economist,
the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think
and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda.
Levin High 8 hours ago 8 hours ago
It used to be said that you couldn't be fired for buying IBM, now days in the US you seem to
be hired for blaming Russia.
apothqowejh 9 hours ago 9 hours ago
The US State Department is packed with idiots, political appointees, ideologues and globalist
nut jobs. Their lack of anything remotely like competence is as astonishing as the CIA's full
on embrace of evil.
wowhead1977 4 hours ago 4 hours ago
The cabal in America always want to blame Russia. I'm a American citizen and have no problem
with Russia. These so called sanctions on other countries is a control tactic that most
Americans didn't vote for. This race baiting tactic is from The Fabian Society play book.
Wolf in sheep's clothing is the Fabian Society logo.
We must realize that our Party's most
powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races,
that for centuries have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mold them to the program of the
Communist Party ... In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While enflaming the color
people minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites, a guilt complex for the
exploitation of the color people.
We will aid the color people to rise to prominence in every
walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this
prestige, the color people will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process
which will deliver America to our cause." ~ Israel Cohen - Fabian Society Founder
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's,
Wayne Madsen writes.
Like proverbial bad pennies, the neocon imperialists who plagued the Barack Obama
administration have turned up in force in Joe Biden's State Department. Secretary of State
Antony Blinken has given more than winks and nods to the dastardly duo of Victoria Nuland,
slated to become Blinken's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the number three
position at the State Department, and Samantha Power, nominated to become the Administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Nuland and Power both have problematic spouses who do not fail to offer their imperialistic
opinions regardless of the appearance of conflicts-of-interest. Nuland's husband is the
claptrappy neocon warmonger Robert Kagan, someone who has never failed to urge to prod the
United States into wars that only benefit Israel. Power's husband is the totally creepy Cass
Sunstein, who served as Obama's White House "information czar" and advocated government
infiltration of non-governmental organizations and news media outlets to wage psychological
warfare campaigns.
True to form, Blinken's State Department has already come to the aid of Venezuela's
right-wing self-appointed "opposition leader" Juan Guaido, whose actual constituency is found
in the wealthy gated communities of Venezuelan and Cuban expatriates in south Florida and not
in the barrios of Caracas or Maracaibo.
Blinken and his team of old school yanqui imperialists have also criticized the
constitutional and judicially-warranted detention of former interim president Jeanine
Áñez, who became president in 2019 after the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS)
government of President Evo Morales was overthrown in a Central Intelligence Agency-inspired
and -directed military coup. The far-right forces backing Áñez were roundly
defeated in the October 2020 election that swept MAS and Morales's chosen presidential
candidate, Luis Arce, back into power. It seems that for Blinken and his ilk, a decisive
victory in an election only applies to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not to Arce and MAS in
Bolivia.
It should be recalled that while Blinken was national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden in the Obama administration, every sort of deception and trickery was used by
the CIA to depose Morales in Bolivia and President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. In fact, the
Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, claimed its first Latin
American political victim when a CIA coup was launched against progressive President Manuel
Zelaya of Honduras. Today, Honduras is ruled by a right-wing kleptocratic narco-president, Juan
Orlando Hernández, whose brother, Tony Hernández, is currently serving life in
federal prison in the United States for drug trafficking. For the likes of Blinken, Power,
Nuland, and former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, who currently serves as
"domestic policy adviser" to Biden, suppression of progressive governments and support for
right-wing dictators and autocrats have always been the preferred foreign policy, particularly
for the Western Hemisphere. For example, while the Biden administration remains quiet on
right-wing regimes in Central America that are responsible for the outflow of thousands of
beleaguered Mayan Indians to the southern U.S. border with Mexico, it has announced that Trump
era sanctions on 24 Nicaraguan government officials, including President Daniel Ortega's wife
and Nicaragua's vice president, Rosario Murillo, as well as three of their sons –
Laureano, Rafael, and Juan Carlos – will continue.
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's. Biden
and Brazilian far-right, Adolf Hitler-loving, and Covid pandemic-denying President Jair
Bolsonaro are said to have struck a deal on environmental protection of the Amazon Basin ahead
of an April 22 global climate change virtual summit called by the White House. A coalition of
198 Brazilian NGOs, representing environmental, indigenous rights, and other groups, has
appealed to Biden not to engage in any rain forest protection agreement with the untrustworthy
Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president has repeatedly advocated the wholesale deforestation of the
Amazon region. Meanwhile, while Biden urges Americans to maintain Covid public health measures,
Bolsonaro continues to downplay the virus threat as Brazil's overall death count approaches
that of the United States.
Blinken's State Department has been relatively quiet on the Northern Triangle of Central
America fascist troika of Presidents Orlando of Honduras, Alejandro Giammattei of Guatemala,
and Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. Instead of pressuring these fascistas to democratize and stop
their genocidal policies toward the indigenous peoples of their nations, Biden told Mexican
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador that he would pump $4 billion into supposed
"assistance" to those countries to stop the flow of migrants. Biden is repeating the same old
American gambits of the past. Any U.S. assistance to kleptocratic countries like those of the
Northern Triangle has and will line the pockets of their corrupt leaders. Flush with U.S. aid
cash, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador will be sure to grant contracts to greedy Israeli
counter-insurgency contractors always at the ready to commit more human rights abuses against
the workers, students, and indigenous peoples of Central America.
Biden is also in no hurry to reverse the freeze imposed by Donald Trump on U.S.-Cuban
relations. Biden, whose policy toward Cuba represents a fossilized relic of the Cold War,
intends to maintain Trump's freeze on U.S. commercial, trade, and tourism relations with Cuba.
Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, a Jewish Cuban-American expatriate, is
expected to reach out to right-wing Cuban-Americans in south Florida in order to ensure
Democratic Party inroads in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections. Therefore, even restoring the
status quo ante established by Barack Obama is off-the-table for Biden, Blinken, and Mayorkas.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Cuban-American and
ethically-challenged Democrat Bob Menendez, has stated there will be no normalization of
pre-Trump relations with Cuba until his "regime change" whims are satisfied. Regurgitating
typical right-wing Cuban-American drivel, Mayorkas has proclaimed after he was announced as the
new Homeland Security Secretary, "I have been nominated to be the DHS Secretary and oversee the
protection of all Americans and those who flee persecution in search of a better life for
themselves and their loved ones." The last part of that statement was directed toward the
solidly Republican bloc of moneyed Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Bolivian interests in
south Florida.
While Blinken hurls his neocon invectives at Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba, he
remains silent on the repeated foot-dragging by embattled and highly unpopular right-wing
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera on implementing a new Constitution to replace that put into
place in 1973 by the fascist military dictator General Augusto Pinochet. The current Chilean
Constitution is courtesy of Richard Nixon's foreign policy "Svengali," the duplicitous Henry
Kissinger, an individual who obviously shares Blinken's taste for "realpolitik" adventurism on
a global scale.
While Blinken has weighed in on the domestic politics of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and
Cuba, he has had no comment on the anti-constitutional moves by Colombian far-right
authoritarian President Ivan Duque, the front man for that nation's Medellin narcotics cartel.
It would also come as no surprise if Blinken, Nuland, and Power have quietly buttressed the
candidacy of right-wing banker, Guillermo Lasso, who is running against the progressive
socialist candidate Andrés Arauz, the protegé of former president Rafael Correa.
Blinken can be expected to question the results of the April 11 if Lasso cries fraud in the
event of an Arauz victory. Conversely, Blinken will remain silent if Lasso wins and Arauz cries
foul. That has always been the nature of U.S. Western Hemisphere policy, regardless of what
party controls the White House.
This was Bush racket. Invasion on false pretenses to establish a foothold
and get to former USSR republic. This move was initially a big success (and
Putin helped by using his influence on Northern Alliance) but later
backfire. In other words this was typical imperial policy.
I would guess 2 things, 1. He's hoping if he ends the war then none
of the terrorists that just snuck in won't attack. 2. He plans on
starting a war elsewhere.
"Obama may have gotten (U.S. soldiers) out wrong, but going in is,
to me, the biggest single mistake made in the history of our
country." -- Donald J. Trump
The policies of the Biden administration towards Russia and China are delusional. It
thinks that it can squeeze these countries but still successfully ask them for cooperation.
It believes that the U.S. position is stronger than it really is and that China and Russia
are much weaker than they are.
It is also full of projection. The U.S. accuses both countries of striving for empire, of
wanting to annex more land and of human rights violations. But is only the U.S. that has
expanding aspirations. Neither China nor Russia are interested in running an empire. They
have no interest in planting military bases all over the world. Though both have marginal
border conflicts they do not want to acquire more land. And while the U.S. bashes both
countries for alleged human rights issues it is starving whole populations (Yemen, Syria,
Venezuela) through violence and economic sanctions.
The U.S. power structures in the Pentagon and CIA use the false accusations against Russia
and China as pretense for cold military and hot economic wars against both countries. They
use color revolution schemes (Ukraine, Myanmar) to create U.S. controlled proxy forces near
their borders.
At the same time as it tries to press these countries the U.S. is seeking their
cooperation in selected fields. It falsely believes that it has some magical leverage.
Consider this exchange from yesterday's White House
press briefing about Biden asking for a summit with Putin while, at the same time,
implementing more sanctions against Russia:
Q What if [Putin] says "no," though? Wouldn't that indicate some weakness on the part of
the American administration here?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the President's view is that Russia is on the outside of the
global community in many respects, at this point in time. It's the G7, not the G8. They
have -- obviously, we've put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there
should be consequences for the actions; the Europeans have also done that.
What the President is offering is a bridge back. And so, certainly, he believes it's in
their interests to take him up on that offer.
The G7 are not the 'global community'. They have altogether some 500 million inhabitants
out of 7.9 billion strong global population. Neither China nor India are members of the G7
nor is any South American or African country. Moreover Russia has
rejected a Russian return into the G7/8 format:
"Russia is focused on other formats, apart from the G7," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
said in a brief statement ..
Russia has no interest in a summit which would only be used by the U.S. to further bash
Russia. Why should it give Biden that pleasure when there is nothing that Russia would gain
from it. Russia does not need a 'bridge back'. There will be no summit.
... ... ...
If Biden wants cooperation with Russia or China he needs to reign in the hawks and stop
his attacks on those countries. As he is not willing or capable of doing that any further
cooperation attempts will fall flat.
The U.S. has to learn that it is no longer the top dog. It can not work ceaselessly to
impact Russia's and China's military and economic security and still expect them to
cooperate. If it wants something it will first have to cease the attacks and to accept
multilateral relationships.
Posted by b on April 17, 2021 at 17:53 UTC |
Permalink
"It can not work ceaselessly to impact Russia's and China's military and economic security
and still expect them to cooperate"
You have to understand the USA. They're doing it against Europe on a daily basis, and it
actually works... Get them confused why it doesn't always work against others.
It's interesting what's happening right now (in the past hour or so).
First: Russian and Belorussian news about the arrest of leaders (or key participants) of
an attempted military coup in Belarus, planned by the US security services.
Then, 30 minutes later: the Czechs expel 18 Russian diplomats, accusing them of spying and
of connection to some explosion back in 2014.
I could've been skeptical about the details of the first story, but the second one seems
to confirm it. The second story appears to be an obvious attempt to squeeze the first one out
of the news. And who else could order the Czech government to do this with a 30 minute
notice?
Wouldn't Oceania rulers love to print more of their own currency to buy up all the paper
rights to industrial output without having to invest in the factories or anything else! They
love this kind of business model.
"The secret of success is to own nothing but control everything."
Because of what's at stake and how little I trust Oceania, I confess I no longer have an
opinion about global warming. Even if many of its scientists are *earnest*, who obtained,
processed, and stored the data before they started building models? Those institutions are
capable of anything.
OMG. I just watched 2 strong young black men have a conversation
without screaming RACISM. All they talked about was our freedoms and
our rights. I love watching Lawrence, he is a breath of fresh air in
the media. We need more people like these 2 men to keep the
conversation going about protecting everyone's rights.
Dementia Joe and his coterie of enablers have embarked on a foreign policy that is likely to result in a new war that will
endanger America and further a growing perception that the United States is weak and divided. There are three troublesome
flashpoints (Ukraine, China and Iran) that could explode at any time and catapult our nation into a costly, deadly military
confrontation. Topping the list is the Ukraine.
The corrupt dealings in Ukraine over the last four years by Joe and Hunter Biden leaves them completely compromised and
subject to coercion, even blackmail. With this as a backdrop the decade long effort by the United States to weaken Russia's
influence in eastern Ukraine has been revived with Biden's arrival in the White House.
Let me first introduce you to some essential facts:
Larry Johnson,
If the Ukraine blows so will Syria! Then the situation might transition from nemesis to tisis in short order. Here is a
strangely appropriate analysis with just one word blanked out.
In the
years ahead, _____________ will assuredly find itself in new international crises involving nations or groups that have
powerful leaders. In some cases, these leaders may have a special, dangerous mindset that is the result of a
"hubris-nemesis complex." This complex involves a combination of hubris (a pretension toward an arrogant form of
godliness) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary, especially one that
can be accused of hubris). The combination has strange dynamics that may lead to destructive, high-risk behavior.
Attempts to deter, compel, or negotiate with a leader who has a hubris-nemesis complex can be ineffectual or even
disastrously counterproductive when those attempts are based on concepts better suited to dealing with more normal
leaders.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR461.pdf
We, too, pray for sanity.
Ishmael Zechariah
Reply
Larry, I unfortunately agree with your observations and conclusion.
I would add that in my opinion, the Russians are a lot more determined, as are the Chinese and Iranians, then the
generally self absorbed younger generations in the West. "Woke" culture has no answer to sunken warships, downed
aircraft and body bags. Do the SJWs want to die for LBGTIQ rights in Russia or another of their pet obsessions de jour?
I don't think so.
My concern for President Biden and America is that, if Ukraine attacks, unless President Putin succeeds in delivering a
very short, sharp and successful lesson to Ukraine there is not going to be a clear path forward to a negotiated
armistice. If that doesn't happen through bad luck, the fog of war, etc. Then I don't think Biden has the intelligence
to get us out of the mess.
If you add to that the possibility that Zelensky may demand American support "or else" when he starts to lose then we
are in very very dangerous territory. If I were the Chinese, I would just stand back and watch. Taiwanese independence
is a meaningless concept without American military backing and I'm sure the Taiwanese know it.
The wild card to me is what is Israel's attitude? Is it possible that they might be a moderating influence for a change?
Reply
Oh, yeah .!!!!!! The country that shoots women and children who get too close to the fence they have constructed in
PALESTINE on other people"s land will be the moderating party. Or maybe Mad Dog Bolton.
Try getting real, and come up with real world situations. Not some fantasy of killers acting like kittens. The
Russians seem more balanced in responding to such provocations than the U.S. & it's gang of follower- puppets. How
long would any of the these follower-puppets be able to go toe to toe with Russia in all-out-war situation. I'd bet
less than 24 hours, probably far less. Or as a Chinese General once asked: would you want to give up Los Angeles to
save Tiwan? The U.S. doesn't seem to have any sort of reliable anti-missile defence system. Would Ole Uncle Joe
really like to get into such pissing contest so early on in his term of presidency? Maybe I am wrong, but from what I
have seen so far, he just seems to be throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. In this game, if one
blunders, the walls vanish, an the lights go out.
Reply
Russia moves cannon boats and amphibious vessels from Caspian Sea to the Black Sea, but in reality these combatants are
perfect for operations in shallow waters and that means Azov Sea and Ukraine's South-Western flank. These ships can form
both a surface group capable of dispatching anything Ukraine may have on Azov Sea, plus form excellent tactical
amphibious group which can land a battalion or two of marines and support them with fire from the sea, both artillery
and MLRS. Of course, there are other forces Russia has there but it is a good way to give Caspian Flotilla a chance for
yet another combat deployment, after its missile ships spearheaded first salvos of 3M14 cruise missiles at ISIS targets
in Syria in 2015. Here are some of those ships:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Caspian_Corvette_Astrakhan_2.jpg
Russia has an overwhelming firepower in the Black Sea proper and whatever the US is sending there is primarily for ISR
purposes in case Ukies go bananas and decide to attack Donbass in death by cop scenario. The US will not interfere in
any meaningful way other than supplying Ukies with recon data.
Reply
It is bigger than Biden or even the Military Industrial Complex. The establishment foreign policy apparatus transcends
political parties and has a continuity that survives changes in administrations. It is obsessed with Russia. It opposed
not just communism but Russia itself so when the Berlin wall fell for it the Cold War never ended and it successfully
pursued the the break up and looting of the Russian Empire and the relentless eastward march of NATO. Putin pushed back
on this resulting in him being demonized by the orchestrated Western media. Trump for all his faults had at least a
halfway rational view of these matters but now the Borg is back and spoiling for a fight. I never cease to be amazed by
the stupidity of these people, their apparent lack of understanding of the importance of Ukraine and Sevastopol in
Russian history and their inability to read a map or know the basics of military operations to see the obvious
indefensibility of Ukraine's eastern border. The danger now is that Ukraine's leaders will overestimate the support they
think they have from the United States and start something they can't stop. This has the feel of 1914.
Reply
Or the Georgian/Russian of 2008 when Georgia attacked on Russian territory. President Bush was talking tough, saying
he would send aid to Georgia on warships. But the rules governing ships entering the Bosferus proscribed such stuff,
aND Bush ended doing nothing. The Russians quickly neutralized the Georgian forces and pushed deeper into Georgia
where they currently remain. The odiot who started the mess was forced out of Georgia & was afterwards appointed a
governor or some such in Ukraine. But I think that too went bad. Such is the level of governance in Ukraine.
Reply
The last 5 Ukros killed were killed by mines. The contact line has many zones where minefields are employed by both
sides. It appears some were killed in their own minefield according to local reports. Civilians in the LPR and DPR have
been killed by incoming fire, most recently a 5 year old boy. Of course OSCE is worthless except as a "bean counter";
who fired what and where is too much to record..
Reply
US defence attache with a group was up at the front yesterday as well as the comic.
Ukraine really has its back up against the wall financially. This year with big interest payments due and no way to get
the funds as the IMF seems to hit its limit on their 'we're never getting it back' budget. Their only steady source of
funds is ironically Russia with the gas transit fees guaranteed at $7B total over the next four years, much of which
will go to the EU and IMF as interest payments. After that the gas fees will drop to zero as the gas transits move to
TurkStream and NS2. With nothing to pay Russia, apart from the little mentioned oil transit fees, Russia may stop
shipping gas/coal/electricity for local consumption as well. At that point either Ukraine crashes or someone else has to
pick up the bill.
Although Kiev will lose dramatically there are very good reasons why Kiev would push the button. Will they ever again
have this PR opportunity to play the innocent victim?
Reply
Earlier this morning I saw a pic of Zelenskiy visiting the front, behind him was a makeshift field tent with a sign on
it, the sign is in Ukrainian but translates as "Vietnam". Is Biden serious about backing Zelenskiy, I guess we'll find
out soon enough.
Reply
wondering if anyone can point me to a fairly, anyway, reliable, (assuming one exists) 'war games scenario' document on
an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China. Intuitively, it would seem a difficult challenge, especially given China's
lack of any appreciable experience in seaborne invasion. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide, and my
apologies upfront LJ if you deem this offtopic.
Reply
Not meaning to be a smart-alec about it, but why assume that an invasion has to be "seaborne"?
In WW2 the Royal Navy had total control of the waters around Crete. So the Germans simply went over the top of them
and invaded the island from the air.
It was very definitely touch and go for a while until German paratroopers managed to capture an airfield, and from
that point it was all over.
No idea how well defended Taiwanese airfields are, but the PLA would only need to capture one and, again, the final
result will not be in doubt.
Reply
well, the quick answer to your question would be 'fine, alter my initial question to include war games scenarios
on airborne attacks on Taiwan. The glib answer might be, Taiwan is not Crete. And the Chinese PLA are not the
Wehrmacht. Who, by the time of the Crete attack had built up a record that included many successful airborne
attacks. I see no such history with the PLA. That, by no means rules it out. But, in any event, I can't imagine
the PLA would role the dice, SOLELY, on an airborne attack. They would have to have a seaborne plan of attack, in
case Plan A failed. So, in any event, I would be still be in search of that war games scenario.
Reply
Absent any new evidence, I am going to continue to assume that this is really about Nordstream II. The Biden Junta are
probably planning on having their Ukrainian cat's paw make a lunge at DNR/LNR, forcing the Russians to intervene
directly. Ukraine, of course, is not actually a full NATO member, so no Article 5 will be triggered. Instead, Washington
just self-righteously hollers 'Russian aggression!' and demands that Merkel immediately shut down Nordstream II -- the
Russian pipeline into Germany -- just before it's ready to go online.
And then, as a lush reward for their undying loyalty, the Germans get to import frack-gas and oil all the way from the
US at four or five times the market rate. Problem solved!
Reply
you are correct – the Ukraine state does not really want the return of the Donbass region let alone Crimea as it
would result in a complete change in the balance of power in the Ukraine with the Russian-speaking population being
able to form the government, as it had done pre 2014. They really want to push the Germans into stopping Nord Stream
2 by provoking Russia
Reply
Struggling to understand how a Ukraine with such supposedly strong ties to National Socialists of a century ago managed
to end up with a Jewish comedian as President.
Reply
Here's the viewpoint of Ukraine Army's snipers who are primarily composed of volunteer housewives. While to D.C. and
Moscow, it's part of their sphere of political chess, however to those on the front lines, it is survival and protection
of their loved ones.
Almost half a century ago, I took a course in the German language as a refresher during the summer session at my local
junior college. The woman who taught the course was a native Ukrainian. She told the class a little about her
background.
When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, she was in her mid- to late-teens. She had an intense dislike (hatred) of the
Russians and took a job working for the German military government of occupation as an interpreter. She said they had
welcomed the Germans as liberators from the oppression of the Soviet Communists.
Later, when the Red Army juggernaut was rolling west through Ukraine, she realized that it would not be good for her
long-term prospects to remain at home. She chose to move west with the retreating German army. Subsequent to the end of
the war in Europe, she rattled around for awhile in displaced person camps, and ultimately made her way to the United
States.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her story. This was my first introduction to the enmity between the Russians
and the Ukrainians.
Reply
Biden is a tin-hat emperor moving tin soldiers in his bathtub at play time. Surrounded by self-selected idiots who make
him dangerous as hell. This is what his "return to decency" looks like? May he be struck down deaf and dumb.
Reply
Two front war – Russia moving into Ukraine at the same time China moves on Taiwan. They put their wet fingers up to the
wind to see which way the Biden operation blows.
And they could not escape the conclusion this was the time to strike if there is any fortuitous time to strike. Biden
and his new team muddle deeply into reckless ineptitude. And Kamala Harris doesn't have anything to wear.
Reply
An odd thesis. The Russians are signally very, very strongly that they do not want the Ukraine to start a war by
attacking the rebels in Donbass.
They could not be more explicit if they sent a hypersonic cruise missile through Zelensky's office window with a sign
on it that reads "Don't start something you won't even live to regret".
They very clearly do not think that this is "the time to strike", nor even that they think there is a "fortuitous
time" for them to go to war with Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes first then, sure, they'll strike back. But I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion
that the Russians are provoking this when it is very clearly the Ukies and their promoters in the White House who are
pushing these buttons.
Similarly with Taiwan.
The Chinese are not provoking this. They made their red lines clear to everyone as far back as Nixon's trip to China
i.e. if the USA sticks to a one-China-policy then the mainland will refrain from using force against Taiwan.
But the USA is not sticking to the one-China-policy. Recent US diplomatic moves look exactly like what it is:
maneuverings to prepare for when the Taipei government declares independence.
Which is crazy.
But in both cases the USA may well provoke a conflict and then dump their patsies like a discarded toy.
Which would be beyond crazy. It would be an outcome so loopy that there isn't even a word to describe it.
Reply
Thank you for setting it straight.. it seems pretty evident Russia does not want a war but is sure as hell ready
to finish this business if a war is pushed on to them and pushed on to them by the Americans. Ukraine has been
armed by the U.S , funded by the IMF, and cheered by NATO. They will not do a single thing without their owners
permission.
Reply
Back in December 2020 Putin had an expanded meeting with his Defense Ministry Board. In it he laid out several items and
agendas to be carried out by the Military Staff.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64684
March 24th saw Ukraine's Zelensky virtually declaring war against the Russian Federation. One can not rule out Zelensky
using the trade deals with Doha and use the direct flights between Kiev and Doha to smuggle in Jihad's from Syria and
Libya to fight in Donbas. Zelensky on March 3rd in a joint press conference with the European Council President in Kiev
stated that the retaking of Crimea from Russia was now Ukraine Official Policy.
https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/ukraine-redux-war-russophobia-and-pipelineistan/
Reply
Speaking of 'foreign policy', question is who will win out -- D.C. or Tel Aviv?
'The model' is headed to D.C. to try and convince our IC's head-cheeses that the Iran JCPOA isn't such a good deal, and
Tel Aviv is trying to get him an audience with his high-arsed the 'King', China Joe. If D.C. swallows 'the model's'
spiel, then they're bigger suckers than they already appear to be.
Assume this Mossad meeting will take place between Kackling Kamala who will be channeling Obama-Jarrett; or will it
be Stinking Liar Susan Rose channeling Obama-Jarrett? But the Big Guy will be out to lunch.
Reply
How to explain the rush of bad government, citing false crises, end-running constitutional
limitations, that the Biden presidency in its early days has become?
I'm persuaded by one of its practitioners, Charles Blow of the New York Times , that a key feature, the
administration's rampant race-baiting, is partly a matter of a ticking clock: "If Hispanics and
Asians vote then the way they vote now -- a third of each group voted for Trump -- their
combined votes for Republicans will eclipse the Black vote for Democrats." He means for
good.
Other clocks are ticking too. Mr. Biden is likely to be a one-term president; every
historical precedent suggests the Democrats' slim congressional majority won't survive next
year's midterm elections.
This still doesn't explain why Mr. Biden is lending his presidency to unrepresentative
activist groups to pursue an agenda for which he has no mandate. So much for the talk of a
modest and dignified "transitional" presidency. He, or someone on his behalf, has substituted a
Tijuana-or-bust progressive Hail Mary that is quickly becoming needlessly and noxiously
divisive, that has Mr. Biden uttering lies and demagoguery as scurrilous as any his predecessor
uttered.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW SUBSCRIBE
Maybe he really has changed due to some woke epiphany. Or maybe we are seeing a man of
diminished capacities acting out one long reaction to Kamala Harris playing the race card on
him in the 2020 primaries.
Maybe the race card is being played partly to control Mr. Biden himself.
I hate to say it but there's a reason telemarketers target
the elderly. You don't have to be old to be weak, of course. See those CEOs who have no
thought of anything except how to shield themselves from interpersonal discomfort amid a
political game that's largely going over their heads. If Mr. Biden has lost his fastball, he
won't have forgotten
a searing experience: how insouciantly a top fellow Democrat, youthful and quicker on her
feet, used the race card against him in front of a national audience. The fallout,
obsequiously awarding Ms. Harris the veepship, was hardly reassuring either.
Or take his recent and ludicrous inaccuracies about Georgia's new election law (four
Pinocchios, said the Washington Post). He sounded like a man riffing on a few poorly
understood lines that somebody fed him, making himself a prop for an agenda that he may not
quite grasp.
You might have had zero faith in Donald Trump 's judgment but at least
you knew he was capable of asserting his own judgment -- and of doubting the motives and
incentives of his advisers and camp followers. (A president seldom goes wrong by being too
cynical about the motives of his allies.)
In 2020, Republicans secured 74 million votes for their presidential candidate, narrowed
their disadvantage in the House, and tied Democrats in the Senate. In many states Mr. Biden
won, he was outpolled by GOP House candidates. Especially because voters were told (falsely)
by pollsters that Mr. Biden was running away with the election, it's hard to doubt even many
supporters wanted a check on his administration.
For all the Democratic demagoguery about the filibuster, the system is working
the way it should -- thwarting legislative enactments based on ephemeral majorities that have
no stability in the body politic.
Mr. Biden might be in fine fettle for a man pushing 80 but that doesn't mean he's up to
riding herd on the forces that followed him into the White House. Mr. Biden did not wrestle
the nomination away from anybody (unlike Barack Obama or Mr. Trump). It landed on him. His
career was that of an undistinguished but long placeholder. A habit of foolish grandiosity
has repeatedly brought trouble, such as convincing himself of a glorious academic record that
didn't exist (he finished near the bottom of his law-school class after being
disciplined for plagiarism).
And nothing about Mr. Biden today suggests he's up to the heroic, arm-twisting,
barnstorming public effort that it would take to get so radical a program past a resistant
public and Congress -- if he were, almost by definition he would not be the kind of
presidential dog that unrepresentative activists would find so easy to wag.
This "modern" left obsesses about race and "identity" because it's their only claim to
being progressive; in every other way they are reactionary heirs to the bureaucratic and
technocratic elite that the New Deal and World War II delivered into being and now is in need
of replacing by something truly of our own times.
On present trend, Mr. Biden is on his way to being a failed and divisive president.
Richard Posner, the retired federal appeals judge and polymath, devoted a book, 1995's "Aging
and Old Age," to the changed incentives, declining capacities and shortened time horizons
that make us different people in old age than we were when young. We improve in some ways
with age but also become more prey to our worst propensities. Ironically, one trait of the
elderly, Mr. Posner tells us, is usually a desire to leave a legacy and reputation our
survivors can feel proud of.
The World Health Organization recently published its report on the
origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which has caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Most scientist agree
that the virus is of zoonotic origin and not a human construct or an accidental laboratory
escape. But the U.S. wants to put pressure on China and advised the Director General of the
WHO, Tedros Adhanom, to keep the focus on China potential culpability. He acted accordingly
when he
remarked on his agency's report:
Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this
requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist
experts, which I am ready to deploy.
The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health
Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global
community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective
global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent
analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the
recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of
working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent,
science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of
unknown origin in the future.
The most interesting with the above statement is the list of U.S. allied countries which
declined to support it,
Most core EU countries, especially France, Spain, Italy and Germany, are missing from it.
As is the Five-Eyes member New Zealand. India, a U.S. ally in the anti-Chinese Quad
initiative, also did not sign. This list of signatories of the Joint Statement is an
astonishingly meager result for a U.S. 'joint' initiative. It is unprecedented. It is a sign
that something has cracked and that the world will never be the same.
The first months of he Biden administration saw a rupture in the global system. First
Russia admonished the EU for its hypocritical criticism of internal Russian issues. Biden
followed up by calling Putin a 'killer'. Then the Chinese foreign minister told the Biden
administration
to shut the fuck up about internal Chinese issues. Soon thereafter Russia's and China's
foreign ministers met and agreed to deepen their alliance and to shun the U.S. dollar. Then
China's foreign minister went on a wider Middle East tour. There he reminded U.S. allies of
their
sovereignty :
Wang said that expected goals had been achieved with regard to a five-point initiative on
achieving security and stability in the Middle East, which was proposed during the visit.
"China supports countries in the region to stay impervious to external pressure and
interference, to independently explore development paths suited to its regional realities
," Wang said, adding that the countries should " break free from the shadows of big-power
geopolitical rivalry and resolve regional conflicts and differences as masters of the
region ."
Suffice to say, the China-Iran pact deeply is embedded within a new matrix Beijing hopes to
create with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Iran. The pact forms part of a new
narrative on regional security and stability.
Countries in Asia and further afield are closely watching the development of this
alternative international order, led by Moscow and Beijing. And they can also recognise the
signs of increasing US economic and political decline.
It is a new kind of Cold War, but not one based on ideology like the first incarnation.
It is a war for international legitimacy, a struggle for hearts and minds and money in the
very large part of the world not aligned to the US or NATO.
The US and its allies will continue to operate under their narrative, while Russia and
China will push their competing narrative. This was made crystal clear over these past few
dramatic days of major power diplomacy.
The global balance of power is shifting, and for many nations, the smart money might be
on Russia and China now.
The obvious U.S. countermove to the Russian-Chinese initiative is to unite its allies in a
new Cold War against Russia and China. But as the Joint Statement above shows most of those
allies do not want to follow that path. China is a too good customer to be shunned. Talk of
human rights in other countries might play well with the local electorate but what counts in
the end is the business.
Even some U.S. companies can see that the hostile path the Biden administration has
followed will only be to their detriment. Some are asking the Biden gang to
tone it down :
[Boeing] Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told an online business forum he believed a major
aircraft subsidy dispute with Europe could be resolved after 16 years of wrangling at the
World Trade Organization, but contrasted this with the outlook on China.
"I think politically (China) is more difficult for this administration and it was for
the last administration. But we still have to trade with our largest partner in the world:
China," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit.
Noting multiple disputes, he added: " I am hoping we can sort of separate intellectual
property, human rights and other things from trade and continue to encourage a free trade
environment between these two economic juggernauts. ... We cannot afford to be locked out
of that market. Our competitor will jump right in."
Before its 737 MAX debacle Boeing was the biggest U.S. exporter and China was its biggest
customer. The MAX has yet to be re-certified in China. If Washington keeps the hostile tone
against China Boeing will lose out and Europe's Airbus will make a killing.
Biden announced that "America is back" only to be told that it is no longer needed in the
oversized role that it played before. Should Washington not be able to accept that it can no
play 'unilateral' but will have to follow the real rules of international law we might be in
for some
interesting times :
Question: Finally, are you concerned that deteriorating international tensions could lead
to war?
Glenn Diesen: Yes, we should all be concerned. Tensions keep escalating and there are
increasing conflicts that could spark a major war. A war could break out over Syria,
Ukraine, the Black Sea, the Arctic, the South China Sea and other regions.
What makes all of these conflicts dangerous is that they are informed by a
winner-takes-all logic. Wishful thinking or active push towards a collapse of Russia,
China, the EU or the U.S. is also an indication of the winner-takes-all mentality. Under
these conditions, the large powers are more prepared to accept greater risks at a time when
the international system is transforming . The rhetoric of upholding liberal democratic
values also has clear zero-sum undertones as it implies that Russia and China must accept
the moral authority of the West and commit to unilateral concessions.
The rapidly shifting international distribution of power creates problems that can only
be resolved with real diplomacy. The great powers must recognize competing national
interests, followed by efforts to reach compromises and find common solutions.
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asked
for a summit of leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council:
Putin argued that the countries that created a new global order after World War II should
cooperate to solve today's problems.
"The founder countries of the United Nations, the five states that hold special
responsibility to save civilisation, can and must be an example," he said at the sombre
memorial ceremony.
The meeting would "play a great role in searching for collective answers to modern
challenges and threats," Putin said, adding that Russia was "ready for such a serious
conversation."
Such a summit would be a chance to work on a new global system that avoids unilateralism
and block mentality. As the U.S. is now learning that its allies are not willing to follow
its anti-China and anti-Russia policies it might be willing to negotiate over a new
international system.
But as long as Washington is unable to recognize its own decline a violent attempt to
solve the issue once and for all will become more likely.
Posted by b on April 1, 2021 at 17:52 UTC |
Permalink
Very thought provoking b, I wish time off brought me back firing on all cylinders like
this!
No doubt vk will chime in here better than I but it surely cannot be a matter of "if
America decides". There are historical forces at work in this financialized phase of late
capitalism that are not grasped by the US leadership, let alone factored into intelligent
policy debates. Biden is an arch-lobbyist for the vested interests which compel the US's
unilateral and interventionist foreign policy. I'm quite sure he is incapable of 'deciding'
anything (not just mentally but institutionally). But the underlying dynamic of
world-historical change is beyond him and his whole country. The die was cast long ago when
the Soviet Union fell and the US couldn't help themselves. Junkies for unilateralism since
1989, they will keep shooting up until they OD (Boeing notwithstanding...). I suspect they
will end up like the schizoid UK, psychologically unable to accept increasing and humiliating
losses of empire until it hits the bottom of the dustbin of History.
Meanwhile Biden's son Hunter, the "smartest guy" his father knows, has his feet firmly in
his mouth in excerpts from an interview this Sunday about his 💻 that was full of
underage porn & business dealings involving his father when VPOTUS.
The US-China meeting in Anchorage took place 75 years almost to the day of the Winston
Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Just as the latter signalled a break point in the
uneasy, war forced cohabit of the West with the communist Soviet Union, so too the Anchorage
will enter the history as the break point in the US hegemony threatening collaboration of the
West and China.
Since WW2, no other nation, not even Russia, has confronted the US so firmly and so
publicly as did Yang Jiechi, one of the ruling member of the Chinese Politburo when he said
that "the United States does not have the qualification to speak to China from a position of
strength'.
That was a slap in the face the Americans will have to respond to, and it's in the nature
of the response one will find whether the American Governing elite is prepared to share power
or go for a confrontation.
The real question is not about his neocon delusions, which are pretty predictable, but about
the ability for the USA project global dominance in the decade to come.
Blinken is a marionette. And pretty much second rate even in that.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's consider this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and values well'." [My Emphasis] ..."
Let's consider
this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated
World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words
cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have
all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and
values well'." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, he's referring to the rules put in place by the UN Charter. But as we at this bar
all know, it's the Outlaw US Empire for whom Blinken works that's the #1 criminal when it
comes to violating the UN Charter which is why it's "served our interests and values
well."
Now when we turn to reality, it become very clear that China seeks to uphold the UN
Charter--it's one of the foundational members of the newly established Friends of the UN
Charter Group that the Outlaw US Empire will certainly snub because of the reality of its
actual relations to that Act and Organization .
Indeed, what is being said by the very formation of that Group is a big NO!! to the
Outlaw US Empire's attempt to say it abides by the system it's continuously violated for the
past 75+ years. Yet, it's also clear that NO!! isn't being shouted out by global media
enough, particularly when Outlaw US Empire officials give such an excellent opportunity to be
rebuffed and ridiculed for their lies.
We have many good writers here who could take Blinken's words and turn them into an
indictment of himself and the nation he represents. That implies that writers for global
publications are just as good but need to examine the framing of their articles. Peace won't
come to our planet unless the Outlaw Bully Nation is daily accused for what it is and
does.
NATO is a distinct minority yet it holds the world captive in a terroristic manner. It's
well past time to stop groveling and kow-towing and to stand-up and call out the bullshitters
for what they are since being nice isn't getting us anywhere.
To go back to a previous BTL discussion on Patrick Cockburns recent article in
Counterpunch, Bidens missteps so early on are a very worrying indicator that his foreign
policy team is worse than just being malign. They are incompetent. Thats a very dangerous
combination.
I don't think the Russians, Chinese, or most other major countries (apart from Europe) had
a fundamental problem with Trumps approach. They understood him, and were quite happy to
ignore his bombast and threats and focus instead on what was happening in the real world. But
things are different for someone like Biden, and I'm very surprised nobody in his team seem
to realise this. When he talks on the record, its assumed that it is a reflection of a real
policy. At first, I thought maybe he was just doing the usual new guy in power thing of
talking tough to set the ground for later compromises (the opposite of Obama, who appeared
very weak to other leaders, and then just looked indecisive when his policies turned more
hardline). But that does not seem to be the case so far.
I've no idea what the final outcome will be, but I do think that this is one of those
points in history where things take a very sharp and irreparable change in direction.
Obviously, things have been brewing for years, but the ineptness of US foreign policy seems
to have created a strategic Russian/China alliance which will force many countries to make
some very hard choices about which side of the fence they are on.
On a related note, I woke up this morning to find that a speech by Lawrence P. Wilkerson,
who is associated with the conservative paleoconservatives is getting very wide circulation
in China (you know this has to be officially approved otherwise it disappears very rapidly on
WeChat. He makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs as a
sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that, but it
is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the CCP. The
notion that the Uigurs are a sort of third force within China, and as such need to be
destroyed now seems to be very deeply embedded in Chinese thinking, and the interference by
'official' western NGO's are undoubtedly making things much worse for them.
"[Wilkerson] makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs
as a sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that,
but it is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the
CCP."
Just curious as to what your reasons would be for doubting this. The CIA has been doing
precisely this all over the world for over 70 years. There is a clear pipeline between the
Uighurs in China and the CIA-supported "rebels" in Syria. The expatriate Uighur organizations
that are integral to the Western propaganda apparatus is supported and amplified by the NED
and other CIA fronts, as your last sentence implies. This is not to deny the historical
Uighur desire for autonomy in Western China, nor to defend Chinese policies toward them.
Rather, it is to acknowledge the CIA's use of ethnic tensions to sow chaos and division in
non-conforming nations *everywhere*.
1. The US has had little to no success in its many attempts to establish an intelligence
foothold in China. There is zero evidence, direct or indirect, that it has had any successful
contact with Uigur groups directly, although contacts via others, such as the Pakistani or
Turkish intelligence agencies are possible. If there was even the tiniest amount of evidence
of such a link, the Chinese would be broadcasting it from the skies, and not just
re-messaging out tired CT stuff. Chinese intelligence is far ahead of the US in that region,
so they would certainly know if something like that was happening.
2. Uigur groups in general such as we know about them tend to be as virulently anti
Western as anti Han Chinese. All evidence suggests that the brand of Islam that has been
belatedly introduced into those regions is essentially second hand Wahhabism (traditionally,
they were never all that religious).
3. Any such attempt could be easily countered by China – simply by dumping Uigur
radicals into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban, or anywhere else that would create trouble.
The fact that they haven't done this strongly suggests that the Chinese themselves see no
link.
4. US military intelligence is often a misnomer, but even the CIA can't be stupid enough
to think that fostering another islamic state on the borders of Afghanistan is anything but a
terrible idea.
Of course, no doubt some mid ranking CIA officer may have circulated some report saying
more or less 'hey, maybe we can use those Uighurs or whatever they are called'. But thats an
entirely different thing from suggesting that there have been active links and a strategy for
using them to destabilise the borders of China. The reality is that the US has been entirely
unsuccessful in any attempts (when they've been made) to undermine China via internal Chinese
ethnic or religious groups.
Incidentally, the reliability of Wilkerson (who I actually quite like and who says some
interesting things), on that topic can be measured by his statement that the invasion of
Afghanistan was motivated by an attempt to stop the Belt and Road Initiative. It's quite
impressive intelligence if that was the case as the invasion predated the Belt and Road
Initiative by more than a decade.
Yes, I think the important point is your last one. It's not out of the question that on a
rainy afternoon in Virginia some junior CIA analyst amused himself by sketching out such an
idea, and one day the product may leak and be presented as "proof." But for the reasons you
give, the political leaders who would have to approve the scheme would turn it down, even if
it were physically possible. I doubt it would be, actually: from what little information is
publicly available, the US seems to be having little or no luck penetrating that area.
Thanks for the systematic reply. I appreciate each of your points, and pretty much agree
with the first one – including your comment about Turkish intelligence. But regarding
the others, the fact that we are talking about anti-Western Wahabist radicals does not mean
the CIA (or elements of the CIA or other military/intelligence operations) would hesitate to
weaponize them if possible. We did this in Afghanistan, Bosina, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Chechnya etc. Indeed, we seemed to *welcome* the fostering of an Islamic State in Eastern
Syria, because the various jihadists were a means to destroy the Syrian government. When the
goal is to foster chaos and destruction in order to *undermine* an existing state, the
calculus of unleashing the head-choppers is different than if we were actually interested in
fostering stability in the region. I admit that such a strategy might sound insane to *us*,
but Einstein's definition of insanity seems to rule our National Security Establishment.
Not PK, but I would suggest these cases are not only different from each other, but also
different from the Uigurs. Essentially, there was a war going on in all of these cases, and
the US (and they were scarcely the only ones) decided to try to get a bit of influence by
arming one or more of the factions. This is a tactic which is as old as arms themselves, and
has a pretty spotty record of success, if that. Its advantage is that it is low-key and
doesn't require a massive presence (the classic case is the Soviet Union and the Chinese
flooding Africa with AK-47s and copies in the 1960s and 1970s). But the cases you mention are
very disparate. In Bosnia there do seem to have been some (illegal) CIA deliveries to the
Muslims in violation of the embargo, but these were very small scale and in any event the
Muslims were one of the major parties to the conflict, as well as constituting the de facto
government in Sarajevo, because the other ethnicities had withdrawn. Likewise, and in spite
of preening memoirs and films, the US influence in Afghanistan was quite small : the
mujahideen were already forming in the 1970s, and the only contribution the US really made
was to supply anti-aircraft missiles, which complicated the Russians' existence quite a bit.
But actually fomenting and arming an insurgency next to one of the three or four major powers
on the planet, with highly skilled intelligence services? There is stupidity and there's
downright insanity.
I the 1950s, the CIA and MI6 trained and armed the "Forest Brothers" in the Baltics.
Neutral Sweden and Finland were across hundreds of km of water. Land access was through
Soviet territory or satellites. There was no significant international trade or commerce in
the area at the time. Yet they had tens of thousands of well supplied (for that era)
resistance fighters that took a decade for the USSR to stomp out.
To suggest that today's CIA is incapable of stirring things up in a well-connected
Xinjiang when thousands of foreigners travel there, tons of business shipments and
international flights and road transport is a mystifying statement. Particularly after CIA's
decades of experience managing jihadis all across North Africa, Mideast and Central Asia,
more than a few being Uigurs.
And suggesting that the only thing the US supplied the Afghan jihadis were Stinger
missiles is far off the mark. It was a multi-billion dollar per year operation conducted by
the US with collaboration of the ISI and Saudis. All those tens of thousands of jihadis
didn't arrive by camels and make slingshots.
I agree "There is stupidity and there's downright insanity" in fomenting troubles in
Xinjiang. The US has already passed that test. Many times.
We are three generations past the 1950s. Not a relevant example.
The US is not even remotely as good as you'd have to believe to accept this theory. For
starters, we don't begin to have enough people with native level language competence, much
the less willing to live there long enough to be trusted. They'll take our arms, but our
directives?
It is in the interest of the CIA to take credit for all sorts of things where their role
was non-existent to marginal because funding.
I can't claim any great knowledge or insight into the region, but the notion that the
Uighurs were part of a grand CIA strategy, or that they have had sufficient influence in the
region to manipulate them into opposing China, just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unfortunately, like the notion that Covid is spread on frozen food, so far as I can tell it
is now considered 'a fact' by most Chinese, inside and outside the country. As a result, even
Chinese who strongly dislike their government are not at all bothered by reports coming out
of the region.
For what its worth, I knew an English guy who lived for a few years in Urumqi with his
Chinese wife about 15 years ago. He was virulently anti-muslim and didn't much like the
non-Chinese locals he met, but I remember at the time that said that what he saw around him
convinced him that things were going to end very badly for the Uighurs, the Chinese were just
waiting for the opportunity to wipe them out. I was in Tibet at that period (I was fortunate
to get a visa on the last year solo traveller were allowed in) and witnessed the way Tibetans
were openly abused on the street by Chinese soldiers. Even Tibetans said that the Uighurs got
it worse.
The US government and privately motivated US citizens have no credibility on this issue.
That means if anyone is going to raise it, it will have to be someone other than America or
Americans.
That doesn't change the fact of Great Han Lebensraum genocide-policy against the Uighurs
on the part of the Chinese Communazi Party. And Chinese statements about their Lebensraum
genocide against Uighuria are just as much hasbara as Israeli statements about
antiPalestinianitic persecution in the Occupied West Bank.
And if that purely-private opinion of a mere U S citizen makes any Great Han hasbarists (
or might I say . . . Hansbarists) on this thread mad, then that makes me happy.
Your friend was English; I have not seen this attitude on the part of Chinese friends or
Chinese I've talked with. I was traveling on a domestic flight in China a number of years ago
and found myself sitting on a plane next to a random Chinese soldier -- a memorably tall,
handsome young man. He spoke English well enough to have a discussion (the relaxed atmosphere
and the need to pass the time does wonders when it comes to breaking down language barriers).
Major Uighur terror attacks and unrest had been in the news (around 2009), so I asked him
what he thought about it. He said that he grew up in Xinjiang. His parents were Han Chinese
who had first come to Xinjiang during the cultural revolution to build some local
infrastructure/improvement project (he described it to me but I don't remember the details).
They saw their goal as improving conditions in the region. Of course, the government wanted
to solidify Chinese presence in that region of their country, but I heard no hint of anger or
derision toward the Uighur. He said he was very concerned that the Uighur people were happy
and he hoped China could find a way to mend the relationship. He said that growing up, there
were many mixed Chinese/Han marriages and that "people say" that mixed Han/Uighur marriages
produced the most physically beautiful children. I didn't see any evidence of the malignant
racism you describe on the part of your English friend.
Strong central governments vs violent separatist movements tend to create lasting
problems. Growing up in a border state over 100 years after our own civil war, I grew up with
the fact that many people had still not let go of that resentment. Southerners still
maintained a sense of grievance back then. The Maryland state song that I learned as a child
is only now being decommissioned by the state legislature. One stanza refers to the "Northern
scum".
This week's WaPo headline: "Maryland poised to say goodbye to state song that celebrates
the Confederacy".
If your Han Chinese interlocutor's feelings are widely shared among the ruled-over rather
than ruling-over ordinary majority of Han citizens, then it would appear that it is the
MonoParty RegimeGovernment ruling over China which is Communazi, not the people as such.
Regardless, it will be up to countrygovs which have moral standing in this area to comment
or not, not the US anymore. At least for now.
Probably the Uighurs have it even worse than Tibetans because Uighuria is very inhabitable
by Han settlers whereas Tibet is high and dry enough that ( I have read), that
lowland-adapted Hans have trouble physically coping over time with the lower oxygen levels at
Tibet altitude.
If that is so, then the High Tibetan Plateau at least would not provide Lebensraum for
millions of Han Settlers in any case, so why clear the Tibetans off the plateau and out of
existence? Not so much need, in Tibet's case.
@PlutoniumKun
I have no knowledge about points 1 to 3, but totally disagree with point 4.
The hubris and desire of the US alphabet agencies to meddle is remarkable. A current example
is the CIA support of jihadis in Syria that the US military itself is fighting against.
Interesting caution re Wilkerson – do you have a link?
Here is a link to an article talking about that talk PK. Having a coupla thousand Uygurs
in Syria gaining combat experience for use later who knows where was probably proof enough
for China of western intentions. Just think of the other Jihadists who have been used in
places like Libya and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and the Chinese would be drawing their
own conclusions-
The Russian government is
responding angrily to Biden's derisive comments about Putin:
The Kremlin has reacted angrily to US President Joe Biden's remarks that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin is "a killer," calling the comment unprecedented and describing the
relationship between the two countries as "very bad."
U.S.-Russian relations have been deteriorating steadily over the last ten years, and it
always seemed unlikely that Biden would improve them. Now there will be even less of a chance
that Biden can work constructively with his Russian counterpart. The president's blunt answer
to a rather silly question from George Stephanopoulos has further damaged the relationship to
neither country's benefit. Anatol Lieven
observed recently that this is a "completely unnecessary confrontation with Russia" at a
time when the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on some important issues. Lieven cites U.S.
reentry into the JCPOA and extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan as his examples of issues
where Russian cooperation could be very valuable, but he could have added new negotiations on
future arms control agreements as well. Making progress on any one of these becomes much more
challenging when our president is gratuitously insulting theirs. For an administration that
prides itself on practicing diplomacy, they have a funny way of showing it.
The Joseph Biden administration has named Richard Nephew as its deputy Iran envoy. As the
former principal deputy coordinator of sanctions policy for Barack Obama's State Department,
Nephew took personal credit for depriving Iranians of food, sabotaging their automobile
industry, and driving up unemployment rates.
Nephew has described the destruction of Iran's economy as "a tremendous success," and
lamented during a visit to Russia that food was still plentiful in the country's capital
despite mounting US sanctions.
Nephew's appointment to a senior diplomatic post suggests that rather than immediately
returning to the JCPOA nuclear deal, the Biden administration will finesse sanctions
illegally imposed by Trump to pressure Iran into an onerous, reworked agreement that Tehran
is unlikely to join.
Nephew's "simple framework" for "sanctions to perform their expected function" reads like
a torturer's manual (replace "target state" with "prisoner"):
- identify objectives for the imposition of pain and define the minimum necessary remedial
steps that the target state must take for pain to be removed
- understand as much as possible the nature of the target, including its vulnerabilities,
interests, commitment to whatever it did to prompt sanctions, and readiness to absorb
pain
-develop a strategy to carefully, methodically, and efficiently increase pain on those
areas that are vulnerabilities while avoiding those that are not
-monitor the execution of the strategy and continuously recalibrate its initial assumption
of target state resolve, the efficacy of the pain applied in shattering that resolve, and how
best to improve the strategy
Combatting malign influences in the Americas: OGA (Office of Global Affairs) used
diplomatic relations in the Americas region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba,
Venezuela, and Russia, who are working to increase their influence in the region to the
detriment of US safety and security. OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to
strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade
countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples
include using OGA's Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian
COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical assistance in lieu of Panama accepting an offer
of Cuban doctors.
Blinken, like his boss, is a complete moron. He blew it with his patronising threatening
'rules based order' drivel because he has no expertise. Blinken has been doing this for a
decade or two: Syria, Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, and on and on. He has the form of a
killer, the mind of a killer and the intentions of a mass murderer. He has proven the latter
and is the type of global ambassadorial psychopath that one should meet with once and then
never meet again.
The USA has lost its mind and every day that passes proves that point.
This bar deserves broader analysis of other quarters of the planet and no more references
to the Guardian or NYT.
Biden under pressure to tap fewer political ambassadors than Trump, Obama
Donors are growing impatient as Biden delays naming coveted ambassador posts.
I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain relations
with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its terms. Even
though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a different genetic,
cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We will work with the
United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms that we believe are
beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their attempts to stop our
development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to reckon with this.
The author provides basic but essential definition of conflict resolution. The USians either
don't understand or defy it.
Your link to statement by Blinken & Sullivan is propaganda as you say. It is also an
expression of how deeply limited and very stupid these two are. They have no idea what just
hit them.
This seemingly side story illustrate the Biden paradox.
The USA can only prevail above present challenges (understand : China, Russia and the
likes) with its allies. Hence the end of the unipolar self intersted forcefully enforced
hegemony, and welcome to alliances, multilateralism and common markets in the name of a
global good.
But USA' society is so fractured that Biden's team walks a tightrope and must deliver
fast, or it will get punished in the next electoral round in 2 years. This calls for quick
success, which can only be obtained through usual hard self interest against everyone
else.
Biden doesn't exist. Just a meat sack controlled by the ruling class. And he's getting
worse. Harris will be in by the end of the year not that it will matter. The rest of the
world just have to hunker down and ride it out the best they can as the US disintegrates.
Hopefully other nations will band together and resist. They all know the consequences if they
try to take us on one at a time.
"America is back" claimed Joe Biden to no ones amusement. But the world has changed
after four years of Trump and after a pandemic upset the world. The U.S. position in this
world and its role in it have thereby also changed. To just claim one is back without
adopting to the new situation promises failure.
As candidate Joe Biden promised that there would be no changes.
Former Vice President Joe Biden assured rich donors at a ritzy New York fundraiser that
"nothing would fundamentally change" if he is elected.
Biden told donors at an event at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan on Tuesday evening
that he would not "demonize" the rich and promised that " no one's standard of living
will change, nothing would fundamentally change ," Bloomberg News reported.
That Biden statement destroyed the illusion of those who had hoped that he would lift
the standard of living for the average Amercian.
Biden stayed true to his words at the fundraiser. There will be no rise in the minimum
wage. The $2,000 checks he promised to all voters will now be only $1,400 checks. They will
also be
heavily means tested . Those who made more than $80,000 in 2019 but lost their income
in 2020 will get no check at all.
Even as they hold the White House and the House and Senate majorities the Democrats are
unable or unwilling to deliver basic progress. This will likely cost them their House
majority in 2022 and the presidency in 2024.
Biden's "nothing will fundamentally change" attitude extends into foreign policy.
Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo - 0:29 UTC · Dec 21,
2019
Today, the #ICC prosecutor raised serious questions about the ICC's jurisdiction to
investigate #Israel. Israel is not a state party to the ICC. We firmly oppose this
unjustified inquiry that unfairly targets Israel . The path to lasting peace is through
direct negotiations.
---
Secretary Antony Blinken @SecBlinken - 1:34 UTC · Mar 4,
2021
The United States firmly opposes an @IntlCrimCourt investigation into the Palestinian
Situation. We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security,
including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.
That nothing will change is also expressed in two policy papers the Biden administration
released yesterday. The early emphasis on human rights, which distinguished it from the
Trump administration, is already gone.
The common theme is now 'democracy' as if that were not just a form of government but a
value in itself.
The White House published an Interim National
Security Strategic Guidance (pdf). The paper is dripping with ideological LGBTQWERTY
librulism. Its central claim is that 'democracy' is under threat:
At a time when the need for American engagement and international cooperation is greater
than ever, however, democracies across the globe, including our own, are increasingly
under siege . Free societies have been challenged from within by corruption, inequality,
polarization, populism, and illiberal threats to the rule of law. Nationalist and
nativist trends – accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis – produce an
every-country-for-itself mentality that leaves us all more isolated, less prosperous, and
less safe. Democratic nations are also increasingly challenged from outside by
antagonistic authoritarian powers. Anti-democratic forces use misinformation,
disinformation, and weaponized corruption to exploit perceived weaknesses and sow
division within and among free nations, erode existing international rules, and promote
alternative models of authoritarian governance. Reversing these trends is essential to
our national security .
It then singles out China:
We must also contend with the reality that the distribution of power across the world is
changing, creating new threats. China , in particular, has rapidly become more assertive.
It is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic,
military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open
international system. Russia remains determined to enhance its global influence and play
a disruptive role on the world stage. Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in
efforts meant to check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and
allies around the world. Regional actors like Iran and North Korea continue to pursue
game-changing capabilities and technologies, while threatening U.S. allies and partners
and challenging regional stability. We also face challenges within countries whose
governance is fragile, and from influential non-state actors that have the ability to
disrupt American interests.
To fight China the U.S. will (ab)use its allies:
We can do none of this work alone. For that reason, we will reinvigorate and modernize
our alliances and partnerships around the world. For decades, our allies have stood by
our side against common threats and adversaries, and worked hand-in-hand to advance our
shared interests and values. They are a tremendous source of strength and a unique
American advantage, helping to shoulder the responsibilities required to keep our nation
safe and our people prosperous. Our democratic alliances enable us to present a common
front, produce a unified vision, and pool our strength to promote high standards,
establish effective international rules, and hold countries like China to account.
Good luck with that. Neither the European U.S. allies, nor the Asian ones, have any
interest in following the U.S. into a confrontation with China. It is their greatest
trading partner and they do not perceive it as an ideological or security threat.
The more we and other democracies can show the world that we can deliver, not only for
our people, but also for each other, the more we can refute the lie that authoritarian
countries love to tell, that theirs is the better way to meet people's fundamental needs
and hopes. It's on us to prove them wrong.
So the question isn't if we will support democracy around the world, but how.
We will use the power of our example. We will encourage others to make key reforms,
overturn bad laws, fight corruption, and stop unjust practices. We will incentivize
democratic behavior.
But we will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by
attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We have tried these tactics in
the past. However well intentioned, they haven't worked. They've given democracy
promotion a bad name, and they've lost the confidence of the American people. We will do
things differently.
The "lie that authoritarian countries love to tell, that their's is the better way to
meet people's fundamental needs and hopes" is targeted at China. But that China did and
does much better than the U.S. to meet its people's needs and hope is not a lie. The
pandemic has again demonstrated that.
The last quoted paragraph has seen some positive attention on social media. But it is
based on a falsehood. The U.S. has not once used military means to 'promote democracy'. Not
ever. It has used war to gain markets and power, to destroy its competition. The
neo-conservatives have claimed to be motivated by 'democracy promotion'. But that was
always just a pretext to hide the real reasons for waging war. Iraq became democratic not
because the U.S. wanted it to be that. In fact, after invading Iraq the the U.S. pro-consul
Paul Bremer tried to prevent universal elections in Iraq. Only the insistence of Ayatollah
Sistani on a universal vote led to a somewhat democratic system in Iraq.
Blinken is, just like Pompeo before him, focused on China:
And eighth, we will manage the biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century: our
relationship with China.
Several countries present us with serious challenges, including Russia, Iran, North
Korea. And there are serious crises we have to deal with, including in Yemen, Ethiopia,
and Burma.
But the challenge posed by China is different. China is the only country with the
economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable
and open international system – all the rules, values, and relationships that make
the world work the way we want it to , because it ultimately serves the interests and
reflects the values of the American people.
That there is no change from the Trump to the Biden administration in hostility to China
is disappointing only for those who had expected some:
Pang Zhongying, a specialist in international relations at Ocean University of China,
said Beijing would be disappointed with the Biden administration's approach to "continue
and even elevate" the tough policies of the Trump era and to strengthen alliances to deal
with China.
"There does not seem to be any change yet in the serious tensions in China-US
relations," he said. "I think there may be some frustration in Beijing that after more
than 40 days [of the new administration] they have not seen any change but there is
actually more pressure from the US."
Beijing will manage the conflict and it is likely to see it as a chance.
The U.S. failure to adopt to new circumstances will accelerate its demise. The U.S.
empire was a historical abnormality and its twilight is near
:
[The Realist professors of International Relations David Blagden and Patrick Porter]
observe America's "position as 'global leader' is premised on a set of impermanent and
atypical conditions from an earlier post-war era", but " the days of incontestable
unipolarity are over, and cannot be wished back ". The result is that "overextension
abroad, exhaustion and fiscal strain at home, and political disorder feed off one another
in a downward spiral, cumulatively threatening the survival of the republic".
The US empire is, then, at an impasse. Its moral and political justification of
overseeing a global order of universal liberal democracy -- the closest real-world
equivalent to the Kantian perpetual peace that has both motivated and eluded liberal
idealists for the past two centuries -- is now beyond its capabilities to maintain.
...
How does this end for America? Biden and the presidents after him will be forced to make
a hard choice: whether to retrench to a smaller and more manageable empire, or to risk a
far greater and more dramatic collapse in defence of global hegemony.
Biden has made his choice. Nothing will fundamentally change under him. He is thereby
likely to repeat all of Trump's foreign policy failures. There will be no new JCPOA with
Iran nor will there be any win for the U.S. in the Middle East. North Korea will continue
to test bombs and missiles. The U.S. will continue to be stuck in Afghanistan. The
Chinese-Russian alliance will strengthen. U.S. allies will further distance themselves from
it.
We can not yet know what, at what point will cause the collapse of U.S. hegemony. But we
are coming more near to it.
Posted by b on March 4, 2021 at 18:04 UTC |
Permalink
Frankly, Biden's speech to the grand poobahs sounded more like a plea for understanding
than a promise, and if you take what the policy paper says at face value it suggests that
"Biden" understands that we have to change to compete. It is also an admission that they
have presided over a period of decline in Uncle Sugar land, so of course they don't want to
dwell on that. I think Biden is worried the "owners" wom't let him do anything.
And it is totally appropriate that Biden is the guy up there trying to deal with this
mess, because he as one of the prime intigators or the present situation, going back 40
years.
Patrick Porter's book, The False Promise of Liberal Order, is good.
But, his realist critique of vulgar liberal propaganda for US imperialism doesn't locate
the source or material roots of US grand strategy.
Realist theory understands power, hegemony and balancing only in terms of military
power. That is the only currency of power in realist thinking, because realism rests on a
state centricity which insists on the autonomy of the state from any social or economic
factors. Military power is thus all that remains.
This theory obviously fails to explain the real history of US foreign policy, which has
used militarism and other tools in support of strategic economic interests on a global
scale, primarily in the South. The military balance of power is by and large only an
expression of the economic balance of power and the class interests of ruling classes
derived from it.
Porter and other realists point out the contradictions of liberal theory and practice
but fail to provide a scientific explanation for consistent US policies.
There is a partnership currently but it's not yet an alliance. The rationale for one is
very strong. Russia needs China or it will be overwhelmed by a hostile US and fairly
hostile Europe. China needs Russia to save it from a resource embargo by US and allies.
Together they will form a huge power bloc in Eurasia combining their respective territories
with joint influence over Central Asia. Other countries in Asia like South Korea, Vietnam
and India will see bloc and decide to stay neutral or side with the China-Russia bloc.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving faster.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving
faster.
Posted by: dsfco | Mar 4 2021 18:54 utc | 4
A guess: PRC having vastly greater economic power thinks its share of influence should
be greater. Russia having vastly superior military power & technology, disagrees. For
example the Chinese government might like access to the most advanced Russian military
technology; the Russians having been invaded many times from both East & West, probably
take the long view.
This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Wendy Sherman, nominated by the Biden
White House to serve as deputy secretary of state.
The career diplomat answered the usual questions on how she views United States posture toward American rivals and official
enemies like Russia, China, and Iran. Once again it was Sen. Rand Paul who had the most direct pushback and biting
criticism against an administration that seems bent on returning to the foreign adventurism and unilateral military
interventionism of the Obama and Bush years.
"We've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton,"
Paul said of President Biden
during his turn to question Sherman. Paul is especially outraged over Biden's Syria strike without consulting Congress last
week.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HanUqh_-CE
During the above exchange with Wendy Sherman, Paul in his concluding remarks had blasted away at Biden's vision of the
world, citing past failed Democratic-led military interventions in places like Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
"I think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss and that's
something I'm really concerned with,"
Paul said.
"All I will say is that
we're bombing now again in Syria without Congressional
approval and we're sending more convoys in there without Congressional approval
. It's a messy war - it's been
going on forever, there's nothing good that's going to come out of our involvement," Paul explained in his statement.
"People say
'well US lives are at risk'
...
yeah
because we put'em there
. We put them in the middle of a civil war that's largely over but can continue if we
keep putting troops into there... to put our troops as a 'trip wire' to get involved in a further escalation of this war."
And that's when the Republican Senator from Kentucky blasted President Biden on his Syria stance and general
interventionist foreign policy:
"I hope that we'll be sane voices and I hope that you'll be one of those," he said addressing Sherman.
"But I don't have a great deal of confidence that we've actually gone away from John Bolton,
I've
think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss, and that's something I'm very concerned with
."
Sherman in response had tried to claim that the Biden admin is not trying to get more deeply involved in the Syria
conflict, but maintained the 'countering ISIS' stance that the Pentagon has used for years to argue it must continue the
occupation of the northeast portion of the country.
Former White House physician Ronny Jackson told reporters Tuesday he was "convinced" that Democratic presidential nominee Joe
Biden, 77, does not have the cognitive ability
to
be commander-in-chief
.
"I'm pretty familiar with what it takes both physically and cognitively to do that job and what the demands of that job are,"
Jackson, 53, who is currently
running
for Congress
as a Republican, said on a call organized by the Trump campaign.
"As a citizen, not as a candidate running for Congress, but as a citizen of this country, I've watched Joe Biden on the
campaign trail and I am concerned and convinced that he does not have the mental capacity, the cognitive ability, to serve as
our commander-in-chief and our head of state," he went on.
Jackson served in the White House medical unit under President George W. Bush and was appointed physician to the president
under President Barack Obama and President Trump before he was nominated to serve as secretary of veterans affairs in March
2018.
The Navy rear admiral, who famously declared that Trump could live to 200 years old, was forced to
withdraw
his nomination
after allegations of misconduct including drinking on the job and overprescribing drugs -- charges he
vehemently denied.
Jackson insisted he wasn't providing a medical assessment on the call and told reporters he never took care of Biden while he
was Obama's vice president or evaluated him as a patient.
Former Biden stenographer says former vice president is shell of his former self
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.436.0_en.html#goog_739787396
Play Video
"I'm not trying to remotely diagnose him with anything," he said. "I've not accused him of having Alzheimer's or anything of
that nature."
Biden's campaign has swatted away allegations that Biden lacks
the
mental acuity to be president
, while the septuagenarian candidate, who suffers from frequent verbal fumbles, has described
himself as "a gaffe machine."
Joe Biden makes series of gaffes in long day of cable news appearances
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.436.0_en.html#goog_739787397
Play Video
"I refer you to the first debate," Biden spokesman Andrew Bates told The Post on Tuesday, referring to the
shambolic
Ohio showdown
in which Trump frequently spoke over Biden.
But Jackson claimed Biden's history of gaffes was different from the behavior he now displays on the campaign trail --
including repeatedly claiming to be
a
candidate for the Senate
.
"They're not the typical gaffes. He routinely gets in the middle of a thought and then loses his train of thought and then he
can't recalibrate where he's at. He's actually having a lot of trouble recently articulating words," he said.
Jackson said he was also concerned by the way Biden became
visibly
frustrated or angry
when he got lost mid-sentence.
"As a physician, I can tell you that's a mechanism that folks that are having cognitive difficulties use to move on and to get
out of a situation," he claimed.
The physician said he wasn't criticizing Biden because of his advanced age and that while some people approaching 100 could
still be as sharp as a tack, Biden was not.
Biden hits back at reporter asking if he took a cognitive test: 'Are you a junkie?'
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.436.0_en.html#goog_739787398
Play Video
"This is a demanding job from a cognitive standpoint, you have to be locked on, you have to be articulate, you have to process
lots and lots of information and multitask," Jackson said.
"And right now he's having a really extreme time just focusing on the one task at hand that he has when he stands up in front
of voters and tries to explain something," he added.
Also on the call was former Trump deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland, who told reporters: "I've known Joe Biden
for a long time and he's a nice man but he's not a strong man."
McFarland sounded the alarm over what she said would be national security risks from a Biden administration, speculating the
former veep would not be able to hold his own when negotiating with America's adversaries abroad.
"I don't see that Vice President Biden either appreciates how the world has changed over the past 10 years with China and its
ambitions and its capabilities, or his willingness to stand up to them since he's so dismissive of China as a threat," she
said.
Jeremy Kuzmarov has written a serie of 5 articles about Biden's carreer before he was
elected president. It's difficult to think of a more questionable choice for president today.
The articles are also very interesting because they give good insights about recent historic
episodes (they include many many pictures):
Biden has been a major disappointment for those who hoped that he'd change course
regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts
Who hoped that? He didn't run on such a platform. "Engagement with the world" and a
"restoration of the pre-Trump era" was his platform. Don't ask me why but this made him
more popular. He was literally the VP in the most interventionist Presidency in US
history.
... People like Giraldi sometimes seem like plants put in place to discredit
anti-interventionism by trying to make it synonymous with anti-semitism.
In the late 1980s, Rannie Amiri, an independent commentator on political affairs, challenged
then-Senator Joe Biden on his stance toward the Israel-Palestine conflict following a campus
speech that Biden gave, asking him:
Rather than succumb to the influence of various lobbying groups in Washington, such as
AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- which promotes the views of Israel's
right-wing Likud Party], and the untold amount of money they use to dictate policy,
wouldn't it be more prudent to examine the real effects that collective punishment, daily
humiliation, and countless civilian casualties inflicted by the Israelis have on an
occupied population, and use that understanding to formulate a more rational approach
toward the Palestinians?
Here is Biden response to that:
At the end of the exchange, Biden turned, put his arm around Amiri's shoulder, and
addressed the audience.
If this was not such a fine, articulate, and sincere young man, and he implied that my
vote had been bought, I would give him a swift kick in the ass.
The audience roared in applause, and Amiri sat back down to his chair defeated.
However, a friend rose up to defend him, telling Biden: "If my father heard you say such a
thing, I believe he would have done the same to you first."
The tribal stupidity of the people who support Israel first is beyond words. Who would
think in the 20th and the 21th century we would be led by primitive thinking of tribal
fantasies from thousands of year ago?
Most of the us in the west did not know that this has been going on for so long since we
have been deluded with the term "free press" to describe our press in the west. We are slowly
waking up to reality with some "freedom" here and there on the internet like this site.
So, Biden has been a major disappointment for those who expected that he might change
course regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts while also having
the good sense and courage to make relations with countries like Iran and Israel responsive
to actual U.S. interests.
You're giving the morons way too much credit, Sir. It's doubtful even 5% of voters know or
care about geopolitics, and probably less than 1% who voted based on fraudsident biden's
foreign policies.
For 5 years it was nonstop Trump-hatred from the ((( lügenpresse ))) even as Trump
did weasel jared's bidding. Stevie Fking Wonder could see the election was rigged.
The USA is kaput, the supreme joke spineless
The ((( Underminers ))) are a c ** t-hair away from total control.
The Free United States must part ways with the devils in DC. Texas, Florida,
Oklahoma, the Dakotas and Montana for starters.
"Oh say, can you see! By Dawn's early light; a pro-dollar trade; that puts the bears to
flight?" Bloomberg Daybreak this morning boldly states "American exceptionalism is back"
(baby). Apparently better-than-expected data and corporate earnings and the prospects of fiscal
stimulus show the USA is still the global standout after all. As a result, bearish USD trades
touted for the first month of the year need to suddenly be unwound: EUR is now back below 1.20,
AUD is clinging to 0.76, and JPY is past 105.50, while as an EM proxy, MXN is back to 20.38 at
time of writing vs. 19.55 on January 21.
... ... ...
President Biden has called on the military in Myanmar to relinquish power after their recent
coup. What happens when they refuse? A signature criticism of the Obama foreign policy team was
its refusal to match US rhetoric (e.g., "pivot to Asia") with any substantive action (e.g., in
the South China Sea or Syria). The new team gave interviews before assuming office saying they
had learned these lessons. So what options with teeth does the US have for the generals in
Naypidaw to back their demand? Sanctions are meaningless for a group who rarely travel abroad
and whom can look to China for support if needed, despite their coolness towards Beijing to
date.
This underlines the need for any top dog (or cat) to build up a pack (or clowder). Here
again we see problems. Many articles have been written about the new US administration's call
for the EU to stand alongside it to create new global frameworks favourable to the West (and by
extension for USD) and not China (and CNY); and about how the EU is not willing to step up to
that plate because of French exceptionalism and German Merkel-cantilism. Macron now says
the EU should not gang up on China with the US : " This kind of common front against China
risks pushing Beijing to lower its cooperation on issues like combatting climate change, and
exacerbating its aggressive behaviour in Asia, including in the South China Sea, " he says. So
will the US response then have to be Trumpian and EUR negative, like last time? If not, then
what exactly?
Of course, the previous administration had been building bridges to India, which has its own
issues with China. However, this relationship is still in its early stages, and India has
traditionally looked to Russia for muscle, a role Moscow would be happy to play again. In that
regard, the White House backing large anti-government protests in New Delhi against an
agricultural reform programme ostensibly to the US's liking, and criticizing the government for
cutting off the internet to try to disrupt them, is unlikely to help build bridges: indeed,
India has already drawn comparisons to the events of 6 January in the US Capitol, showing the
US is not as exceptional as it likes to project it is. These kind of shifts can matter, even if
this is just one small step on a much longer journey (and USD trend channel).
Meanwhile, the Aussie government (which has also never and will never target house prices,
"just land, bricks, mortar, etc.") might be wondering what the US will help do about a report
that
a Chinese company is planning to build a new city on a Papua New Guinea island near Australia's
northern border . 'New Daru City' allegedly includes an industrial zone, seaport, business
and commercial zone, along with a resort and residential area. Will Canberra regard this as a
market-driven response to the well-known Chinese demand for lifestyle residences in the vibrant
cultural hub that is the PNG hinterland, or as a Bond-villain project to develop a port just
200km from their Northern Territory? The PNG Prime Minister himself says he is "unaware" of
this proposal(!) Yes, this may well not come to pass; but one can again see the paving stones
being prepared for alternative paths for currencies like AUD, USD, and CNY (to say nothing of
PNG's Kina) to travel over the course of the 2020s.
Meanwhile, the US can at least rely on the UK, as usual, where yesterday saw regulators ban
China's CGTN TV news service, and the Telegraph also reports that three Chinese spies posing as
journalists have just been expelled from the country. Somehow, along with the whole BNO
passports issue, this is not likely to help ensure the "golden era" of Sino-British relations
promised under previous UK leadership.
But will it ensure a golden era of Bido-BoJo relations? That is another path as yet
untrod.
Happy Friday! "We love it so much, I think you do too."
On January 19th, the US Senate held confirmation hearings for Joe Biden's Secretary of State
nominee Antony Blinken. Blinken has a reputation on both sides of the aisle for being
exceptionally qualified for the job of America's top diplomat, which is surprising considering
he was on the wrong side of every major foreign policy blunder of the last 20 years ;
Iraq, Libya, and Syria .
When Senator Rand Paul
asked Antony Blinken what lessons he has learned from his disastrous foreign policy record
in Libya and Syria, Blinken replied that after "some hard thinking" he's proud that he has done
"everything we possibly can to make sure that diplomacy is the first answer, not the last
answer, and that war and conflict is our last resort."
Of course war is the last resort. Even the most hawkish war criminals would agree that war
is the last resort. But the question is, war is the last resort to accomplish what? If war is
the last resort to get a country to fully capitulate to Washington's demands then eventually
the US will be at war with everyone. To Blinken, war as the last resort can only be understood
in the same way a mugger considers shooting his victim as a last resort to stealing their
wallet.
Blinken displayed his hubris a few minutes later when he said, "The door should remain open"
for Georgia to join NATO under the justification of curbing Russian aggression .
Rand Paul informed Blinken, "This would be adding Georgia, that's occupied [by Russia], to
NATO. Under Article 5, then we would go to war ."
Senator Paul is right. According to Washington, Russia has been
occupying 20 percent of Georgia since 2008. Under the principle of collective defense in
Article 5 of NATO, the US would be obligated to treat Russia's occupation of the country of
Georgia the same way the US would treat a Russian occupation of the US state of Georgia. That
sounds like a recipe for war. But don't worry, peaceniks, Antony Blinken has assured us that
war is the last resort!
Blinken's framing of the issue exposes his disingenuous approach. Russian aggression is a
term used by Washington insiders to describe a Russian reaction to western aggression. Blinken
knows that the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia was not Russian aggression, he calls it that
because it suits his agenda and the American press is dependably ignorant enough to not ask
questions.
In the 2008 war, Georgia
was the aggressor against the South Ossetians, a people who are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and
who have never --
not even for one day -- considered themselves a part of Georgia. The Ossetians have a
history of Russian
partiality ; they were among the first ethnic groups in the region to join the Russian
Empire in the 19th century and the USSR in the 1920s. Today, ethnic Ossetians straddle both
sides of the current Russian border, and they are more aligned with the Russian government than with the
Georgian government.
When Georgia gained sovereignty from the former Soviet Union in 1991, South Ossetia declared
its independence. In response, Georgian forces invaded South Ossetia, initiating an armed
conflict that killed more than
2,000 people . In 1992, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Sochi between Georgia, Russia
and South Ossetia, which created a
tripartite peacekeeping force led by Russia. Although the international community never
acknowledged South Ossetia's independence, they have enjoyed political autonomy since the 1992
Sochi agreement.
The Sochi agreement held up until Georgia's ultra-nationalist President Mikheil Saakashvili
came to power in the 2003 western-backed
bloodless " Rose
Revolution " coup-d'etat. The pro-western President Saakashvili advocated joining the EU
and NATO, and insisted on asserting Georgian rule over South
Ossetia. U.S. President George Bush
supported the new Georgian president's effort to bring Georgia into NATO, which for Russia
would mean bringing a hostile military up to its border. In 2006, President Saakashvili offered
South Ossetia autonomy in exchange for a political settlement with Georgia. A
referendum was held, and the South Ossetian people overwhelmingly reaffirmed their desire for
independence from Georgia.
In August, 2008, After exchanging artillery fire with South Ossetia,
Georgia invaded South Ossetia's capital city of Tskhinvali, killing
1,400 civilians and
18 Russian peacekeepers . Georgia's attack triggered a Russian invasion into South Ossetia
and Abkhazia (another breakaway region) to restore stability and protect peacekeeping
forces.
Russia is by no means innocent -- they used
disproportionate force attacking targets inside Georgia -- but only a Russophobic shill
would conclude that this war was somehow caused by Russian aggression. The idea that Russia had
no business intervening is laughable. Under the
1992 Sochi agreement , Russia took charge of a peacekeeping coalition to help prevent
exactly the scenario that happened in the summer of 2008.
If George Bush had succeeded in bringing Georgia into NATO, the United States may have been
dragged into war with Russia in 2008. Antony Blinken claims that NATO membership deters Russian
aggression, but does he really believe that Russia would have been deterred from intervening to
protect its own peacekeeping force? Does Blinken believe that Georgia -- backed by the U.S.
military -- would have acted more cautiously in South Ossetia, or is it more likely they would
have been bolder?
It's undeniable that it is in Russia's best interest to have pro-Russian countries on its
borders. But pretending as if Russia is going to march into Tbilisi and reabsorb the entire
country of Georgia into Russia is a level of paranoia that should disqualify anyone from having
an opinion on the subject. The military conflict in Georgia is about the two breakaway regions
and their right to self determination. Russia's self interest happens to align with the wishes
of the people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
By supporting Georgia, America -- the champion of democracy and self determination -- has
adopted the position that South Ossetians didn't really mean to repeatedly choose independence
when given the option. This is a situation where America's professed values are diametrically
opposed to its policy of countering Russian influence everywhere on the map.
Antony Blinken should pause to consider if America's policy objectives are worth fighting a
war for. Is it worth confronting Russia in South Ossetia? Was it worth confronting Russia over
Crimea and the Donbas in
Ukraine ? Is it a good idea to withdraw from the INF
Nuclear Treaty and the
Open Skies Treaty ? Should we have spent the last 30 years marching NATO -- a military
alliance hostile to Russia -- right up to the doorsteps of
Russia ? Is any of this really making us safer?
Blinken has bought into his own propaganda. To Blinken, regardless of the stubborn details
of history, every conflict on Russia's border is simply Russian aggression. Washington's
solution is the expansion of NATO, which Russia describes as "
NATO encirclement. " This is an unacceptable military threat to Russia, who has
a deep distrust of western intentions due to a long history of western invasions into Russia.
Antony Blinken still lives in a bipolar world in which the United States and Russia are
existential threats to each other's existence. Every conflict and every alliance is only viewed
through the lens of the New Cold War crusade against Russia. This maniacal crusade could thrust
America in the unthinkable abyss of nuclear war.
Rand Paul got his answer, Antony Blinken learned nothing from all his mistakes! The danger
isn't merely resorting to war too early, the danger is in sticking our noses in conflicts that
we have no business being in. War should be the last resort to defending America's people and
it's homeland from foreign invasion; it should not be the last resort to enforcing America's
utopian vision on the world, and it certainly shouldn't be the last resort to prevent an ethnic
group in the South Caucasus -- that almost no American has ever heard of -- from the right to
self-determination.
Kenny MacDonald is a former Navy SEAL and Afghanistan War veteran. He is currently pursuing
a bachelor's degree in history. Youtube Channel . Medium . Facebook .
Hunter Biden's laptop. The article is by Peter Van Buren, who indeed is not a nutcase.
Anyone here ever / currently a free lance? You'll love these details:
"for example, on September 28, 2018, Hunter ordered $95,000 transferred without
explanation), a "business" run by Jim Biden out of a residential address. Jim regularly
invoiced Hunter for office expenses and employee costs, as well as a monthly retainer cost of
some $68,000, plus other fees in the tens of thousands of dollars."
Sure: My accountant would have been ga-ga for that. Then there's this little tidbit in
which the CPA seems to believe that paying taxes is voluntary:
"The CPA's concern is that the IRS is sensitive to the fact that some try to conceal
income as loans to be written off as expenses later, especially if the amounts are large.
This can trigger an audit. If the loans are "forgiven," then they are income. If not
declared, that is potential fraud. The same note from the CPA indicates Hunter owes $600,000
in personal taxes and another $204,000 for Owasco and urges him to file a return even if he
is not going to pay the taxes."
The most charitable reading of the sleazy saga is that Joe Biden, one of the most powerful
men in the world, is an incredibly gullible idiot. (By
vasilis asvestas / Shutterstock)
Iread the files on Hunter Biden's laptop. They paint a sleazy picture of multi-million
dollar wire transfers, potential money laundering, and possible tax evasion. They raise serious
questions about the judgment and propriety of Jim Biden, the president-elect's brother, and Joe
himself. Call it smoke not fire, but smoke that should not be ignored. The files were supplied
to TAC by a known source previously established to have access.
Joe Biden is lucky a coordinated media effort kept Hunter out of the campaign. The FBI has
had the laptop since 2019, when they subpoenaed
the files in connection with a money laundering investigation. Federal investigators also
served a round of subpoenas on December 8, a month after the election, including one for Hunter
Biden himself. While the legal thrust of the investigation by the federal prosecutor in
Delaware is taxes, the real focus seems to be on Hunter's Chinese connections. This all comes
after the FBI has had over a year to examine some of the same files TAC looked at.
In the final weeks before the election, Hunter's laptop fell into Republican hands. The
story went public in the New York Post , revealing that Hunter Biden introduced his
father, then vice president, to a top executive at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma less than a
year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor
who was investigating the company. The meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that
Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, sent Hunter Biden about a year after
Hunter himself joined the Burisma board at a salary of $ 83,000
a month with no obvious work duties past making such introductions.
Nice work if you can get it, and to get it your dad better be vice president. If all that
alone does not meet the test of impropriety, we need a new test. Hunter Biden's value to
clients was his perceived access to the White House. His father Joe was at least a passive
participant in the scheme, maybe more than that.
The problem was many Americans never heard this story. Twitter led a social media charge to
not allow the information online. After years of salivating over every bit of Trump family
gossip, the mainstream media claimed the Biden story did not matter, or was Russian disinfo .
Surveys suggest the information could have swung the election if voters had known about it. One
survey showed
that enough people in battleground states would have changed their votes to give Trump 311
electoral votes and reelection.
No mind, really. As soon as it became clear Joe Biden was going to win, the media on all
sides lost interest in the laptop. The story became about the story. It devolved into think
pieces about the Orwellian role of social media and some online giggling about the sex tapes on
the laptop. But our short attention spans have consequences. The laptop still has a lot to tell
us.
00:11 / 01:00 Next Video First Panel, TAC's 7th
Annual Foreign Policy Conference What Does 2020 Mean For Foreign Policy Cancel Autoplay is
paused
Hunter's laptop was chock-a-block with video that appears to show Hunter smoking crack while
engaged in a sex act with a woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images. There's
evidence there that Hunter spent money on
escorts , some
$21,000 on cam sites, big plays on all sorts of
depravities . There is also Joe's car insurance information, Hunter's SSN, pages of call
logs, and lots of email addresses, bank account numbers, and personal information of prominent
people. None of the material is encrypted, just dumped on a standard MacBook Pro using the
password "Hunter02." The machine was regularly connected to the internet and might as well have
had an electronic sign on it saying "My dad is important, here's what you'll need to blackmail
me and others to get to him."
But there is more. The laptop shows Hunter, through a number of front companies, accepted
money from Chinese and Ukrainian entities and moved that money to the U.S. where it was
parceled out to other entities, including Joe Biden's brother. Some of it then went back to
Chinese hands. There is no way a simple read-through can tell if the money was legal consulting
fees or illegal money laundering and tax fraud. But it all smells bad: multi-million dollar
transfers to LLCs without employees, residences used as multiple business addresses, legal
tricks from Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, and even a minor CIA connection.
Ask yourself if this demands more investigation. Ask yourself if voters might not have
benefited from knowing more about Joe Biden's side of all this.
The majority of the contents of the laptop are a jumbled record of Hunter's international
business ventures and financial records. Outstanding in the haystack are a large number of wire
transfers. Those with traceable addresses appear to be mostly anonymous shell companies run out
of lawyers' offices, with no employees and fuzzy public paper trails. One off the top involved
$259,845 traveling on April 2, 2018, from the Hudson West III in New York to a numbered account
held by Cathay Bank. Hudson West was created by Hunter Biden's own law firm, Owasco, with
several Chinese nationals, including a Ye Jianming associate, Gong Wendong. Ye Jianming is
chairman of CEFC China Energy, who reportedly
had close ties to both the Chinese government and the People's Liberation Army. He's been
arrested in China on corruption charges and has conveniently disappeared.
Biden in August 2018 also returned $100,000 back to CEFC in China via its own New York
subsidiary LLC, Hudson West V, whose listed address is 12 Foxwood Road, Great Neck, NY 11024.
That address is not a business office but instead a single family home worth over $6 million.
Phone records
suggest two people live there, including Gong Wendong. Money appears to move from physical
China to virtual Hunter back to virtual China in the U.S., starting and ending in accounts tied
to Gong Wendong after touching base with Hunter, a potential indicator of laundering. Chinese
money in China changed into Chinese money in America. Caution is needed; while what looks like
money laundering at first glance may indeed be so, it may be designed to hide the cash from the
Chinese government while staying inside American law, a quasi-legal service Hunter possibly
supplied.
That 12 Foxwood address shows up again on Biden's laptop as the mailing address for another
Gong Wendong venture, ColdHarbour Capital, which sent and received money to Biden. It is also
listed as the residence of Shan Gao, who appears to control accounts in Beijing tied to Hudson,
CEFC, and 12 Foxwood.
The most significant appearance of 12 Foxwood was as the mailing address for a secured VISA
card in the name of Biden's company, Hudson West III. The card is funded by someone unnamed
through Cathay Bank for $99,000 and guaranteed by someone's checking account held by Cathay
worth $450,000. Shared users of the card are Hunter and Gong Wendong. The card was opened as
CEFC secured a stake in a Russian state-owned energy company. Biden and others subsequently
used the credit card to purchase $101,291.46 worth of extravagant items, including airline
tickets and multiple items at Apple stores, pharmacies, hotels, and restaurants. A Senate
report
characterized these transactions as "potential financial criminal activity." Putting money on a
secured VISA card in lieu of a direct wire transfer to Biden may be seen by some as an attempt
to hide the source of the money and thus allow Biden not to claim it as income.
James Biden and Sara Biden were also authorized users of the credit card, though their
business connection to Hunter and Gong Wendong is unclear. Jim is Joe's brother, Sara his wife.
Jim over the years has been a nightclub owner, insurance broker, political consultant, and
investor. When he ran into financial
trouble having triple mortgaged his home, he was bailed out via loans from Joe and Hunter and
by a series of Joe's donors. Jim also received a loan of $500,000
from John Hynansky, a Ukrainian-American businessman and longtime donor to Joe Biden's
campaigns. This all was in 2015, at the same time the then-vice president oversaw U.S. policy
toward the country. As a senator, Joe Biden made use of a private jet owned by Hynansky's
son.
The 12 Foxwood address also appears on millions of dollars worth of bank transfers among
Cathay Bank, CEFC, and multiple semi-anonymous LLCs and hedge funds. One single transfer to
Hudson West III on August 8, 2017, represented the movement of $5 million from Northern Capital
International, which appears to be a
Chinese government-owned import-export front company.
Switch over to the CDB Bank folder and you see a wire transfer from Burisma for 36,000
euros, run through a bank in Cyprus, to Biden's own account on that island. Burisma is the one
company from the laptop that made the news. Hunter's role, what he actually did besides
introduce his father to other people, is still unclear.
Burisma must be an interesting place. Hunter's laptop partially exposes a complex web of
sub-companies in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands such that figuring out who owns who is
near impossible. Hunter, speaking to his business partner, speculates about buying a Lithuanian
bank to receive the Ukrainian money, and he also notes that Joseph Cofer Black , former director
of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, sits on Burisma's board. Black previously served as vice
chairman at mercenary provider Blackwater Worldwide (now Academi).
All just business, right? Not everyone saw it that way. An email from Wells Fargo's
corporate compliance team (Wells Fargo handled many of the international wire transfers) asks
on September 20, 2018, what the actual business of Hudson West is, who its owners are, and
where it is located. Also asked is what the purpose of all the incoming wires is. It notes some
business accounts appear to be for personal expenses. It also questions numerous outgoing wires
to the Lion Hall Group (for example, on September 28, 2018, Hunter ordered $95,000 transferred
without explanation), a "business" run by Jim Biden out of a residential address. Jim regularly
invoiced Hunter for office expenses and employee costs, as well as a monthly retainer cost of
some $68,000, plus other fees in the tens of thousands of dollars.
There is no record of these questions being answered. It is possible to see the disbursal of
funds via credit card to Jim Biden as a way to diffuse the amounts away from Hunter, and via
Jim's invoices, a way to convert income from China into deductible business expenses for Hunter
in America, reducing his tax burden. The involvement of Lion Hall and Jim Biden also spreads
the money around, lowering its profile. If the invoices were shown to be fraudulent (i.e., Jim
did not actually consult for Hunter), the potential for tax fraud exists.
Besides Wells Fargo, others also had questions. Hunter's own CPA, preparing to file 2018
federal taxes, wrote to Hunter asking, "As far as Owasco [Hunter's law firm] is concerned there
were some receipts we classified as loans. Owasco received approximately $550,000 from Burisma
and paid about one half this amount to, I believe, someone named 'Devon.' I am not sure of the
payee The one half payment to 'Devon' was not recorded as income."
Devon is likely Devon Archer , co-founder and managing partner
of Rosemont Capital alongside Hunter. Who else was part of Rosemont? Christopher
Heinz , John Kerry's son. And, small world, Devon Archer sat on the board of Burisma
alongside
Hunter Biden. The CPA's concern is that the IRS is sensitive to the fact that some try to
conceal income as loans to be written off as expenses later, especially if the amounts are
large. This can trigger an audit. If the loans are "forgiven," then they are income. If not
declared, that is potential fraud.
The same note from the CPA indicates Hunter owes $600,000 in personal taxes and another
$204,000 for Owasco and urges him to file a return even if he is not going to pay the taxes.
Besides taxes, things did not always go well for Hunter. On March 6, 2019, he sent an email to
a friend saying, "Buddy do you have a cash app to send me $100 until wire goes. I have no money
for gas and I'm literally stuck at a rest stop on 95." He earlier had sought a $35,000 advance
from his regular "draw" out of Owasco. And keep an eye on Hunter's health -- he pays close to
$9,000 a quarter for life insurance.
Joe Biden is one lucky S.O.B. When the powers that be decided Barack Obama needed someone a
little more, you know, establishment, as his VP to calm voters, there was Joe, as white-bread
as the state he represented, vaulted into the White House that had otherwise eluded him. His
only controversial points came from having supported the status quo for so many years that it
had changed underneath him. Are we tough on crime, or do Black Lives Matter? Didn't matter to
Joe, just point him in the right direction so he knows what to agree with. And so in 2020, when
the Democrats realized exactly what kind of man they needed to wipe away the sins of two
dishonest and chaotic primaries, well, there was Joe again.
Joe was fortunate that the mainstream media memory-holed Hunter's story and conservative
media lost focus looking for a tweetable smoking gun when the truth was a bit too complicated
to parse out in a sentence or two. But there is still a story here.
The short version is there's a lot to suggest money laundering and tax fraud on Hunter's
part. The purpose of the money in and out was always unclear, with invoices for vague expenses
and lots and lots of "consulting." One could invent a legal explanation for everything. One
could imagine many illegal explanations. There is no way anyone could know the difference
without seeing Hunter's taxes, asking him questions, and doing some serious forensic
accounting. It is unlikely any of that will happen now that the election is over. Even to
Guiliani et al., it really doesn't matter any more. They took one shot, missed, and walked
away.
That will leave undigested the bigger tale of president-elect Biden, who ran in part on an
anti-corruption platform following the Trump family escapades. While Joe Biden no doubt regrets
what appears to have been a one-off meeting with the Burisma official, he did indeed take the
meeting as VP. It's always easier to apologize when caught than seek permission in advance in
Joe's world.
A 2017 email chain involving Hunter brokering an ultimately failed deal for a new venture
with old friend CEFC, the Chinese energy company, described a 10 percent set-aside for the "big
guy," whom former Hunter Biden partner Tony Bobulinski publicly identified as Joe Biden
. Joe also took Hunter to China with him on Air Force Two and met with Chinese leaders while
Hunter tried to make deals on his own. Joe also had Hunter and partner Devon Archer to the
White House only two days before they joined Burisma. It was Joe's donors and pals who bailed
out brother Jim over the years with sweetheart loans.
A lot of appearance of improprietous malarkey from a senior statesman who knows better. In
places like China and the Ukraine, where corruption is endemic, it is assumed the sons of rich
and powerful men have access to their father and that access is for sale. Hunter Biden traded
on those assumptions for millions of dollars, and Joe stood by understanding what was
happening. Every father wants to help his son, and Hunter, one can imagine, went to his dad
time after time pleading for just one more little favor to get him clear of his sordid past.
Joe, a decent man at heart, likely nodded. So a meeting. A handshake. An office visit, a posed
photo, whatever would help but was still plausibly deniable. Until the next time. Just one
more, Dad. Please?
Joe's larger role in all things Hunter needs to be questioned. Joe, as well as the Obama
State Department, knew about
Hunter's antics. Joe pretended Hunter's financial windfalls had nothing to do with their
relationship and were simply a constant series of coincidental lucky breaks for a ne'er-do-well
son who happened to fail upward while his dad was VP. Joe says he and his son never talked
about business. Maybe Joe assumed Hunter's Porsche was just a lucky find (his car payments are
on the laptop).
While, of course, Hunter is an adult with his own mind, his father was one of the most
powerful men in the world and yet apparently did nothing to stop what was going on among
Hunter, his brother Jim, the Chinese, the Ukrainians, and himself -- at minimum, the gross
appearance of impropriety over a period of years. Biden's defense has always been sweeping :
"My son did nothing wrong." That alone raises questions of judgment on the part of Joe Biden.
Not least because in a few weeks he becomes president of the United States. And if the
president does it, it's not illegal, right?
Maybe you can offer information that contradicts the assertions and alleged facts in
this article? Please make the effort to enlighten the rest of us. It'll force you to
seriously read the article and learn its contents in order to refute them. If you can't do
that then you haven't the courage to try and support your own assertions. It's hard to face
the possibility that you're wrong, but if you build a case maybe you'll actually change a
few minds here and there. As things stand right now you seem guilty to me of being "just
deluded enough to (not) believe it (the article) because it's what you want to (not)
believe."
That's exactly how I would have felt if Trump's kids had a strong appearance of selling
their father's influence for tens of millions of dollars! And if the Trump kids business
partners turned on them and gave testimony under oath to the FBI about it, and volumes of
documentary evidence supported it!
Nothingburger! I'm sure you and the media would have agreed with how I felt, and
completely ignored Trump corruption before the election. 'Cause that's the fair and
balanced media we all enjoy!
Silly vet. Trump's kids HAVE A STRONG APPEARANCE OF SELLING THEIR FATHER'S
INFLUENCE.
Have you been living under a rock? Why did Ivanka get several Chinese patents AT THE
SAME TIME Daddy was letting a Chinese company off the hook and hosting the Chinese leader
at Mar-A-Lago? Why is Jared Kushner jetting off to ME countries looking for investment
money while an active advisor in the West Wing? Why are Beavis and Butthead (Don Jr and
Eric) looking for foreign properties while Daddy is president?
Trump's children were actively involved in international business concerns long before
Trump ran for office. Hunter Biden is a low-life crack head who never achieved anything
until his daddy was VP. If you can't acknowledge the difference, you are incapable of
reason.
@Joe_Hubris Quite right, we all heard that donkey jr met with the Russians at Trump
Tower. There was ample evidence, before he let it out himself. But that wasn't exactly
conducting business, that was trying to steal an election.
Honest, Ivanka seems rather smart. Of course, Midlle Eastern money into Jared's businesses
will dry up, still, they'll save the furniture.
But, as soon as they are given the chance, Beavis and Butthead will do their best to blow
Trump Inc to smithereens and burn all that remains of it to the ground.
Oh, Hunter was in on the grift long before Joe became VP. He was brought into MBNA's
"Executive Training" program and made a member of the Board of AMTRAC while his daddy was
in the Senate.
I'm awake. Whenever there have been allegations of corruption against Trump's family,
I've tried to track the facts down (same as I've done with Biden, and before either of them
other candidates/Presidents).
There is one difference. My perception of major media the past four years is that with
Democrats, they've worked to minimize the damage on any story harmful to the left (Hunters'
laptop and Tara Reades' allegations of rape being prime examples), while any story
involving Trump they've exaggerated, left important facts out of their coverage, or
outright lied. So I believe that if there was any real corruption involving Trump, the MSM
would have covered it endlessly, just like they did with the bogus allegations of Trump
collaborating with the Russians to steal the election, and many other examples.
I'm not hiding from facts involving Trump family corruption. I just haven't seen
anything supporting it yet. I don't know if Jared Kushner was soliciting investment money
in the ME; that has been rumor and innuendo by his political enemies with no factual basis
so far. Ivanka having a fashion line and protecting it globally seems normal to me (China
is a huge market - bigger than the U.S.). Don Jr. and Eric seem like they're doing the same
things they were doing before DJT sought office, which is managing a normal business.
Everything about Hunter and Joe's brothers' business activities seem incredibly
suspicious to me, on the other hand.
Right! For example, I'm sure that Ivanka Trump got all of those lucrative licensing
deals in China SOLELY because of her amazing financial and business acumen!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Well,cwe know "covid"Joe isn't shy about doing business with them,bright? He said he had
more time with Chinese leaders than any modern president. And, using those chinese
connections,he had a virus made, and crazy Nancy Pelosi helped him spread it on her end of
the country. They used the impeachment, then the antics of the democratic socialists kicked
in, with Nancy calling him fat. And, when he tried to restrict flights from china, they
called him xenophobic and racist. Then distracted him more by inviting people to Chinese
new year! Before the virus, Trump was unstoppable. With ultra low unemployment rates, and
factories going strong, not to mention the legislation"Alzheimer's" Joe got going, causing
at least one man twenty years in prison for stealing a shovel! No one really considered
Biden to be a serious rival to trump then once they got the virus going, they used the
lowering of the presidents ratings and the virtual emptying of every other candidates, plus
the virus allowed them to get that mail in voting going, which is easier to tamper with
than electronic voting machines. Did you notice,with all the super sick people,we had the
highest turnout in history? Before you say it can't be true, another nugget to chew:right
before the election, about 90% of the bad things"Dirty" Joe did just know kinda "vanished
from social media!! We all know, if it shows up there, it never goes away, right? Wrong
when the democratic socialists control them...so in honoring Joe's greatest accomplishment,
I give to you....the JOVID virus...it's kinda...catchy, eh?but we need to shout out loud,
so he can hear, that everyone knows what he did last year! JOVID! JOVID! Put your hands in
the air like you just don't care and, with half the country hating this Biden clown we
should be as loud as Metallica in a phone booth!! Don't let them get away with it!!!!
Unlike Joe Biden's grifting clan, Trump's offspring had successful enterprises well
before their father entered into politics. And yes, in China and a number of international
countries also. Like their father, and unlike the Biden's, the Trump family didn't strike
it rich from political office. In fact, President Trump donated his entire presidential
salary of $400k/yr to charities all four years. Imagine Joe Biden doing that.
It is a sad state we find ourselves in today. Democrats whine about "white privilege"
against people who had nothing to do with slavery and in fact lost ancestors fighting it.
Meanwhile in a more real and present instance of privilege at the expense of other humans,
current vaccinations against Covid19 were developed using cell lines derived from aborted
human children. To my knowledge not a single vaccine is being offered that does not rest on
this heinous recipe.
6 Warning Signs from Biden's First Week in Office The "progressive" candidate praised as
a "woke bloke" seems to be carrying on where all his authoritarian Imperialist predecessors
left off Kit Knightly
What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the
recently "elected" administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.
1. VACCINATION
PASSPORTS
I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity
passes or the like) was just a "conspiracy theory", the paranoid fantasy of fringe "covidiots".
All the way back in December, when they were
getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can't do basic maths .
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law,
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
(including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant
international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic
versions of ICVPs.
2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS
Biden's cabinet is praised as the "most diverse" in history, but will hiring a few non-white
people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn't look like
it.
His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland , a neocon warmonger and
one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan , another neocon
warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the
Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken , is also an inveterate US
Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria.
Biden's pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this
role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of "progressive" voice int
his cabinet. He's a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the
board of Raytheon Technologies , an arms manufacturer and military contractor.
As "diverse" as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender there is most certainly no
"diversity" of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.
So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that's
already been displayed in
3. IRAQ
Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the
war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump's
more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse
that decision.
The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to
take its military off their soil , so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically
there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them
before.
4. AFGHANISTAN
Turns out the US can't withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal
with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.
Joe Biden has already committed to "reviewing"
this deal . Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden's admin wanted:
to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any
resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place".
As a great man once
said , nothing someone says before the word "but" really counts. The US will not be
withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will
simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist
attacks.
5. AND SYRIA
Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden's "diverse" team
will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.
Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United
States,
unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.
We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the
President , telling Trump they had followed his orders but not withdrawing a single man.
This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a
joke in the media when it was finally revealed.
There will be no need for any such duplicity now Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a
vocal critic of the decision to withdraw , claiming it gave ISIS a "new lease of life".
Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was
seen entering Syria from Iraq
.
6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM
We called this before the
inauguration . They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned
from Nancy Pelosi's desk it was clear where it was all going.
Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down
approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a
bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for
algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.
That last part is key. The "crack down on social media" part, because the anti-Domestic
Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called
"misinformation".
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to
"rein in" the media :
We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just
spew disinformation and misinformation,"
And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John
Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:
They're casting a wide net. Expect "extremist", "bigot" and "racist" to be just a few of the
words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. "Conspiracy theorist"
will be used a lot, too.
Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the "anyone who disagrees with us is
literally insane" model. With many articles actually talking about "de-programming" Trump
voters. The Atlantic suggests "mental
hygiene" would cure the MAGA problem.
Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming
that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that "de-radicalise" "conspiracy
theorists" who are on the "spectrum
of radicalisation" .
*
As I said at the beginning, it's been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his
biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent
and strict clampdowns on "misinformation".
Blinken does not seem to have repented from his fundamentalist belief in American
imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
Barring an earthquake in Washington, Antony Blinken is set to become the new U.S. Secretary
of State and America's top diplomat. The youthful and telegenic Blinken (58) takes over from
Mike Pompeo who was America's representative to the world under the last Trump
administration.
The contrast could not be more stark. In place of Pompeo's thuggish, rough-edged style,
Blinken has the appearance of consummate diplomat. He's fluent in French owing to a European
education, he's urbane and sophisticated and comes from a family which has diplomacy in its
genes. His father was an ambassador to Hungary and an advisor to President John F Kennedy. An
uncle was ambassador to Belgium.
Blinken has Hungarian and Russian Jewish ancestry. His mother remarried a Polish-American
Jewish survivor of the Nazi holocaust. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate this week,
Blinken
told the story of how his stepfather escaped from a Nazi death march in Bavaria and was
eventually rescued by an American tank driven by an African-American officer.
That story has shaped Blinken's worldview of America's prestige and international role. He's
a proponent of U.S. military interventionism with a presumption of moral duty. He's an advocate
of America working with European allies and upholding the transatlantic alliance – in
contrast to Trump's boorish America First sloganeering. Understandably, Blinken is imbued with
an unshakable belief in "American exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny" as a world leader.
The Senators at his confirmation hearing this week
swooned as Blinken spoke. He's certain to be confirmed as the new Secretary of State in the
coming days. That's because he is seen to be perfect for the task of restoring America's
international image which has been so badly tarnished under Trump and his grumpy gofer Pompeo.
The Europeans will lap up Blinken and his transatlantic romanticism.
Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with "humility and
confidence", which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this "quiet
American" is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the "world's policeman".
If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national security
advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken rose to become
deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama administration. In those roles
he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which turned out to be utterly
disastrous.
He was a big proponent of U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the
toppling and murder of Muammar Gaddafi. That intervention along with other NATO powers has left
a ruinous legacy not only for Libya but for North Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe.
Blinken was also a point-man in Obama's intervention in Syria where the U.S. (and other NATO
powers) supplied weapons to anti-government militants. The so-called "rebels" were in fact
myriad terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamists. Up to half a
million people have been killed in the decade-long Syrian war and much of that blood is on
America's hands from its de facto support for terror gangs. Maybe Blinken genuinely thought he
was supporting "pro-democracy rebels". But even if we give him the benefit of doubt, the upshot
is still a disaster of American interventionism.
Another catastrophic consequence of Blinken's policymaking is Yemen. Under his direction,
the Obama administration backed the Saudi war on its southern neighbor beginning in March 2015
and continuing to this day. Yemen has become the worst humanitarian crisis in the world with
millions facing starvation amid Saudi aerial bombardment carried out with U.S. warplanes and
logistics.
The new Biden administration has indicated it will withdraw military support for Saudi
Arabia in its war on Yemen. But that doesn't absolve the U.S., and Blinken in particular, for
having created the horrendous quagmire from which it is belatedly trying to extricate itself
from.
What's rather perplexing, however, is that Blinken does not seem to have repented from his
fundamentalist belief in American imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
During his Senate hearings, he
showed little regret about America's illegal bombing of Libya and its arming of jihadists
in Syria.
He described the world with the conventional brainwashed American ideology as being a place
where China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are enemies that must be confronted. He also
told Senators he was in favor of increasing supplies of lethal weaponry to the Ukraine and
its rabidly anti-Russian regime in Kiev. Recall that it was the Obama administration which
instigated a coup d'état in Kiev against an elected president in February 2014. The new
regime was and is dominated by far-right nationalists who laud past links to Nazi Germany. If
Blinken has his way the war against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine will escalate and could
ignite a bigger confrontation between Russia and the U.S.
One of the hallmarks of the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev is its espousal of Neo-Nazi
traditions and in particular antisemitic hatred.
Given Antony Blinken's own Jewish ancestry and his own intimate connection to the Nazi
holocaust, you do have to question his competence if he becomes America's foreign policy
leader. His boss President Joe Biden has fondly lionized Blinken as a "superstar" of diplomacy.
Superficially perhaps, he has finesse and intelligence. But in much the same basic way of
adhering to American imperialism, Blinken is as crude and thuggish as his predecessor Pompeo.
He just projects a more plausible look and sound, which is most desirable as a moral cover for
America's criminal imperialism.
Blinken is
known to self-deprecate his "insatiable habit" for making up bad puns. For example, on one
occasion when he was addressing an audience on policy regarding the Arctic, he began by joking
he would be "breaking the ice". Given his ability to pursue destructive dead-end policies, he
might therefore appreciate the moniker "Secretary of State Tony Blinkered".
In a matter of hours, Biden's key national security people -- Antony Blinken as secretary of
state, Avril Haines as director of national intelligence, and Lloyd Austin as defense secretary
-- gave us a remarkably fulsome idea of what we are in for these next four years.
Haines and Austin, neither of whose records are to be admired, are at bottom functionaries
who were nominated and swiftly confirmed because they do what they are told and do not think
too much -- always a career-advancer in Washington.
It is instead Blinken, who is said to enjoy some kind of
"mind-meld" with Biden, that we must consider carefully. (Such a meld must be odd
terrain.)
Blinken's Senate
testimony last Tuesday sprawled over four hours. It is best to scrutinize his remarks while
seated in a chair with sturdy armrests, ideally to calm one's nerves with a pot of chamomile
tea.
Seen or read as a whole, those four hours gave us an extraordinary display of how empire
works and how it prolongs itself. One by one, Blinken's senatorial interlocutors told him in so
many words, "Son, this is what you need to say if you want our confirmation. We want you to
endorse our commitment to aggression, to unlawful interventions, to 'regime change' ops, to
merciless sanctions, and altogether to the empire. But you must make it look nice. Make it look
thoughtful and complicated and considered."
July 14, 2016: Vice President Joe Biden, right, and Deputy Secretary of State Antony
Blinken. (Air Force, Christopher Hubenthal)
I am convinced, having endured the entire C–Span recording, that what I watched was
sheer ritual. Blinken won the Senate's support and now succeeds the shockingly bovine Mike
Pompeo at State. He will do so, however, with the élan and faux sophistication
our nakedly bankrupt foreign policy now requires if the American pantomime is to be sustained
another four years.
Among Blinken's many rather sad-to-witness "Yes sirs," two standout: his finely chiseled
endorsement of Pompeo's reckless assassination a year ago of Qassem Soleimani, Iran's revered
military commander ("Taking him out was the right thing to do"), and his approval of the Trump
administration's decision to send lethal arms to the manically corrupt regime in Kiev
("Senator, I support providing that lethal defensive assistance to Ukraine," when the Obama
administration, from which he comes, did not.)
Late last year, Blinken
appeared on "Intelligence Matters," the podcast run by Michael Morrell, the coup-mongering
former deputy director at the Central Intelligence Agency and now -- of course -- a regular
commentator on the televisions news networks. In their exchange, the two took up the question
of our "forever wars" and Biden's well-advertised commitment to ending them. Here is a snippet
from Blinken's remarks:
"As for ending the forever wars, large-scale deployment of large, standing U.S. forces in
conflict zones with no clear strategy should and will end under his [Biden's] watch. But we
also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless wars with large-scale,
open-ended deployment of U.S. forces with [sic], for example, discreet, small-scale
sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces to support local actors. In ending the
endless wars we have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brushstroke."
This is what we are in for these coming years, the hyper-rational irrationality of the
middling technocrat. There will be adjustments at the margin, reconsiderations of method. There
will be no consideration whatsoever of America's hegemonic objectives -- of the imperial
project.
Blinken's testimony reflected these bitter truths start to finish.
Changes to the Iran Deal
July 14, 2015: President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, announcing the signing
of the Iran-nuclear agreement. (White House)
Of the various questions the new secretary of state took up during his confirmation
hearings, Iran is the most pressing. Senator Bob Menendez, Blinken's interlocutor in this case,
insisted that yes, the U.S. wants to rejoin the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs,
but only if this includes prohibitions against Tehran's "destabilizing activities" and a
missile program that Iran justly considers essential to its security.
An honest, clear-eyed diplomat who wanted to get somewhere with Tehran would have rejected
the very frame of Menendez's line of inquiry, with its references to "support for terrorism"
and "funding and feeding its proxies." But Blinken read his cues and tucked right in:
"The president-elect believes that if Iran comes back into compliance we would, too, but
we would use that as a platform to seek a longer, stronger agreement and also, as you have
pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and Iran's
destabilizing activities. This would be the objective."
This is sheer charade. Blinken knows as well as anyone else that the added conditions the
Biden regime will require before rejoining the agreement -- an end to Iran's ballistic missile
programs and its support for the Syrian government against Islamists and the illegal U.S.
incursion -- effectively cancel all chances that the U.S. will rejoin the accord.
I
predicted in this space shortly after Biden was elected that he and his foreign policy
people only pretended to be serious about reviving the nuclear agreement with Iran. Blinken's
testimony confirms this.
Over the weekend The Times of Israel , citing Channel 12 television,
reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sending Yossi Cohen, chief of Mossad and
a close confidant, to Washington to "set out terms" for any revival of the nuclear deal. Israel
purports to "set out terms," and Biden will receive this spook? This is getting completely
unserious. Completely.
On China, Russia, and Venezuela: Blinken was putty in the hands of the Foreign Relations
Committee's across-the-board hawks. A two-fronted new Cold War across both oceans -- Sinophobia
and Russophobia all at once -- is to be our reality these next four years.
Over the weekend, to be noted, the American Embassy in Moscow had the gall to broadcast
routes protesters could take to demonstrations in various Russian cities to dispute Alexei
Navlany's arrest . A good start.
Marco Rubio, the coup-loving senator from Florida, wanted to know if Blinken thought the
U.S. should continue backing Juan Guaidó, the buffoon Rubio and Pompeo puffed up as
Venezuela's "interim leader" as part of a failed coup operation a couple of years ago.
Blinken:
"I very much agree with you, senator, first of all with regard to a number of the steps
that were taken toward Venezuela in recent years, including recognizing Mr. Guaidó and
seeking to increase pressure on the regime . We need an effective policy that can restore
Venezuela to democracy, and how can we best advance that ball? Maybe we need to look at how
we more effectively target the sanctions that we have ."
Grim, grim times lie ahead if Blinken runs State as he promised the Senate he would.
There are those among us who look for shafts of light. People I greatly respect (some,
anyway) thought it was good news when Biden named William Burns, a career foreign service
officer, to head the CIA. At last diplomacy, not unlawful interventions!
Over the weekend, there were reports
that Biden will review -- not more at this point -- the designation of Yemen's Houthis as
terrorists, a label Pompeo affixed as he emptied his desk last week. Finally, we will stop
supporting the Saudis' savagery!
People believe what they need to believe these days, I find, and belief overrides cognition
in many such cases. I caution these people. At bottom Blinken demonstrated for us that no one
who purports to alter our imperial course will ever be allowed to hold high office. For people
such as Blinken, it is merely a question of wielding influence without having any.
This is where Americans live -- in a crumbled republic no longer capable of changing.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
John Allen aka Ol' Hippy , January 26, 2021 at 12:16
I'm 66, almost 67, and will, most likely, never see any real peace from the US government.
A big portion of the economy is based on imperialist actions and the manufacture of conflicts
around the globe mainly to keeps the arms makers in business. Or simply, war. And no, there
is no nation willing to risk the wrath of the US government by trying to halt this insane
posture of aggression, it's just too big and has a momentum all its own. Biden will continue
unabated this absurd, insanely expensive machine to its eventual implosion in the near
future. All the parts of the fall of the economy are in place, all that's needed is some ill
defined tipping point to be crossed. Perhaps, a war with Iran?
"Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with 'humility and
confidence', which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this 'quiet
American' is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the 'world's policeman'.
"If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
"Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national
security advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken
rose to become deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama
administration. In those roles he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which
turned out to be utterly disastrous."
The once upon a time manufactured aura of Virtue projected by the Outlaw US Empire that
was swallowed by so many naïve nations has vanished with nothing other than its stark
ugliness as a replacement. Refusal to see that reality is what Xi just referred to again as
"arrogance" which puts Blinken into the same ideological camp as Pompeo. As Global Times notes
, if the Outlaw US Empire's attitude's not going to change, than why should China's as
Pompeo's constant lying is replaced by Psaki's:
"When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question Monday about US-China
relations, she said that 'China is growing more authoritarian at home and more assertive
abroad,' adding that China 'is engaged in conduct that hurts American workers, blunts [US]
technological edge, and threatens [US] alliances and [US] influence in international
organizations.' She also noted that Washington is 'starting from an approach of patience as
it relates to [its] relationship with China.'"
The editor's response to such inanity:
"Psaki's statement shows that the Biden administration's view and characterization of
China is virtually identical to those of the Trump administration. Psaki stressed that 'We're
in a serious competition with China. Strategic competition with China is a defining feature
of the 21st century,' reflecting that the Biden administration only cares about a "new
approach" to holding China accountable."
And Psaki's words are the same as Blinken's, which were the same as Pompeo's and Trump's.
In other words, the hole digging by the Outlaw US Empire in its relations with the rest of
the world will continue, which will cause further deterioration of its domestic Great
Depression 2.0. Yesterday I posted a comment that highlighted Putin's expounding on the
further enhancement of the educational component of Russia's Social Contract that is
impossible for Navalny's backers to match. On the previous thread, a good comparison was made
between the Yeltsin years and the ongoing drowning of the Outlaw US Empire. The Reset that's
in the works isn't the one envisioned by Global Neoliberals like Klaus Schwab of the
WEF/Davos crew. It's what Xi spoke of yesterday that I commented upon and Escobar reported on
today. The Winds of Change are blowing again, but there's a gaping hole in the USA's wind
sock so it can't see in which direction it's blowing.
blinken is bad news.. i think that is very obvious from a superficial read on him.. the usa
can't get out of the ditch it has made for itself.. nothing is gonna change...
'liberal interventionism' has always been the hallmark of the US Liberal Class and its
foreign policy Establishment, especially since at least Wilson's jumping into WWI.
Has the US ever not intervened in Latin America whenever it felt like it or thought its
"interests" were at stake?
I think Caitlan J. has a good grasp on what to expect from the Biden war mongering crowd
that has recently moved into DC once again:
"....Trump's base has been forcefully pushing the narrative that the previous president
didn't start any new wars, which while technically true ignores his murderous actions like
vetoing the bill to save Yemen from U.S.-backed genocide and actively blocking aid to its
people, murdering untold tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, rolling
out many world-threatening Cold War escalations against Russia, engaging in insane
brinkmanship with Iran, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the
previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians, and reducing military
accountability for those airstrikes....
....Rather than a throwback to "new wars" and the old-school ground invasions of the Bush
era, the warmongering we'll be seeing from the Biden administration is more likely to look
like this. More starvation sanctions. More proxy conflicts. More cold war. More coups. More
special ops. More drone strikes. More slow motion strangulation, less ham-fisted overt
warfare...."
---
Simply put, more small scale wars/ops mostly by proxy, more support for local wankers
(like Guaido in Venezuela, who has incredibly little popular support), and more of these
killing sanctions, which are especially pernicious to the civilian populations in vulnerable
countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Venezuela, etc.
"... Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported , Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very fortunate to have them in public service." ..."
"... We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone. ..."
"... Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves on the wrong end of a noose or a knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by Washington. ..."
"... Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ." ..."
While the saccharine continues to ooze from the mainstream media for the incoming Biden
Administration, the real iron fist of what will be the Biden foreign policy is starting to
materialize. As if on cue, major bombings in Baghdad – by ISIS remember them? –
have
opened the door for the Biden Administration to not only cancel President Trump's troop
drawdown from Iraq but to actually begin sending troops back into Iraq.
Is this to be Iraq War 4.0? 3.7? 5.0? Anybody's guess.
If Biden uses this sudden – and convenient – unrest in Iraq as a trigger to
return US troops (and bombs), it should not surprise anyone. As Professor Barbara Ransby points
out in this video , Biden did much
more to make the disastrous 2003 attack on Iraq happen than just vote "yes" on the
authorization to use force. As Professor Ransby reminds us, Biden used the full power of his
position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure the Senate approved
George W. Bush's lie-based war on Iraq. Biden prevented any experts who challenged the "Saddam
has WMDs and he's about to use them" narrative from being heard by Members of Congress,
guaranteeing that only the pro-war narrative was heard.
As much as Bush or Cheney, Biden owns the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which killed a million
Iraqi civilians. And he may well be taking us back.
One figure in the Biden Administration who will play a pivotal role in returning the US to
its hyper-interventionism in the Middle East is Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken . As
a Biden Senate staffer in 2003, he helped the then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman put
together a pro-war coalition in the Democratic Party to support President Bush's Republican
push for invasion.
Later on Blinken was Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, where he successfully made
the case that destroying both Libya and Syria were fantastic ideas. Both countries drowned in
the Obama Administration's "liberation" bloodbath and neither country has recovered from the
"democracy" brought by Washington, but being a neocon foreign policy ideologue means never
having to say you're sorry.
And Blinken isn't.
Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported ,
Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be
very fortunate to have them in public service."
We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has
blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you
promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his
addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone.
Paul reminded the Secretary of State nominee that his only criticism of the Syria "regime
change" plan was that the US did not successfully overthrow Assad. But the US was using
jihadist proxies to overthrow the
secular Assad , so what does this say about Blinken's judgement?
"The lesson of these wars," said
Paul , is that 'regime change' doesn't work!"
Paul added:
Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again it's a
disaster.
You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger.
Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of
the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves
on the wrong end of a
noose or a
knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by
Washington.
Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of
interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by
Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ."
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
"... Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism." ..."
ByGlenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global
Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen
Donald Trump's efforts to reduce the ideologically driven base of US foreign policy fuelled great resentment among those who believed
it betrayed Washington's leadership position in the so-called "liberal international order."
Now that power has changed, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, with Joe Biden's administration applying a radical
ideological foreign policy?
A recent article by Michael McFaul, once Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia and a noted 'Russiagate' conspiracy theorist, indicates
what such an ideological foreign policy would look like. McFaul's article, 'How to Contain Putin's Russia', makes a case for a containment
policy.
Containment: learning from the past or living in the past?
To advance his argument, McFaul quotes George Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram and architect of erstwhile US containment
policy against the Soviet Union. McFaul suggests that Kennan's advocacy for a "patient but firm and vigilant containment"
against the revolutionary Bolshevik regime 75 years ago remains as valid as ever.
It would have made more sense to
quote Kennan when
he condemned NATO expansionism and predicted it would trigger another Cold War. As Kennan noted: "there was no reason for this
whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their
graves."
Kennan continued to express disbelief over the rhetoric by the misinformed US leadership, presenting "Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now
we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime."
Kennan then went on to correctly predict that, when Russia would eventually react to US provocations, the NATO expanders would wrongfully
blame Russia.
Ideologues often have nostalgia for the Cold War, when the bipolar power distribution was supported by a clear and comfortable
ideological divide. The Western bloc represented capitalism, Christianity, and democracy, while the Eastern bloc represented communism,
atheism, and authoritarianism. This ideological divide supported internal cohesion within the Western bloc and drew clear borders
with the adversary.
The liberal international order has attempted to recast the former capitalist-communist divide with a liberal-authoritarian divide.
However, the ideological incompatibility between American liberalism and Russian conservatism is less convincing. For example, McFaul
cautions against Putin's nefarious conservative ideology committed to "Christian, traditional family values" that threatens
the liberal international order.
The new ideological divide nonetheless advances neo-McCarthyism in the West. McFaul presents a list of European conservatives
and populists that should be treated as American conservatives, purged from political life as enemies of the liberal international
order and thus possible agents of Russia. Hillary Clinton even suggested that the Capitol Hill riots were possibly coordinated by
Trump and Putin – yes, Russiagate is here to stay. The solution, for McFaul, is for American tech oligarchs to manipulate algorithms
to protect populations from Russian-friendly media.
An American ideological project
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a threat to the liberal international order.
Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the liberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War era.
After the Cold War, liberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition – suggesting that liberal democracy should
be at the center of security strategies. However, by linking liberal norms to US leadership, liberalism became both a constitutional
principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of liberal values – without mentioning that its second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative
and authoritarian than Russia – and Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility
to revert to its original mission as a military bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until the West supported the coup in Ukraine.
Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed
to his ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its borders, as it would give
hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails
to explain why Russia does not mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that endow them with the right to defend other
peoples. The French National Convention declared in 1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to
recover their liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed, if necessary, to the
fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American liberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the world with "democracy promotion"
and "humanitarian interventionism" when it conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that
democracy is advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack if Russia interferes
in the domestic affairs of US. The liberal international system is one of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are merely motivated by the objective of
liberating Russians from their government, which is why he advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between
Putin and the Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the Cold War – the US supposedly
does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their
leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other liberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance," which does not make much sense after
the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011. However, under the auspices of liberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as
it defends the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the liberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US, before outlining his strategies for
interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations"
that are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He goes on to explain that the US
government must counter this by establishing new "non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils
of their government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom tend to promise perpetual peace.
Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed
defender of the ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world and utopia can be
bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance,
while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides states into good and evil, into
peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist,
believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
"... "Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad. He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and values", or, simply, chaos may follow! ..."
"... At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially in cyberspace." ..."
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking.
At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
@follyofwar
hat Trump did not, and for which Trump deserves credit: NOT attacking Iran; NOT starting a
war in the Donbass region of Ukraine; and NOT escalating the attack on Syria to the point
where Syria collapses and Al-Nusra and ISIS terrorists take over (which is what Israel has
openly said they would prefer to Assad!) And I am NOT a 'Trumper', think he was a disgusting
zionist boot-licker, and that he didn't do diddly squat of what he promised to do for the
average American, but sure kissed Wall Street's bottom. The problem is, Bidet may be worse,
if his past is any indication.
Regardless, the next four years are gonna be ugly, really ugly, foreign policy-wise, I'm
afraid ..
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking. At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
A Republican member of the US House of Representatives has filed articles of impeachment
against newly inaugurated President Joe Biden, underscoring how the whole process has become
politically weaponized.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), elected to her first term in November, accused
Biden of being "unfit to hold the office" and a "lengthy and disturbing" pattern
of "abuse of power" while he was Barack Obama's vice president, citing his threats to
the Ukrainian government and his son Hunter Biden's shady business deals overseas among the
examples.
In a statement on Thursday, Greene said Biden has shown he would do "whatever it
takes" to bail out his son and "line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign
energy companies."
"President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must
be immediately impeached," she added. In filing the articles, the Georgia congresswoman
kept the promise she made a week ago , to impeach
Biden on his first full day in office.
The motion is extremely unlikely to succeed. Republicans are a minority in the House of
Representatives, and Greene herself hardly speaks for the party as a whole. She has also been
under relentless media attack for months as a conspiracy
theorist , from 'QAnon' to calling the mass shootings in Sandy Hook and Parkland "false
flags."
Her motion to impeach Biden, however, shows that the impeachment process – originally
intended for extreme circumstances in which presidents have to be removed for "high crimes
and misdemeanors" such as treason – have become a political weapon.
Congressman Al Green (D-Texas) actually filed articles of impeachment against President
Donald Trump three times over the first two years of his term, which were voted down in the
House. It wasn't until late 2019 that the Democrat-dominated House voted – along partisan
lines – to impeach Trump, claiming that him bringing up Biden's publicly made admission
about browbeating Ukraine into firing a corruption prosecutor amounted to soliciting foreign
election interference. The Senate acquitted him in January 2020.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) dispensed with even the pretense of an
investigation last week, when she held a vote to impeach Trump a second time. Pelosi accused
Trump of "inciting insurrection" at the Capitol on January 6, when some of the
president's supporters disrupted the joint session of Congress that sought to certify Biden's
election victory.
The incident, which Trump and the entire Republican Party have condemned and disavowed, has
been held up as the same thing as the 1861 rebellion of 11 states that tried to set up the
Confederacy. The evenly divided Senate – with Vice President Kamala Harris as the
tie-breaker – is now reportedly negotiating the terms of Trump's trial sometime next
month, even though he is no longer in office.
When someone pointed out that Democrats have filed impeachment articles against every
Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower, the internet "fact-checkers" quickly
labeled it "mostly false" because there had been no move to impeach Gerald Ford.
"While a handful of Democratic lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against
five of the last six Republican presidents, in most cases these efforts weren't taken seriously
by the party at large," Snopes declared in September 2019 , as if
proving a point.
What is Criminal Joe doing in office? There is a video of him admitting he did pay for play
with a billion of our tax money. The FBI is sitting on Hunter's laptop that Giuliani had also
and Rudy put out all kinds of emails that were on there mentioning Biden. We have witnesses
that will testify to his crimes. We have the Biden family that made tons of money off shady
deals. We have Hunter getting 1.5 billion from China. We had a senate investigation led by
Ron Johnson. We have Peter Strok's notes about the meeting with Obama, Biden, etc. about
taking down Trump. It is loud and clear.
Hatetotellyou WakeupSpeakup 11 hours ago 21 Jan, 2021 09:38 PM
Their show is garbage as soon as one realizes identity politics is the opposite of unity.
StudsterUSA Richland Yabitches" 10 hours ago 21 Jan, 2021 11:03 PM
The majority of Americans feel powerless, that is the reason conspiracy theories get so much
immediate acceptance. Dialing up the temperature makes it worse because then they are enraged
as well as powerless. It's like they are wounded animal that's trapped in a corner. That's
why so many people are going berserk. Show me⤵some love❤
"It is not pure idioticy that Biden pushes out such nonsense. From the view point of the
ruling class it makes sense to split the plebs along cultural ideological lines. As long as
they fight each other about access to bathrooms based on 'identity' they will be distracted
from recognizing that class discrimination and economic imbalances are the real problems
they should care to change."
While I completely agree that splitting the working class into warring factions is the
main purpose of liberalism (American liberalism of the last ~40 years, that is), I kinda
doubt that any of the proles care enough about the bathrooms.
The main liberal tools are 'anti-racism', multiculturalism, and 'anti-sexism'
('feminism').
All this homo and trans stuff is unnecessary overkill, imo. In fact, this is mostly a
way for liberals to eat their own.
"Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not
be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress
does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." LOL But you'd best know you'll be fired and
mistreated should you publicly express the opinion that people like Rachel Levine are
clearly disturbed and maybe shouldn't hold high office.
"When it comes to adults, outlawing discrimination on the basis of gender identity is
just as dangerous. There are good reasons why prisons, domestic violence refuges, certain
health services and even some beauty salons are exclusively for females. This is not to
discriminate irrationally against transgender people but to protect women who, in these
specific circumstances, are particularly vulnerable.
"Biden's executive order opens the door for men to access women's private spaces. It
makes it more difficult for medical professionals to direct advice about cervical smear
tests, contraception and abortion provision, or breast cancer checks, at the women they are
intended to help. It puts low-paid women who offer intimate beauty services at risk. And it
makes it far more difficult to measure accurately whether there are sex-based differences
in rates of pay or access to employment."
////
Stonebird @19--
The culprits in this case are hormone mimickers--chemicals that have the same appearance
as estrogen and testosterone, along with those hormones themselves which are put into the
ecosystem via the household toilet and industrial drains. What's more is the amounts
required to cause harm are far lower than the listed harmful levels--parts per billion
versus parts per million.
There actually was a case in British Columbia in 2019 in which a transgender woman
called Jessica Yaniv targeted beauty salons run by sole female owners, all of them
working-class and of Indian / Sikh backgrounds, and accused them of discriminating against
transgender individuals when they refused to wax Yaniv's genitals. The businesses clearly
advertised they served female clients only. One business was only a short walk away from a
larger salon that served male and female clients.
Initially when the court case became public, the Canadian general public was sympathetic
towards Yaniv until the lawyers for the women whose businesses had been targeted by Yaniv
took the unprecedented step, with their clients' consent, of revealing their identities.
Canadian public opinion then sided with the women. One of the women had had to close down
her business due to Yaniv's targeting.
At some point during the trial, information about Yaniv's Tweeting activities became
public, revealing this individual as racist and being obsessed with prepubescent girls.
I believe Yaniv lost in that case.
As can be seen even in this example, Identity Politics is being used to punish women,
and women from lower classes and disadvantaged backgrounds in particular.
Damn, I was born in the wrong era. Given this opportunity back in high school I
definitely would have "identified" as female and joined the girls' Greco-Roman
wrestling team.
According to this law hormone tests to determine eligibility will be unlawful.
"Identifying" as female is all it will take, and there are no tests to determine
identity. Identity is purely subjective. "Identity" is literally anything that the
individual wants it to be, and trying to assert otherwise is flaccid pseudoscience
nonsense.
Our host is correct. Girls' sports are now dead. It is just a matter of time before they
are overrun by XY "girls" . There are lots of incentives for boys to
"identify" as girls and no real disincentives, so why wouldn't they?
Contradictions stemming from western society's delusion metastasize.
For many years, a handful of people have postulated that those who control industry, finance
and governments are essentially the same people – a cabal of sorts that have, over
generations, solidified their relationships in order to gain greater wealth and power, whilst
systematically making things ever more difficult for the free market to exist.
But why should this be? Surely, corporate leaders are more ardently capitalist than anyone
else?
Well, on the surface, that might appear to make sense, but once a significant position of
power has been achieved, those who have achieved it recognize that, since they've already
reached the top, the primary concern changes. From then on, the primary concern becomes the
assurance that no others are able to climb so high as they have.
At that point, they realise that their foremost effort needs to be a push toward corporatism
– the merger of power between government and business. This is a natural marriage. The
political world is a parasitic one. It relies on a continual flow of funding. The world of big
business is a study in exclusivity – the ability to make it impossible for pretenders to
the throne to arise. So, big business provides the cash; government provides protective
legislation that ensures preference for those at the top.
In most cases, this second half of the equation does not mean a monopoly for just one
corporation, but a monopoly for a cabal – an elite group of corporations.
This corporatist relationship has deep roots in the US, going back over one hundred years.
To this day, those elite families who took control of oil, steel, banking, motor vehicles and
other industries a century ago, soon created a takeover of higher learning (universities),
health (Big Pharma) and "Defense" (the military-industrial complex).
Through legislation, the US was then transformed to ensure that all these interests would be
catered to, creating generations of both control and profit.
Of course, "profit" should not be an evil word, but under crony capitalism, it becomes an
abomination – a distortion of the free market and the death of laissez faire
economics.
Certainly, this sort of collectivism is not what Karl Marx had in mind when he daydreamed
about a workers' paradise in which business leaders retained all the risk and responsibility of
creating and building businesses, whilst the workers had the final word as to how the revenue
would be distributed to the workers themselves.
Mister Marx failed in being objective enough to understand that if the business creator took
all the risk and responsibility but gave up the ability to decide what happened to the revenue,
he'd never bother to open a business. Even a shoeshine boy would reject such a notion and elect
to go on the dole, rather than work.
Mister Marx sought more to bring down those who were successful than to raise up those who
were not, yet he unwittingly created a new idea – corporate collectivism – in which
the very people he sought to debase used the appeal of collectivist rhetoric to diminish both
the freedoms and wealth of the average worker.
On the surface, this might appear to be a hard sell – to get the hoi polloi into the
net – but in fact, it's quite easy and has perennially been effective.
Hitler's New Order was such a construct – the promise to return Germany to greatness
and the German people to prosperity through increasingly draconian laws, warfare and an
economic revolving door between government and industry.
Of course, a major influx of capital was required – billions of dollars – and
this was eagerly provided by US industry and banks. Heads of New York banks not only funded
Nazi industry; families such as the Fords, Rockefellers, Morgans, etc., sat on the boards of
German corporations.
The Nazi effort failed, as they underestimated the Russian will to fight to the death.
(Eighty percent of all German Army deaths were due to the Russian campaign.)
But those in New York were able to regroup and be first in the queue for the restructuring
of German industry after the war and, ultimately, profited handsomely.
But most significantly, the idea of corporatist collectivism did not die. Even before the
war, the same group of families and corporations had drawn up the plan for Franklin Roosevelt's
New Deal.
Mister Roosevelt was a dyed-in-the-wool Wall Street man and a director of New York banks. In
the 1930s and early 1940s, he created, as president, a revolving door that favoured large
corporations, whilst the average American was consciously kept at the subsistence level through
government entitlements.
The scam worked. Shortsighted Americans not only were grateful; they deified him for it.
Likewise, John Kennedy's New Frontier sought to revitalize the concept, as did Lyndon
Johnson's Great Society: Give the little people entitlements that keep them little. Tax smaller
businesses and create a flow of tax dollars to the elite industries, who, in turn, provide
monetary favours to the political class.
The Green New Deal is merely the latest corporate collectivist scheme on the list.
Corporate collectivism can be defined as a system in which the few who hold the legal
monopolies of finance and industry gain an overriding control over all others, and in so doing,
systematically extract wealth from them.
Today, this system has become so refined that, although the average American has a flat
screen TV and an expensive smartphone, he cannot raise $400 to cover an emergency that occurs
in his life. He is, for all practical purposes, continually bankrupt, but still functioning in
a zombie-like existence of continual dependency.
This, on the surface, may not seem all that dangerous, but those who cannot buy their way
out of a small emergency are easily controlled. Just create an emergency such as an uber-virus
and that fact will be illuminated quickly.
In order to maximise compliance in a population, maximise their dependence.
As stated above, this effort has been in play for generations. But it is now reaching a
crescendo. It's now up to speed in most of the former Free World and those who hold the strings
are ready for a major step forward in corporate collectivism.
In the coming year, we shall see dramatic changes appearing at a dizzying rate. Capital
controls , migration controls, internal movement controls, tax increases, confiscation of
assets and the removal of "inalienable" rights will all be coming into effect – so
quickly that before the populace can even grasp the latest restrictions, new ones will be
heaped on.
As this unfolds, we shall witness the erosion of the nation-state. Controls will come from
global authorities, such as the UN, the IMF and the WEF. Organisations that have no formal
authority over nations will increasingly be calling the shots and people will wonder how this
is possible. Elected officials will increasingly become mere bagmen, doing the bidding of an
unelected ruling class.
The changes that take place will be not unlike a blanket that is thrown over humanity.
The question then will be whether to, a) give in to this force, b) to fight it and most
likely fall victim to it, or c) seek a means to fall outside the perimeter of the blanket.
* * *
Unfortunately most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of
control, let alone how to prepare The coming economic and political crisis is going to be much
worse, much longer, and very different than what we've seen in the past. That's exactly why New
York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video.
Click
here to watch it now .
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken on
his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa:
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism," Sen.
Paul argued.
"Like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton you've been a supporter of military intervention in
the Middle East from the Iraq war to the Libyan war to the Syrian civil war..." he introduced
in his Tuesday questoning of Blinken.
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001 and his support for the US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which the Kentucky
congressman said was a major disaster that paved the way for a stronger Iran.
The congressman argued that Blinken continued to push regime change in Syria, which he said
was a significant blunder, especially with the amount of money spent training "moderate rebel
forces" .
Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money.
He would go on to question why Blinken would support the Syrian opposition groups on the
ground, as he pointed out the most powerful fighters are those from the jihadist groups like
the Al-Nusra Front .
"Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again... it's a
disaster. The lesson of these wars is that regime change doesn't work!" Paul said.
"You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger," Paul added while
lambasting the US strategy of going after Iran while Iraq is still weakened by Bush's regime
change war there.
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
Blinken claimed in response that he wasn't supportive of a full-scale 'Iraq-style' regime
change war in Syria while vaguely claiming that he's done "deep thinking" and reflection on the
issue . Blinken never repudiated the policy of regime change in the Middle East, however.
Sen. Paul then shifted his attention to NATO, which he said Blinken was trying to strengthen
for the purpose of combatting Russia. The senator said Blinken's policy on NATO would lead to
war with Russia, which the latter responded would have the opposite effect.
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
The Luftwaffe 8 hours ago
We will see a new major war started by this administration within two years
Cloud9.5 7 hours ago
We have to do something to reduce the population.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
You mean in addition to the 103.5% effective covid vaccine?
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
On duckduckgo.com search > "Med
Cram".
On You Tube: Dr. Seheult's med school video lecture "Vitamin D and Covid 19: The Evidence for
Prevention and " (5.3m views)
Vitamin D3 is sold over the counter.
Karma is coming for Covid.
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Hopefully it's also coming for the thieving liars who pushed this cheap PsyOp (Pompeo is
one, Fauci is another).
bigjim 3 hours ago
I guess Bibi mis-spelled Rand's email address on the memo.
boattrash 2 hours ago
103.5%... that sounds like the voter turnout in all the blue cities.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
If one could take all the people in the world and cram them into a city as dense as Tokyo,
it would cover the area of Rhode Island.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
BS
Tokyo pop density=16121.8 /sq.mi.
Rhode Island = 1045 sq.mi.
At that density RI would hold 16.8 million people.
At the average annual population growth rate of the last century there will be 1 sq.m. of
land per person in only 750 years. That includes all mountains, frozen tundra, jungles and
deserts... now "get off my lawn".
bearwinkle 6 hours ago
Sure, that's why Xiden is allowing millions of immigrants to invade our borders.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
I thought it might be like today...
Hatterasjohn 7 hours ago
Anyone crazy enough to join ,or be in the military , is out of his friggin mind.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Or likes killing civilians. Don't overlook the psychopaths.
headslapper 7 hours ago
and that will be the end of the US.
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
How about the Regime Change just effected right HERE in the good old USA?
Im1ru12 4 hours ago
Exactly - "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul
continued
That's what they do - they just did it here
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
USAllDay 7 hours ago
I'd take Assad over Biden.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
Assad has more integrity in his shoe than Biden has accumulated in the past 50 years.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
If the deep state hates Assad, then I know he must be legitimately a good guy deep down.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
BINGO!
Brutlstrudl 6 hours ago
It seems that after each election, the USA becomes more of a contrarian indicator
SERReal1 7 hours ago
I agree. At least Assad puts his country first and gives the finger to the Deep State.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
Plus a secular government that respects the rights of all religious minorites. Sets a bad
example for all the intolerant apartheid states in the region.
Hopefully the "Assad Must Go" curse gets the entire Biden Administration sooner rather than
later.
aloha_snakbar 8 hours ago
Who cares...Uncle Scam lost the tiny bit of credibility he had on 01/20/2021. RIP
America....
eatapeach 7 hours ago
I care. Here's yet another Israel-first douchenozzle getting put in a very, very high
position. And acting like it'd be any different with Trump at the helm is severe folly.
(Pompeo)
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Sorry bro but anyone with eyes hasn't thought the US credible for more than a century.
4Celts 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Pardon , but the " cost " to the military shouldn't be the top/only argument. What happened
to morally/ ethically wrong ?
SwmngwShrks 7 hours ago
"All wars are Bankers' wars." -Smedley Butler
white horse 7 hours ago
Moral is dead long ago, replaced by new fake moral called humanitarianism.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago
You're an astute observer - few detect such "tells"
Feck Weed 5 hours ago
Consider the audience
FringeDweller 5 hours ago
Fair point.
Lord JT 5 hours ago
He mentioned that it creates more terrorism, and that the incoming regime may be even worse
than the previous.
Unknown User 8 hours ago
Biden will start a war, or two, or three...
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia, we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is
lazy and scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow
the poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Cho Bai Den fol peace!
wick7 5 hours ago
It's amazing how Democrats flipped overnight to being pro war once Obama started new wars.
They were mad when Trump was signing peace deals. Lol.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 8 hours ago
He's right. One disaster after another. Who has Assad attacked? If small countries want the
US to back off then they must develop nuclear weapons. When was the last time the US attacked a
country with nuclear capabilities?
JRobby 7 hours ago
Bust Blinken's balls until he quits like a little rat trying to naw through steel cables
gespiri 7 hours ago
The only way to stop these wars is to send the people (and their kids) who are pushing for
it in the first place to the front lines.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
Or make the state obsolete by transitioning to a private law society.
RedDog1 7 hours ago
Remember how Gaddafi surrendered his nukeprogram to Bush, a few years later Obama/HRC
invaded...resulting in Gaddafi being lynched?
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Iran and NK and Syria remember, for sure. Wish we all remembered the USS Liberty when
shaping foreign policy.
LooseLee 4 hours ago
Remember Libya has no central bank?
Pandelis 3 hours ago (Edited)
you really believe that bs ... it is much more than that ... at the end is about the land
and the people ... money can be printed out of thin air and there is nothing libya (or iraq,
iran etc.) central bank can do about it ...
bring on dr. fraucistein to explain it all to us ... maga!!
roach clipper 6 hours ago
Assad placed his country too close to Is ra hell
manofthenorth 8 hours ago
Sorry guys but we have been played like a second hand fiddle.
I assume Paul has figured out by now that being a murderous psychopath is a job requirement
in DC. It's the first question in the job interview. "Do you enjoy death and destruction for
profit and personal power?"
littlewing 7 hours ago
Remember when Trump bombed Syria and all of a sudden everyone in DC loved him for 15
minutes.
Talk about the big reveal.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
The same Rand Paul who was criticizing Trump in the eleventh hour? That one?? They are all
swamp creatures and seriously make me want to vomit...
pro·le·tar·i·at 7 hours ago
The apple rolled away from the tree.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
Paul, I like you, you seem to care a little bit. However, if they haven't cared in the last
forever, they are definitely not going to start now. They just regime changed ourselves with
almost no substantial resistance, you think they will care about Syria?
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
He puts on a show to care once in a while.
He didn't stand for the truth when it counted.
Goat of Steverino 7 hours ago
GREAT RAND, BUT WHERE WERE YOU ON BIG TECH CENSORSHIP AND ELECTION FRAUD?
Bank_sters 7 hours ago
He's cucked.
Ted Baker 6 hours ago
What is this obsession with Russia? Russia is a peaceful country who defends its people. How
difficult is that to understand?
ReadyForHillary 6 hours ago
Russia isn't down with the NWO.
Dinaric 7 hours ago
(((Blinkin))) is all you need to know.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Does anyone honestly believe that if Biden was honest and had any degree if integrity that
he would be president at this moment in U.S. history? That boy is a 50 year swamp critter A
thoroughly reliable member of the compromised fraternity. Same for Nancy.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Remember the video of younger Biden telling some voter that he graduated top of his class,
with honors????
None of which were true.
littlewing 7 hours ago
His degree is from University of Phoenix.
Now all colleges are that. haha
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Ironically, he wants to set up a comity for Integrity In Government.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Yeah. Thats hysterical!!
Saturday Night Live material - if they had any spine.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Which they don't. Come on, man!
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
Yep. They needed someone with zero integrity.
yeketerina velikaya 7 hours ago
You know who's been right all along?
Tulsi Gabbard.
Right on big tech
Right on Kamala
Right on pardoning Assange and Snowden
Right on the uniparty and false flags in Syria
Right on Queen of Warmongers Hillary and DNC
Right on the MSM
Right on securing the elections/ballot harvesting
She's the real deal and would have delivered on these things but never had a shot.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
She was wrong on gun control. Very wrong! And that's a non-negotiable.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Don't worry real gun control is coming and so much more you didn't ask for...
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
She should have been Trump's vp choice.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
You know....I think you're right. I hadn't thought of that.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
I like Tulsi. She seems like a genuine person with integrity that really cares about the
country. BUT I disagree with her on quite a few issues. Maybe she'll come around.
littlewing 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
Greasy John Roberts wrecked America.
Max21c 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
True.
Vichy John Roberts went full Quisling and brought back Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court
endorsed election fraud, supported the coup d'etat, forced Trump from power, helped usher in a
new era for the banana republic of Jim Crow laws...
phillyla 7 hours ago
John Roberts is compromised 8 ways to Sunday. Trump should have had him impeached and
removed from the bench
El Chapo Read 7 hours ago
If you thought Trump was surrounded by Red Sea Pedestrians with an agenda, research the
ethno-religious background of Biden's cabinet picks.
Shalom!
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Every administration is. Trumps son in law and advisor is as well. Please see the entire
picture for a change.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
How about closing all military bases overseas and dismantling the MIC and oh **** it an old
demented neocon is playing president for a few months, scratch that.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
The crack up boom of the FRNs may force that one day
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I think it'll happen sooner rather than later, the chances are good based on the demented
old pedophile being selected president and his retards at the fed.
rastanarchocapitalist 4 hours ago
In the long run, that might be a good thing if we return to honest money but you can be sure
they'll try to kick the can for another 50 years with some form of new fiat or erasing a couple
of zeroes of our current notes.
Hopefully the masses will just say know but I wouldn't put much faith in that.
RedNemesis 6 hours ago
Parents, do not let your smart, winning kids into the armed services. The MIC will grind
them out with PTSD, brain injuries, and lost limbs. There is no 'patriotism' or allegience to
the Deep State.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with Russia,
we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is lazy and
scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow the
poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia..
Maybe we should instead just launch a sneak attack on Alpha Centauri instead. Skip the small
fry like Russia and China. In a few generations we shall know whether our Earthling space
torpedoes hit Alpha Centauri. This of course should be debated by the people and approved by a
plebiscite per ballot referendums. Then the space war bill sent to the Earthlings Politburo for
their approval. It'll take around a decade or more to design and build the space torpedoes...
then 100 years plus for travel time and the same to get the data back from the
mothership...
Plus we can have both a Cold War and a Hot War with Alpha Centauri... under the leadership
of an Earthling appointed or elected by the Earthlings Council and elevated to the rank of Don
Quixote with the accompany title of Primal inter Pares
We just need more right thinking smart people to join the cult and become enlightened to the
prospects of a new 100 years war with other planets...and maybe some small wars with
planetoids...asteroids and comets...
We can establish of house of OverLords composed of only the best Astrologers to help pick
out which planets to attack & destroy...based upon whether they have offended our star
charts or the zodiac calls for war... In addition we can establish a lower house of UnderLords
composed of mad scientists and Generalissimos and crazy Spy Chiefs... and maybe some nutty
press types from the official media and puppet press to lead us in the Two Minutes Hate against
the Alpha Centauri folks, the space peoples, and the flying saucer people...
Maghreb2 5 hours ago
CIA already had plans for all this under the Stargate Program. After Ike's treaty with
various alien species the MIC began its descent into madness and universal conquest.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
A war like that might "free" you, because the Russians will kick your ***.
balz 7 hours ago
Each time I see this "Office of the President Elect" picture thing, I get nauseous.
Fake office for a fake president who wasn't elected in the first place.
BLOTTO 8 hours ago
Like nothing happened back here at home.
Max21c 6 hours ago
Blinken may prove out to be more slick and savy than Dumbo Pompeo the flying cartoon
elephant but he's still a fawking neanderthal and a ******. Maybe an elite ****** but he's
still a ******. Blind, deaf, and dumb is still blind, deaf, and dumb even with all the powers
of the secret police at their disposal.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
Rand is sick too. He goes on about how these things are bad specifically because they
strengthened Iran? How about liberty crushing mass murder?
"Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money."
So your mad they steal money while creating terrorists? Or are you mad that they don't tell
you what they do with the rest? They abduct children from war zones to make them. Maybe the
indoctrination and rape children's homes are expensive. They have screwed the entire
planet.
There is something wrong with him too. He is another limited hangout
silverlinings00 7 hours ago
He's all bark no bite like Elizabeth Warren. Trotted out to show a feigning resistance.
Insert farm animal here 4 hours ago
Poor Rand is going to have a tough and lonely battle over the next few years. Let's wish him
well, he'll be going it alone for sure.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
It seems odd that no one has allied themselves with him in the same manner as McCain &
Graham.
Pareto 6 hours ago
Another life long bureaucrat talking about his resume. And fails to answer a simple
question. Woop there it is. That's why they hated Trump. Because somebody off the street had
better answers than 25 years of experience.
Rand Paul, one of the few good ones left. Good Luck with Biden and his war hawks!
NumbNuts 6 hours ago
These same people are attempting a regime change in the United States too. From Freedom to
Fascism.
Helg Saracen 6 hours ago
The Americans lost perspectives and actually real freedom when Woodrow Wilson sold US to
international banksters in 1913, now this scam just ends and a new scam begins. You haven't
figured it out yet. By the way, fascism is Italian National Socialism. No offense.
frank further 6 hours ago
Then what was German National Socialism, if not fascism?
/
/
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago (Edited)
They are not attempting. They have done it. They have perfected their craft over the last 70
years in other countries and they brought it home to keep their criminal organization
going.
urhotdogs 6 hours ago remove link
They didn't attempt, they did it! Took a little over 4 years but had to stoop to massive
election fraud and changing state laws on the fly. It was coordinated throughout all levels of
government down to states and courts and SCOTUS.
bunkers 5 hours ago
Communism
bunkers 5 hours ago
Maybe not.
WhiteHose 6 hours ago
Russia Russia Russia! They never stop! BTW, wheres scumbag Hunter?
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
rkb100100 7 hours ago
Yea we know the cabinet is full of heeb's.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
Is he in the boat with Winken and Nod?
GatorMcClusky 7 hours ago
Good one.
Mount Massive 7 hours ago (Edited)
There is a reason Russia has spent the last 2 months ramping up testing of its mil hardware
including hyper-vel ICBM's and SLBM's. - Xiden
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Rand will be the only Senator to give the Dems a hard time. Sad since it should be payback
for EVERY Republican Senator.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Cruz will be fun to watch too. They excel being outnumbered.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
If they wanted Rand out of that spot he would have been gone a long time ago.
Bob Lidd 5 hours ago
Does anyone think the US policy in the middle east will change with 10 of biden's
appointees being jewish .......??
The "greater israel" will continue no matter the cost to the American tax cattle.......
((((blinken))) ..........
ReadyForHillary 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Max21c 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Does not matter. They could not win before and they shall not win now. They're ineffective,
inept, and incompetent. They won't be able to fix the messes and disasters they've created for
themselves. At best they might be able to sick the secret police on a few people at home and
drop some bombs or missiles abroad. But for the most part it's some more of the same. Evil is
as evil does. They're not going to be able to work themselves out of the fix they've got
themselves into or figure it out. They're toast. They're bad people and they're toast.
Washingtonians may have absolute power but they've had absolute power all along...and they
still can't fix the disasters they've caused.
Northern Exposure 6 hours ago (Edited)
Oh thank God!
If we're not looking for a new pointless war to start or jumping into an existing one then
this isn't the America that I know and love!
</sarc>
karzai_luver 7 hours ago
Where is the BUFFALOBILL dude storming the Senate to drag this blinken criminal scum out and
do justice for his wanton murder of thousands?
Shut down this freak show.
I would rather have BUFFALOBILL and his idiots running the place than these feckless
people's representatives.
Tony , have you learned your lesson?
Senator - screw you and your people I will think it over.
Alexander 7 hours ago
Silence republicans! Yes we stole the election using widespread mail in ballots, yes your
state governments changed the rules to allow us to count these mail in ballots more quickly,
yes there were far more votes in this election than any other ever. ANDDDD... NO we will not
look into the validity of this election becuase muh capital rioting grandma threatened sweet
little socialist AOC.
Now give us your children to fight a war in syria.
artless 7 hours ago
Barack Obama. Neocon to the core. Biden is no different. Gonna do us some "liberating"
again. And from the left there will be silence as thousands of poor, short brown people are
killed as "collateral damage".
Welcome back America to what you do the best. Destroy lives. Any over/under on how many days
it takes Biden to start killing folks and hence become a war criminal like pretty much all his
predecessors? I might like a piece of that action.
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Republicans are neocons, democrats are neoliberal. You're basically right, just left out
half the problem.
pods 7 hours ago
Can't bitch about foreign actions in our elections when we pick other governments.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pick ???? Surely you jest !
pods 7 hours ago
We choose sides right?
We picked the CIA stooge in Venezuela.
Not sure about your question.
Maybe "kinetically pick" would be better?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Sorry, I didn't read your post properly. I didn't see "other" governments.
rwe2late 7 hours ago
you either forgot the sarc tag
or failed to notice such as V. Nuland hand-picking leadership in Ukraine,
or the Trump picking of Guiado for Venezuela.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Poor eye sight is my best and only excuse.
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Where is Hunter?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
The Big Guy made him the Advance Minister of Foreign Extortion.
headslapper 7 hours ago
The faces change but the song remains the same. What a waste of energy this government is.
Resources thrown down the toilet to make the Ruling class more wealthy. Why do we even pay
attention. We all need to have a look in the mirror. Myself included of course.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
So now that you've looked in the mirror, what are you going to do about it? Send a
strongly-worded letter? Or are you ready to actually step up. As morally wrong and demented as
the radical left is, at least you have to admire them in the sense they actually step up to the
plate to get sh!t done. It's immoral, but effective.
Canadian Dirtlump 7 hours ago
Lest we forget the same bearded butchers that Chris Stevens flew into ben gazi with (al
Quaeda inter alia aligned ) who were funded and trained by the West were the same ones who flew
from ben gazi to the incirlik nato base to try to do the same thing in syria.
The only reason it didn't work was because of the SAA, Hezbollah and of course the ultimate
backstop Russia. I'm thankful for this.
mikka 7 hours ago
Imagine Russian or Chinese parliament publicly debating regime change in USA.
Uncle_Cuddles 7 hours ago (Edited)
Debating? China has ALREADY done it here.
joew8989 7 hours ago
Rand will continue to fight the good fight, when you live a life based on principal, that's
what you do. We will always need more people like him. That's what built this country, not the
parasites at the helm now.
ItsTooHotForThis 6 hours ago
Paul voted to confirm the electors. His challenge to the new Sec. of State means
nothing.
Garciathinksso 5 hours ago
his argument was based on State's right issue, in case you care
bunkers 5 hours ago
It doesn't matter WHY, he voted with traitors, only, that he did.
SillyTheEnemy 6 hours ago (Edited)
This is literally the only guy we have in the senate who even remotely gives a ****. Yet the
amount of **** that is going to happen to us when biden heats up the war in Syria is
immeasurable. F*ck me
hardright 6 hours ago
Rand Paul is wasting his time.
If he wants to make a difference he should be lobbying Russia to send more troops into
Syria.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
And arranging imports of the Russian vaccine. Less likely to kill you and more effective
than the only 45% effective Pfizer ****.
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago
This guys eyes look exactly like the vampires in the movie 30 days of night. Am I in a
simulation? Why do these people actually look like fictional villains? I mean Whitmer, Newsom,
this new fat, unhealthy, mentally ill assistant "health secretary"? Did I do something really
wrong? Am I in hell and don't know it? No. I am here on earth and psychopaths are real and evil
is real.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
they're just a little scared and overwhelmed. You might be too
WhiteHose 7 hours ago
Look at this Blinken twit! F you pal! And....wheres HUnter??? Diddling his brothers minor
niece? Again? Still?
First Ron and now Rand. I think the club just lets them in as the token Don Quixote. They
have been the only voices of reason for the last 25 years or so, but they are only tilting at
windmills. Nothing is going to change until something forces them to change. The war mongering
and corruption will just roll right along while the MIC and congress get richer by the
minute.
The unrelenting droning of brown people in foreign lands that are ill-equipped to fight back
will commence in 3,2,1...
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Leaving the Republican Party would be the first best step.
ejmoosa 7 hours ago (Edited)
We put too much on one man and one man alone to change things.
Faced with judges and a House and A Senate against him the task before Trump was
Herculean.
Add to that 2/5ths of the states with governors also against Trump and it's even worse.
What you need to do is get involved in your local politics and take control back of your
Cities and County Commissions, as well as your state governments.
Had Trump held control of the House and the Senate and we had sitting on Courts people who
put the Constitution first FOR the people rather than using it against them, things would be a
lot different today.
The choice is yours.
Time to play 7 hours ago
It's good to see that Rand, is starting to think more like his father!
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So he's controlled opposition, too?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
Pretty early to be smoking crack isn't it?
otschelnik 7 hours ago
With Cookies Nuland as Blinken's deputy, you've got the neocon family business installed at
Foggy Bottom. Robert (Victoria's huband), Fredrick, and Kim each with their own pro-war think
tank, and a list of supporters which constitute the "A-list" of the USSA's merchants of death.
Northrup-Grumman, UTX, Raytheon, Lockheed....
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Winken, Blinken and Nod.
That's the administration we got now.
silverlinings00 8 hours ago
Careful Rand, we wouldn't want you to get another "visit" from a neighbor while you're
mowing the lawn.
Pdunne 3 hours ago (Edited)
Biden's biggest Cabinet mistake will ultimately be Blinken.
Like Obama picked H Clinton with disasterous consequences Biden picks Blinken.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Rand Paul says " Assad is a terrible person " !!!
Dr Assad is a HERO !!
Rand Paul is either completely misinformed or just another useless politician afraid to
speak the TRUTH !
A COWARD !
Hessler 4 hours ago
Assad may be a good person at heart but he is not qualified to run a state. He should be a
doctor or something.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
And Joe Biden is ??
OR Boris Johnstone ??
Helg Saracen 4 hours ago
It is up to the Syrians to decide, not you. You already paid for the genocide of the Syrian
Christians in the "fight against the tyrant Assad." I've seen all kinds of idiots and
hypocrites, but you are their king.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
Why did not Assad anticipated the Zionist invasion even though the Snowden document reveled
the CIA/Mossad works in the making in 2006 ??
If he did anticipated an invasion why he did not do anything to safeguard his nation and
it's people ?
Why every men, women and child capable to lift and shoot was not given and an ordinance and
proper training ?? Israel has that. Why can't Syria ?
Syria is a part of Greater Israel. They have been marked for genocide the day Israel was
created, what haste did Mr. Assad showed to safeguard his country against their genocidal
maniacs psychopaths ??
I will never forgive those who inflicted the terrible atrocities on the children and women
and Mr. Assad has a blame to share.
mark3383 3 hours ago
Assad risked his life and continues to do so every day, trump recently bragged he thought
about "taking him out". he's a true hero more than you or I will ever be
steve2241 5 hours ago
Rand Paul doesn't understand. Blinken follows the path that Israel tells him to. Middle East
instability benefits Israel. The fomenting of Sunni-Shia conflict kills Israels' enemies, the
muslims, without Israel having to lift a finger. Syria is no longer a threat to Israel. Mission
accomplished.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
You're wrong on two accounts. First, there's no ****te/Sunni conflict. What goes in Miiddle
East is entire different than what is portrayed here. The locals know but how many of them get
interviewed on live TV or get a airtime on a prime time desk ? Those are reserved for the
chosenites who spew BS about Arabs and Muslims 24/7.
****te/Sunni fiction as broadcasts in the west is nothing but a ploy to wash the hands of
the responsibility and pin the blame on the victims.
Second, Syria is now a bigger threat to Israel than it was in Pre War era. Battle Hardened
troops, better organization, training with Russian/Iranian Military, better equipment, talented
strategists and when you fight a war like that for that long you tend to grow a bigger set of
balls.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Syria wants the GOLAN back - I would say they are a threat to ISRAEL !!
Sick Monkey 5 hours ago
Speaking of war didn't Rand Paul vote to accept the illegitimate electors. I like Paul he
seems to have a level head but you voted to put the commies in power. Like you said in your
speech "there are repercussions". Those who took a stand against this coup must be kept in
power as they put skin in the game. That's a rare and precious gift to us the people. In the
year 2021 it's as good as gold.
Taffer 5 hours ago
Exactly, hence my previous comment below.
mark3383 3 hours ago
trump lost the election because he allowed million of fraud votes to be counted and never
said or did anything about it in the year leading up to it. he 's the one that lost it. no one
else
Sinophile 6 hours ago
"War Pigs"----Black Sabbath
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Yeah!
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
oh lord yeah!
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
Circuses. Theatre for the plebes. Not one bit of foreign policy is decided or affected by
debates or hearings in the Legislative branch. They're all following a script, some of them act
like they aren't in on the joke.
Cloudcrusher 6 hours ago
Psychosis the denial of reality. The military industrial complex is make believe. It's
military industrial congress, Congress is in charge they alone are to blame know one else. The
sooner everyone starts living in reality the better off will be. You want to win the war of
words better start with reality. Or your going to get a another kind of war one where only the
strong survive.
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Watch: Rand Paul Challenges New Secretary Of State Over Regime-Change In Syria
Meaningless inside the beltway for the record drool-n-dribble... Rand Paul just wants to pad
his resume, bio, and gain some street cred claims...
TahoeBilly2012 6 hours ago
When do the new wars start? Dems can't wait. Blame them on Covid or something, they will buy
it.
vspam 7 hours ago
Biden will go to war with Iran and turned thr ME into a fireball. The mainstream media will
cheer him on under the banner of peace and unity
Max21c 7 hours ago
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
Max21c 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Too late. Washington is toast. It's just a question of when Washingtonians lose in Syria,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, et cetera. They already made a mess of things and they do not
have the brains to fix it. Same with their inabilities as regards nonproliferation, North
Korea, et cetera. They don't have what it takes to figure it out and work it out and nobody is
going to fix it for them because they're assholes regardless of which cabal of Ivy League
assholes or ******* elites are in power.
ThomasEdmonds 7 hours ago
Paul isn't supposed to question a Zionist's motives..
aloha-snackbar 7 hours ago
if the youth said no to war and moms said not my child and burned down the recruitment/death
centers then war would end...
tunEphsh 7 hours ago
Thank goodness that Paul told the idiot Blicken to lay off regime change. Obama-Biden made a
mess of the middle east and caused a refugee crises which is still with us. Instead of being
named secretary of state, me thinks Blicken should be put in jail for acts in the Middle East
which killed hundreds of thousands of people.
moneybots 7 hours ago
The EU has become a mess because of regime change.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Of course he should. But that would require sanity.
yerfej 7 hours ago (Edited)
Simple way to stop all this insane venturism and nation building it to MANDATE that every
aysshole like Blinken have a spouse or child or sibling or relative ON THE GROUND fighting in
one of these shyyytholes. These elites love this crap because THEY never pay a personal price,
no they have farmed that out to the "commoners" who supply the bodies. The filthy elites are
good at leveraging everyone else to fulfill their fantasies while paying no price.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
You've seen the videos of Chelsea and Malia on tour in Kabul? Yeah?
yerfej 7 hours ago
More like Eeyore pontificating from her 20 million dollar penthouse about how she is so not
into money, or Maglia dancing around stoned like a "social justice warrior".
Flynt2142ahh 7 hours ago (Edited)
The senate needs more Rand Paul types - and they dont have to be in the Republican
party...This would force actual accountability of uniparty folks and these appointees. We need
less murkowski and collins
phillyla 7 hours ago
I am going to harp on this
in 2014 Matt Bevin challenged McConnell in a Senate Primary
He was gaining momentum
Then Rand endorsed McConnell
Bevin lost McConnell got re-elected
Bevin was later elected Governor of KY so he had the votes
Rand Paul Broke my heart
Leguran@premium PREMIUM 7 hours ago
We need use the Progressive's signage: He is not my President.
LostMyGunsInABoatingAccident 7 hours ago
You can't necessarily call it an "American" policy.
America lost control of it's policy long ago.....
Mount Massive 7 hours ago
Here comes another war, and this time, it will spiral out of control. In two years or less,
I expect the US to be in a major conflict and/or hit at home. Sigh....Leftist
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi just took Rand aside and said, wait and see what your neighbor on the other side of
you has to say about this.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Rand is in the senate. nancy runs the house. That would be Schumer's job.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi seems to be running the show and is the face of the party
WorkingClassMan 8 hours ago (Edited)
Rand Paul, the lone voice of sanity in a rubber-stamp corrupt government.
If you or someone you care about is either in or thinking about joining this nation's
military...please don't. Let these antiwhites fight their own wars. They hate you and don't
trust you because you're White and they hate you owning guns, but they'll put a gun in your
hand and point you at their and Isn'treal's enemies without hesitation.
fudge punch 8 hours ago
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
AVmaster 3 hours ago
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism,"
Uhhh, yea...
... Thats what they WANTED!
Duh!
Scipio Africanuz 3 hours ago
Thank you Senator Paul..
For your candor..
The challenge of US Foreign Policy, is akin to a heroin addiction. It's bad for the country,
but all attempts to cure the country of addiction to imperialism has failed, including our
energetic efforts over the years..
Too many people benefit from the ruination of the country as it engages in squandering
lives, honor, power, reputation, and treasure, in maintaining a facade of illusory power, at
the expense of the true power of the country..
Put simply Senator, at this point, we don't believe any entity on earth can cure the US of
the addiction to depravity save nature, which cure is more preferable to that of the Entity
whose decision is not subject to appeal..
Now Senator, you may not believe in God Almighty and thus, swat away the simple insight but
God does not require your belief to act..
Over His creation..
The only cure, if sense and rationality don't prevail, is exactly what we don't desire to
know and why?
Because we've seen it before, applied to different societies with similar mentality over the
course of human history and Senator, it's never palatable..
Anyhow, probation is till summer, to allow folks do intensive introspective contemplation,
enough to acquire prudent humility and if they don't, well..
Cheers...
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
I believe the Senator is a Christian.
Pdunne 4 hours ago
Blinken is a bald faced liar and is already working with Ms Nuland on more regime
changes.
Venezuela and Syria need to get ready for more robust attacks.
Dzerzhhinsky 2 hours ago
Control the oil, you control the world.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
Oil was the cause of every war for the past century.
Posa 4 hours ago
A ridiculous exchange. Sen Paul seems to take at face value the Liberal-NeoCon claim that
Regime Change is good-intentioned attempt to democratize the Middle East.
Hardly. Regime Change was always designed to a) install Israeli supremacy in the region
("Operation Clean Break"); and b) secure US Global Uni-polar dominance (the Wolfowitz Doctrine)
as part of the Brezezinski "Grand Chessboard". That's the intention... this exchange
demonstrates how out of it Rand Paul is; and what a nasty weasel Blinken is.
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
That's not what Sen. Paul said. He doesn't agree with regime change. That's what he
said.
PaulDF 5 hours ago
To which the Biden appointee replied, "You know, the thing!"
mark3383 3 hours ago
cmon man!
duckandcover 2 hours ago
do your job!
Taffer 5 hours ago
Rand Paul's opinion and $6 will get him a latte at Starbucks.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Foreign policy is never gonna change no matter who's in change because the way system is
setup.
The lifestyle (our way of life) pertaining to the western model of civilization (our values)
needs unlimited supply of money to be supported. The money that can't be made by legal means,
hence the continues war that needs to be maintained overseas while also starting new ones as
requirement arise.
And since this is a continues state, so accompanies it continues propaganda, lies, false
flags, deception and manipulation of facts and truth. LYING IS IN VERY GENES OF THE WHITE
CHRISTIAN WEST. They have been doing it for so long that they have almost mastered the "the art
of lying" the zenith of which is to project your own flaws and crimes on to the subjects you
carried it out on. One thing you can always be sure of, they will never admit their crimes
unless there's no other way. And that they will be accusing their opponents of the same things
they would be doing.
War underpins their society, nation and civilization.
steve2241 4 hours ago
The problem is that the U.S. is abusing its position as printer-in-chief of the Reserve
Currency of the world. With that fake money, it can intervene in the affairs of nations
throughout the world - a capability that no other country enjoys. Take away its reserve
currency and watch how quickly middle eastern strife ends - and the nation of Israel, too.
apparently 6 hours ago
will the left and their mindless supporters be comforted to know that their guy promotes
these "endless wars"? will they be happy to sacrifice their sons and daughters for desert
real-estate whose oil we don't want?
Paul was being way too polite. He should simply say: "I'm not voting to confirm this war
monger" then get up and leave the room.
Hessler 6 hours ago
If you think it's about the oil, you really don't understand the world you inhabit.
apparently 6 hours ago (Edited)
I don't think it's about oil but I'm struggling to name a single US interest in sand-wars.
maybe you can? yes, yes, military/industrial complex, blah, blah, but why the middle east?
please enlighten us.
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
It's to rebuild the world in the image of the west and Islam is the biggest hampering in the
way. Like other religions, it can't be altered or dominated so the only way is to completely
destroy it. This is why Israel was setup by the Anglos at a strategic location in the heart of
the Arab world to engage them into perpetual war and destroy them.
That's about it.
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 5 hours ago
no evidence that the arab spring was against islam. why aren't we doing regime change in
indonesia? why did joe just reverse the Muslim travel ban?
do you understand anything about the world you live in?
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
A lot actually. We are concentrating on the core of the Islamic civilization for when the
core collapses, the outer layers collapses with it. It's the core that holds the entire thing
together, hence we concentrate on Middle East and not on Indonesia.
Arab spring was to sow chaos and turmoil. By the way of deception.....Jewish moto
It is not that Israel establishes America's foreign policy. It is that the basic world view
produced by WASP culture is naturally aligned with Jewish thought in most ways, especially in
terms of Empire: ruling the world.
InflammatoryResponse 5 hours ago
it was not a muslim travel ban. it was a ban on places that didn't have adequate
infrastructure to verify who was travling.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
where is the last place, core or not core, that Islam religion and Muslim culture has been
eradicated by any means? Yugoslavia? India? Not seeing it. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
Your argument does not hold.
starman99 5 hours ago
(((THEM)))
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
Hessler 5 hours ago
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 2 hours ago
by now, we should be weary (and wary) of "it's all a sideshow" arguments.
it simply asserts greater knowledge (never disclosed) and terminates the thread.
as for the grand anti-islam plan... how's that going in western europe?
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
It is ALWAYS about the OIL - thats why IRAN and VENEZUELA are being weakened by crippling
sanctions !!
THAT"S how the ZIO/US does it - SANCTIONS first - WAR 2nd !
Doesn't work anymore since RUSSIA stepped in !
nocturnal66 7 hours ago
Just ask if this 100 year plus war is to create "greater Israel" . It all documented. Enough
already with the lies. Just admit it.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
WWE- fake fights have begun again in earnest .....................
Paul Ryan could fake a punch as good as John Boehner ............
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
The Washington establishment imposed their chosen ruler Joe Schmo Biden to rule over
America.
jesus_loves_you 7 hours ago
H a n g t h e m a l l
Aquamaster 7 hours ago
Should we have a contest to see who can pick the first country Biden will send troops
to?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
DC !
SERReal1 7 hours ago
You win!
WTFUD 7 hours ago
Blinken Heck , don't worry ya'll, Nuland (Nudelman's) back to steady the ship with a fab new
chocolate chip cookie recipe that the terrorists will adore.
littlewing 7 hours ago
And they aren't even trying to hide it.
fzrkid 7 hours ago
Rand can say whatever he wants and it changes NOTHING
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
Who is still planning on filing taxes? At the very least, turn your back on the
system-right? Upvote for not filing, downvote for I just want to avoid conflict-I'm filing.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
But, we are getting a return.
No paying next year though.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Doesn't matter if it is a disaster for the peoples invaded and for domestic liberty in the
USA.
It's considered "worth it" by those in power
to protect the financial supremacy of the dollar,
promote the regional military supremacy of Israel,
and continue the war profiteering of the MIC.
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So what? Your cushy lifestyle and mine is a direct result of hegemony. Get over it.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Celebration of a "cushy lifestyle" gained by plunder and murder is not for everyone.
To revel in it, one requires a special insensibility.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago (Edited)
This fence-sitter did virtually NOTHING to stop the steal.
Now he's whining about having to lie in bed his cowardice helped make.
Many MORE thousands will soon be massacred by these war-mad psychopaths.
This POS is DEAD TO ME.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Rand is smart, he knew no matter what Xiden was going to be installed.
HominyTwin 7 hours ago
He's smart. A bunch of idiots, after a good breakfast at IHOP, were herded into the capital
by govt informants to break stuff for the cameras, and then herded right back out in time for a
hearty dinner at Golden Corral. They did sacrifice their lunch for exactly nothing, though.
Congrats. He stayed away from all that nonsense.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
That's about the size of it, in retrospect.
zulu127 7 hours ago
regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in long wars that are costly to
the military.
Wrong! "regime change needs to continue because it is involving the US in wars that are
profitable to the military.
ableman28 4 hours ago
Part of the problems is that neither the democrats or republicans are primarily in favor of
DEMOCRATIC governments in the middle east. When Egypt FREELY ELECTED the Muslin Brotherhood to
power in Egypt the US fell all over itself to help unseat them, using every technique we
can.....currency debasement, food aid manipulation, tacit encouragement to strongment
(military) that we feel are controllable, etc. etc.
The US was never in favor of one man one vote in South Africa during apartheid and explained
this convenient hypocrisy as an unfortunate necessity.
Supporting regime change is entirely, ENTIRELY, different than supporting democracy. The US
has a very very very long history of supporting the former and claiming it was the latter when
in fact it wasn't. Democracy means letting the chips fall where they may. In countries whose
ruling leadership is oppressive to its people and for which we have a long history of support
its very unlikely that any democratic election would bring us new friends. It would, in every
case, bring to power people who opposed the old government and by association US.
People playing to the stands here in the US are smart enough to know this. But maintaining
the correct political position for domestic consumption also trumps doing the right thing in
anywhere else.
International politics is a pure expression of national interest. Our national interest is
economic outside the US. That part of socialist or marxist theory is spot on.
Hessler 4 hours ago
Insightful, thanks!
LooseLee 4 hours ago
'Disaster' is the MO, Rand. Please, get real or get lost.
Musum 5 hours ago
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken
on his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa
Pointless and hopeless. The only way to end America's endless wars is to deal with the guys
in small hats.
Hessler 5 hours ago
Small hats were employed by the English speaking protestants for their ulterior motives,
world view, global ambitions which were in alignment with the chosenites.
You can't solve the Jewish problem without solving the problem of western civilization.
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The real problems are the 3 letter intelligence agencies, not religion.
Musum 4 hours ago
Are you naive or misdirecting? Offices are occupied by people.
train rider 6 hours ago
Deep thinking and reflection...what about our military personnel and contractors...why are
we putting them in danger with these interventionist kockamamie screw balls coming up with
these strategies...meanwhile innocent civilians keep getting maimed and killed.
We have no business over there, let the countries decide for themselves what they want etc.
we need energy idependence...greta can go fly a kite...keep reducing emissions with tech we
have.
It is very sad that paul's neighbor does not have a more lethal right hook.
TheZeitgeist 7 hours ago
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001
So...only off by a decade. I think ZeroHedge drops these snafus into the copy just to see if
anyone actually reads the stuff.
freakscene 7 hours ago (Edited)
Its skimming material at best. Reading all the way through went out the window when ZH
become a CNN sponsor.
:)
littlewing 7 hours ago
When Ron Paul was calling out Bernanke you would see they were alone in the room.
There is no debate, its all a fraud. Saw the vote on election theft and it was their aides
voting for them.
StanleyTheManly 7 hours ago
Give me a break, Rand Paul. YOU KNOWINGLY voted for this by not standing for our elected
President.
You're a traitor. Shut up and sit down.
TRON Paul 7 hours ago
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
wmbz 7 hours ago
War is a business, and "we" are big business. Matter no how many completely innocent people
get blown away. What matters are the spoils. We were warned over and over again about the MIC
yet here we are.
Profit always wins over peace, no money in it.
totally unwise 7 hours ago
Today, wars aren't meant to be won
they're meant to bring chaos
Chaos
Calling Maxwell Smart and agent 99
Where's that shoe phone ?
freakscene 7 hours ago
I guess, good for Rand? Thats about all he can do.
Dog Will Hunting 7 hours ago
Oh, that Rand Paul. I wondered where he was hiding this whole time peels back Trump's saggy
*** cheeks to find the good doctor
in_xanadu_did_kubla_khan 8 hours ago
Achoo: Hey, Blinkin
Blinkin: Did you say Abe Lincoln?
Achoo: No! I said, HEY, BLINKIN!
createnewaccount 8 hours ago
If we can't have Giant Meteor maybe a global helter skelter of 'regime change' will be a
good consolation prize.
Lt. Frank Drebin 8 hours ago
I voted for Giant Meteor, but the Dominion voting machines switched my vote to turd
sandwich.
Holding My Breath 7 hours ago
A big upvote for sarcasm (or is it utter stupidity?)
The Military/Industrial Complex needs endless foreign wars and imaginary enemies so that the
money won't be spent at home helping Americans. Such as infrastructure projects. The goal from
within is to destroy the American middle class and turn the United States into a third world
country. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump all served the crooks.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Uh then why didn't Trump start wars?
Bear 11 minutes ago
Like father like son ... insight and wisdom
Arizona1234 26 minutes ago
China Joe and the mentally ill Marxist that run his crap show already started a multi
Trillion dollar endless war. The War on the weather they call Climate Crisis. It's the one
where we loose and wind up praying to find the small potato to make it through the day, and
then hope to find a few dry sticks for the fire to cook it. Where you will have to make the
small fire at night so that mentally ill #AOC carbon police can't easily see the smoke.
Maltheus 1 hour ago
It's taken less than 24 hours, after Biden's inauguration, for ISIS to magically make an
appearance again. They're not even pretending anymore.
Tom Angle 2 hours ago
I think I had heard all I want to hear from Rand Paul after.
boattrash 2 hours ago
Gawdamit Rand, we like you and everything, but the Coup you should be focused on is HERE,
even if it means you should spit in your hands, hoist the black flag and start slittin
throats.
Sincerely,
The American People
Dzerzhhinsky 3 hours ago
If the US can steal Syria, it means it will be able to build a pipeline, steal Iranian gas
and sell it to Europe.
The US needs something to give its financiers and controlling energy supplies to Europe would
go a long way to paying off the debt.
learnofjesuits 4 hours ago
vatican's wars
Hessler 3 hours ago
Puritans burred the Vatican so deep underground that if even the nuke detonates there, if
won't make a shockwave on the ground
TemporarySecurity 4 hours ago
Perfectly fine for anybody in the executive to lie through their teeth.
Say one thing in the hearing and do what they always do once confirmed. Our post
Constitutional government needs to fail.
tangent 4 hours ago
Ran Paul's ability to talk as if they are not simply being outright bribed for their
positions is impressive. I suppose the new CCP SoS will take the positions of the CCP, which is
the one paying him the most money for those positions.
richnhappy 4 hours ago
Just read confessions of an economic hit man, by john perkins, all you need to know. The
playbook sounds like what china is doing in the us now, distract the masses with the middle
east ****show.
Seditious 4 hours ago
We have had just one president so far this century that has not used American blood and
treasure to destroy a nation. He was a rogue billionaire that got taken out by every other
billionaire that wanted to stay in the club. The American people are going to have to figure
out that they will have better results solving this nations problems at the Bezos, Walton,
Zuckerberg and Dorsey homes than they will going to the Capitol in Washington DC.
The Child sacrifice murders committed by these people don't occur in some hidden room at a
pizza parlor. They occur on public roads under semitrailers marked Amazon Prime and Walmart
that wouldn't be allowed on the roads of nations that we used to call the third world.
I suppose the only big question is, who's child dies tomorrow?
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
You could look it at that way. I'd say he was a hairs breadth from starting world war III
with Iran and China and was removed by a stroke of bad luck from Wuhan and the old
establishment asserting their authority through corruption.
Trump might be remembered fondly for actually lowering the number of small conflicts but the
U.S war machine is bigger than any one president and his closeness to Israel show what camp he
was in. Only God or a few insiders can really judge what his ultimate aim was but he wasn't the
man who pulled the first shot of the first world war. Damn well loaded the gun and gave it to
the Israelis in my opinion.
Seditious 4 hours ago
During Obama's time in office we had a year in which the United States dropped bombs in more
nations than they did in any single year during WW2.
Bezos, Walton's and others spill our blood domestically. Biden will spill our blood overseas
to keep some other billionaires happy.
Based on your comment, I take it you REALLY like Blinken! Yes?
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The same thing happened in Egypt when Obama pushed for and got quick elections when the only
organization that could field candidates was the Muslim Brotherhood. The result was very
predictable.
The Brotherhood took over and the result was so bad that the people finally rebelled against
Morsi's government. This lead to Al Sisi who was better than Morsi. I question whether the
situation improved by letting the Muslim Brotherhood take control.
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
People? Thought that was the military?
WatchnSee 5 hours ago
"regime change doesn't work" "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle
East,".... nor in the USA. Time will tell.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Don't worry Mr. Paul, these white men in the suits are the leaders of the terrorists groups.
It's hardcoded in their genes, they don't know any other way of earning a living.
Mancolo 6 hours ago
Lessons? I don't need your stinking lessons. I've got friends to pay off.
Pvt Joker PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I like the US policy of Perma War and Regime change. The more troops over there , the less
troops over here.
Scornd 7 hours ago
I dont understand the complaints.
You voted for this.
MCDirtMigger 6 hours ago
By 'you', do you mean Dominion?
littlewing 7 hours ago
District of Criminals
that's all they are.
I am bailing out forever now.
Just looking at them and their actions is self harm.
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
District of Criminals
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
LorDampNuts 7 hours ago
Keep sending your donations to Stop the Steal, Trump has a plan and will be sworn in by
April when it warms up. Free Chumptard hat with every $100 donation.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
I'd donate a hunny for you to flush your head in a toilet ...............
foxenburg 7 hours ago
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Rammbock 7 hours ago
Republicans are great actors
Kotwica 44 7 hours ago
This guy speaks truth, but, no one gives a flying fu<k.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 7 hours ago
Attention Secret Police: We've got one for you!
freedommusic 7 hours ago (Edited)
Whatever these folks say is irrelevant. They are all sitting on foreign soil. The UNITED
STATES CORPORATION is a foreign Municipal entity owned by China claimed in the recent
bankruptcy settlement. POTUS said when he was leaving. Go ahead, take it. The buildings, the
chairs, statues, it's all yours . Anyone who steps outside of that foreign jurisdiction will be
entering American soil and subject to the Laws of the United States Constitutional Republic and
prosecuted for treason and sedition.
DC is now a Chinese embassy.
I wonder how much food they have stocked up in there? I would presume the military would
uphold a blockade and prevent the exchange of trade from occurring into a surrounded hostile
territory of the enemy.
YOU WANT IT
YOU GOT IT
HAVE A NICE DAY
SERReal1 7 hours ago
Where was Rand in calling out the election fraud?
Now he is acting all tough again on the deep state creatures.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
He wants to stay in office. No way is going to touch the third rail. None of them will.
rkb100100 7 hours ago
This is part of a Punch and Judy show put on for retards.
leodogma1 7 hours ago
And yet not one peep of this Quislings tie's to the Chinese Communist party of Evil !
Southern Discomfort 7 hours ago
I'm sure it will be blamed on an action taken by Trump and the only cure will be
intervention. Maybe Joetard can set up a new cabinet level position to seek out opportunities
for new wars.
More-Cowbell 8 hours ago
The show must go on. As if these asz clowns ( all of them ) matter.
north_hand_demon 8 hours ago
Whatever. Your cushy lifestyle, and mine, exists because we're the dominant imperial power
on the planet. Might makes right. Paul knows it too; this is just virtue signaling.
artless 7 hours ago (Edited)
And in your statement lies the real problem with the vast majority of people in this
country.
Yeah I edited the lame ad hom line after I read a few comments. But perhaps it is long due
that rather than simply accept things as the way they are and calling any opposition to it the
thoughts of a ten year old, it might be high time to actually try to make a change in how
people think and ultimately behave.
Too many people letting their wishful thinking override their wisdom, just like when Obama
was enthroned. I will admit that I was fooled back in 2008 as well, thinking "This time
things are finally different!" , though in my defense I will say that the "Reality
Distortion Field" built around BHO by the mass media was far more believable than the one
they have scraped together for Biden.
Biden being installed will thus buy the empire a "grace period" in which other
countries (EU mostly) will happily buy into America's next war effort. As with the
post-Bushlette era decorated with the Obama figurehead, the empire will take advantage of
this "grace period" to escalate its violence.
After all, that is why they want someone like Biden in the White House in the first place.
If the imperial establishment were at all interested in global de-escalation then they would
have gone forward with it when Trump demanded troops out instead of playing shell games to
keep the empire's wars on a low boil. Trump's belligerent noise-making made it impossible
for the empire to escalate its wars. The empire needs someone who is willing to put a nice
"progressive" spin on mass murder in order to get buy-in for a renewed round of
slaughter.
The empire will not waste this opportunity. They have been waiting four years for it.
There will be more war.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 21:14 utc | 77
Agree with most of this as well as your other post earlier in the thread.
Biden is an attempt to put the mask back on the monster so that the woke, "resistance"
crowd will continue to not care about the unabated slaughter abroad. I mean, when you really
look at it, they (and the corporate mainstream "liberal" media) rarely criticized Trump's
foreign policy and often cheered it, albeit without ever openly praising him, per se. We saw
the occasional article about the ethnic cleansing in Yemen that Trump greatly aided and
abetted, but everyone including the NYT was completely behind his war on Venezuela and
attempt to create war with Iran. The media got a bit up in arms when Kashoggi was murdered -
because of course he was then a journalist - but even that died down quite quickly while
Trump continued feting the Israelis and Saudis.
The coming hot wars will be fought with all of the record breaking arms that Trump sold in
the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
All of that having been said, I'll repeat a point I've made since we started talking about
the election: Trump didn't "start any new wars" because there wasn't much left to do after
Obama and Bush set the world on fire and the Iranians (and Venezuelans) showed restraint when
attacked - both physically and economically. Trump and his Zionist handlers would have loved
it if the USA had ended up in a war with either of those countries and I have no doubt that
if he was elected to a 2nd term, we'd have seen one or both transpire. With Biden, same thing
as the first thing about Trump - There isn't much left to destroy that the USA could actually
get away with and I suspect he will continue the existing wars for however long he (or
Kopmala) is in office.
It's an Empire with a revolving-door Emperor called a President or Prime Minister. The
facts are fixed around the policy. We're obviously headed back toward a more 'can't we all
get along' empire, after four years of a guy who thought he was an actual emperor, instead of
a bobble-head. The differences between the two monopoly parties in the USA are entirely
domestic and are nothing but the size of the crumbs given to the people who think they are
free.
bottom line kadath.. the usa will be an ongoing slavish servant to israel.. that much is
clear as day... which way it goes - syria or iran - none of the saber rattling will stop..
israel doesn't want it to stop! neither does the american duopoly! the people might, but
they don't get a say and generally are not interested in foreign policy..
IMO Biden will do as he is told. His white house chief of staff is a powerful and
skilled player and is quite experienced in working with Biden. Joe could well be diverted to
give solid focus on the home front while the rats he has appointed continue their global
piracy and belligerence. I figure that is why they ran the old fool.
On January 21, the president-elect will sign a number of executive actions to move
aggressively to change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and
businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing,
protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards.
On January 22, the president-elect will direct his Cabinet agencies to take immediate
action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis.
Between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive
actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives. The president-elect will fulfill his promises to
strengthen Buy American provisions so the future of America is made in America. He will
take significant early actions to advance equity and support communities of color and other
underserved communities. He will take action to begin fulfilling campaign promises related
to reforming our criminal justice system. The president-elect will sign additional
executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and
ensure that science guides the administration's decision making. President-elect Biden will
take first steps to expand access to health care – including for low-income women and
women of color. He will fulfill his promises to restore dignity to our immigration system
and our border policies, and start the difficult but critical work of reuniting families
separated at the border. And, President-elect Biden will demonstrate that America is back
and take action to restore America's place in the world.
As noted above, this list is not comprehensive. More items and more details will be
forthcoming in the days ahead.
Time will tell how the other appointees in the administration align with Klain and the
extent of the savage power struggle that is soon to manifest.
The USA is now the proverbial Whale in a Swimming Pool: it is big, powerful and impressive
- but can't hide its moves anymore and has little to none margin for any maneuver.
The American Center-wing is ossifying, or, in Cold Warrior terminology (Arthur
Schlesinger Jr.), is losing its "vitality". It is entering a stage where it must "burn the
village in order to save it".
... it seems the answer is that Germany plays the role in Europe that the US plays in the
world and both are satisfied with that role even though neo-liberalism, austerity and
war-mongering are leading us to inhumanity and disaster.
Like i said before elsewhere Biden would capitalize on what Trump has put forth and take
the infamy and blame for instead of moving in the opposite directions of whatever Trump
criticized for in foreign policy. That means be it trade war with China, renege on climate
deals, strong arming NATO and EU countries, or giving everything Israel wants nothing stop
Biden from maintaining what has been put in place.
At most they'll just make excuse on why they had to maintain the policies they themselves
criticized Trump for without changing direction.
He said Joe Biden's strong conviction was that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a "bad idea"
and that the administration would use "every persuasive tool" to convince partners,
including Germany, to discard the project.
That is pretty much a declaration of war against countries in Europe. Stay
away,
America's
disarray is its own woes, not other countries' opportunity The Financial Times lives in
a world where the USA doesn't have more than 2,000 operational nukes, doesn't control the
financial system (SWIFT), doesn't issue the universal fiat currency (Dollar Standard),
doesn't have a big fucking navy, doesn't enjoy absolute ideological hegemony etc. etc.
...Tronald's foreign policy has been a disaster, even if he has supposedly not sparked a
new war. Let's not talk about all the secret operations, multiplied drone attacks, state
terrorist assassinations, etc. And the new administration is now continuing this...
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
They just go through the motions. They know that they can't win-achieve their long held
objectives-but they can't stop repeating themselves, including their past errors. They are
not allowed to. The US ruling caste-servants of the ruling class- are only allowed to
operate within very narrow boundaries. They aren't allowed to take radical measures when
faced with new crises- they are confined within ever diminishing political circles. The
duopoly has become an obvious One Party system. And its politics are those of the Gilded
Age-150 years old and still going strong.
The only solution to America's problems is defeat so complete that it cannot be denied
even by the least perceptive. Anyone with money to spare should be buying popcorn
futures.
...Biden is an elderly figurehead. Trump's mistake was being openly bullying and vulgar
instead of underhanded. Already, the EU ( as cowardly vassals ) are falling into line on
Iran and Russia.
...Paul Craig Roberts is correct. There has not been a regime change, there has been a
revolution and treating policies of this "president" as if he is more than a figurehead
being run by oligarchs is foolish in the extreme.
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
One could say this about the American people who have been herded into two camps so that
the Center can rule. Here's an example: One of Biden's first executive actions is to
include undocumented residents in the Census. This will please the Left immensely and
outrage the Right. But the Census is conducted every 10 years and it was completed in 2020.
So Biden's action is actually meaningless. How many people will actual notice this? Very
few.
It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes.
Meet the Filthy Rich War Hawks That Make up Biden's New Foreign Policy Team
"I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," – Biden Biographer Branko Marcetic
by Alan Macleod November 13th, 2020
https://www.mintpressnews.com/filthy-rich-war-hawks-make-joe-biden-foreign-policy-team/273039/
Neera Tanden – Reduce US Deficits by Raiding the Economies of Countries We Have
Destroyed:
Neera Tanden, Biden's Pick for Budget Office: Now Is Not the Time To 'Worry About Raising
Deficits and Debt'
by Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/11/30/neera-tanden-biden-omb-debt-deficit/
She once suggested that if Americans care about the deficit so much, maybe we should make
Libya pay for it.
| 11/30/2020
( Ariana Ruiz/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom )
Trump ripped the mask off US foreign policy and exposed it for what it is - ugly Zionism
and outrageous Jewish supremacy. Trump did many foreign policy changes previous incumbents
and their handlers wanted to do but were constrained by the optics and international
opinion.
I agree the Biden administration will continue the same tired old foreign policy, only
with the mask back on. Of course the media won't notice the similarities, but the public
will. No matter how fervently the managers tinker with the edges it is events that drive
changes and change people.
I just listened to President Biden's speech. It was a good one, even a great one. Thinking
about what Plato means by the 'noble lie' it was a noble speech, and there wasn't much of a
lie about it.
b finished the posting with
"
While Trump had continued the wars the U.S. waged when he came into office he did not start
any new ones. Since Joe Biden first entered the Senate 47 years ago he has cheered on every
war the U.S. has since waged. It would be astonishing to find four years from now that he
did not start any new ones.
"
Prepare to be astonished. Biden isn't going to start any new wars for the same reason
that Trump didn't......MAD
Humanity has been in the MAD phase of the civilization war we are in since the Obama era
push back in Syria.
Biden's chest beating will not be as "impressive" as Trump's but the trajectory is the
same.
The new chief says to tighten the circle of wagons, but those accused of besieging the
Outlaw US Empire's wagon train stopped attacking and moved on long ago. Meanwhile,
supplying the wagon train continues to take resources away from dealing with very real
domestic problems. The upshot is China will continue to pull away and increase its lead
geoeconomically, and together with Russia will continue to solidify and strengthen the
Eurasian Bloc. Very soon, the EU is going to be faced with a very stark choice--to join the
Eurasian Bloc and thus stave-off economic atrophy or continue to allow its brand of
Neoliberal Parasites to eat and risk rupture, perhaps not in 2021 but before 2030.
The key is that the false narrative that was initiated in 1945 and bolstered in 1979
continues to be treated as gospel despite its path to certain ruin. I noted there were no
questions asked about the international call for a Bretton Woods 2.0 that would end dollar
hegemony and Petrodollar recycling, while removing the one source of coercion behind its
illegal sanctions.
The only possible target of opportunity I see is Venezuela as the frack-patch is about
to fold-up shop and fuel prices cause domestic inflation to soar -- Here in Oregon, gas
prices have gone up 50cents/gal since the first of the year--25%. The oil being the obvious
target now the the lower-48 has definitely peaked.
@ 32 juliania... you are the eternal optimist! there is something admirable about that!..
however you have to contend with a lot of cynical people who think like it's business as
well, as b's post notes..... you might not like to hear this, but nothing is going to
change under biden... big wheels set in motion and biden is not interested in the least in
changing any of it... neither was trump as some of his fanbots are coming to see too...
political speeches are just so much b.s... juliania - as the saying goes, talk is cheap, it
is actions that count.... watch peoples actions, not their talk... biden can talk a good
line, but that has nothing to do with his actions... top of the day to you!
@34 Invading Venezuela and 'taking the oil' won't be easy though there is a possibility
Colombia will help out. Which means the total disruption of South America. More economical
to just buy the stuff.
"It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 16:16 utc | 26
Tnx for expressing this in a much nicer and polite way then i would have written. And
yes, yes it is sad/amusing to watch NPC`s turn into pretzels to explain away their
cognitive dissonans ,utter foolishness and stupidity.
"... If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war – within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise). ..."
"... The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media (again with "Russian disinformation" playing a major role). ..."
"... I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support, given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the Reich. ..."
"... Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people. ..."
This particular inauguration is going to look a lot different from all the others –
the twin bogus narratives of coronavirus and the "attempted
coup" on January 6th have forced, FORCED, capitol city into an almost Martial Law-like
standing.
A heavy troop presence as your leader is sworn in is one of the hallmarks of legitimacy, you
understand. And not even slightly a sign of power being seized illegitimately.
That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves –
what kind of world are we in for?
Internationally it's likely to be business as usual. If you look at his cabinet choices,
from
Victoria Nuland to
Samantha power , we have a LOT of warmongers who bleat about America's "responsibility to
protect". While politicians and pundits are already rebuking Trump & Johnson for failing in
US/UK's
"moral leadership" of the world, or praising Biden for his plans to "counter Russian
disinformation".
If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war
– within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military
intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise).
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic
terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media
(again with "Russian
disinformation" playing a major role).
The big question is whether the inauguration will go off smoothly, or they'll try another
manufactured incident to sell that agenda.
How do you think President Creepy Uncle Joe is going to shape our world? How long before,
for whatever reason, Kamala Harris replaces him? Will the pandemic be "solved"? Will we have a
new war? Discuss below.
Jan 21, 2021 2:24 AM
Washington DC was empty except for the troops. Windblown streets. Jason Goodman did his
walkabout could not even get a distant view of the Capitol. It's as if no one voted for Biden: no supporters even tried to attend the inauguration. You would have expected someone a few diehards who hadn't heard about the military
occupation.
I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support,
given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of
reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the
Reich.
Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a
military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people.
An inauguration of the leader of a nation cannot be legitimate if the people play no part
.
Celebrities cheered with exaggerated leering grins and lockjaw, tongues lolling in a vain
caricature of support from the class of paid actors.
The term 'State Actor' has a new meaning today. The Corporatist Media could not recognise
its own banality. This was like the USSR Actors' Union huddling and fawning around Secretary
General Brezhnev as the Soviet Union teetered to collapse.
Social cretinism is the best one can say about this sorry debacle but I fear it is something
much, much worse.
Disillusioned Peasant , Jan 21, 2021 2:38 AM Reply to theobalt
Agreed, Trump was used as a puppet to shame anybody who questions the narrative or resists
the deep state. He was asked to be a cartoon, a ridiculous exaggeration of a "traditionalist"
or "nationalist" to forever tarnish that stance. He was basically the Alex Jones president
.the ultimate controlled opposition. A clown.
I'm so embarrassed I fell for it in 2016. Of COURSE he was phony. Jan 21, 2021 1:39 AM
The snake as a new head. It's still the same snake. It still crawls on it's belly and it
still spits the same lies on behalf of the masters who stand behind the curtain. We could
still hear Bush Sr when Clinton spoke ; We could still hear Bush Jr when Obama spoke. Red and
Blue are the same colour.
It was refreshing in parts to have an American president who didn't try to contrive a
narrative that would justify invading another country or contrive yet another cell of
'radicalised' terrorists. No explosions on home soil intended to be taken as an attack from
foreign soil. Nothing in four years.
It was all the more surprising as many believed that Trump was and is a great real estate
dealer and TV celebrity who has manufactured his charisma from arrogance and ignorance. He
has never been celebrated for much beyond his business acumen in the real estate area and TV.
This wasn't exactly an erudite man. Former presidents of different ages were and were capable
of putting it on paper in their memoirs. Trump was the sign of the times ; a Twitter
president. His reign was punctuated by the occasional flexing of Uncle Sam's muscles with
threats and a go -ahead-punk-make-our-day approach to public speaking. Yet still no
threats of war. This was an odd four years. That odd = peace says more about the US than
Trump though. So, what was his role ?
In 2001 we had the Twin Towers. The most dramatic mass murder and the destruction of the
laws of Physics and Logic all in one day. Soon after we had the destruction of personal
freedom and the creation of domestic terror. It had been suggested by Philip Zelikow three
years earlier that a 'searing event such as a terror attack' would be a useful and
effective tool in transforming the future by breaking away from the past in no uncertain
terms. It would be the event that nobody dare question, and that would be perfect for
creating a real fear within the people of the west that such a disaster could occur any time
without warning. All they needed was the right salesman to address us.
And so the Patriot Act was born. The surveillance of everyone in their streets, in other
towns and their homes was pushed through as a public health measure and a matter of
national security. If you protested you were a ' 9 /11 denier' and 'unpatriotic'. If
we went too long without evidence of this terror then somewhere would be bombed and the
bomber would be 'neutralised' before we would ever learn who was behind it. It took time to
become a 'new normal' but it became the 'new normal'. Complain- you were a 'dangerous'
conspiracy theorist; in some states it was considered grounds to label you under the mental
health act. Just for asking questions.This was how to protect democracy- by
tyranny.
So, two decades on we were ready and primed.
Gates and his cohort billionaire 'philanderers' had been beavering away for decades
creating more subtle forms of terror. No bangs; no smoke; no mess. These 'missiles'
were microbes and the control groups had been observed closely. From mice, to bats to black
people to gay people. Once the results /data became big enough numbers, the bomb factory went
to work behind the closed doors of 'Cancer Research ' facilities.
We all know now about the hypothetical exercises 'imagined' by the Gates 'Good
Club' ; nightmares of being unprepared etc. They penned in 2030 as target date for the
endgame. . A date that will have seen the human race enslaved or culled by their
terrorism.
Liability would have been taken off the table, giving them free reign. All involved sank
their pennies into the manufacturing of these little bombs. And all Academic Institutions,
MSM platforms, and pharmaceutical industries were funded by Gates and Co. Then
Monsanto and it's subsidiaries were purchased the same way, and the same immunity from
prosecution granted from the damaging synthetic /poison crops and food.
So, 2020, was Trump's last stand. He had his '9 /11'. He had domestic bio
terrorists. Then the rest of the world had it. We had the same threats to national
security and the same 'need' for a new version of a Dystopian Patriot Act.
This wasn't about ISIS or Al -Qaeda and their radicalised lunatics. Trump had found a new
group of Bogeymen. China. He would have sounded a bit paranoid if Russia was blamed for
something again. Besides, everyone knows that all SARS- type or flu-like viruses are made in
China quicker and cheaper. And the US should know that by looking in their many, many
stockpiles in their own Biological War labs they pretend are trying to cure
cancer.
Trump decided to refer to the Covid 19 virus as 'The Chinese disease '. Fang
Ling Fauci had told him to on behalf of Wong Sing Gates.
He went on to call himself a 'war time president' ( there you go- he got one).
He invoked the Defence Production Act, an old Cold War law which allows the Executive
Branch to control and redirect the production and distribution of scarce materials deemed
"essential to the national defense. " In an executive order dated March 18th,
2020.
To add another layer to the movie the troops were brought in and all medics were now
'heroes on the front line'.
The script went global. It began in the country that Gates had composed such a
hypothetical scenario- America. Hence the 'Chinese Disease'. It was the new war on terror
minus the James Bond bad guy Bin Laden.
So Trump ushered it in right on time. It didn't win the election( we were told). Instead,
it won it for Obama's man, Biden.
Biden and Obama were the most vehement advocates of Monsanto, Sterilisation, and Social
Technology ( eugenics ; social cleansing). Obama was made a very wealthy man for his
services to the Gates agenda, pharma and GM / Frankenfood. He was surprisingly racist
as well as elitist. Tom Vilsack was their frontman. Biden has already called him out of
retirement.
So, given the 'war-on-(bio)-terror ' that was born in the USA and sold worldwide,
there was no place for Trump. His job was to let the the 'enemy' in, warn us of the possible
'war ahead' and leave it to Gates. But Trump seemed to have spotted that and didn't
seem too keen on the narrative. So, come on down Barack O Biden. The timing's right.. Jan 20,
2021 11:40 PM Reply to Ben
Do not be bamboozled, in SHAM DEMOCRACY USA there is only one party, THE
REPUBLICRATS (the WAR RACKETEER CORPORATE FASCIST political racket so corrupt it needs two
aliases).
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral
and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of
tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
~ Frederick Douglas, 1857
Schmitz Katze , Jan 20, 2021 10:44 PM
„That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves
– what kind of world are we in for? –
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic.-
Will the pandemic be "solved"? „
It will only be solved when people have had enough of it. The deep state got rid of Trump
(for the timebeing-) under the guise of a pandemic. For them and their minions in MSM,
government and academia it´s a gift that keeps on giving, with never ending corona
mutation fearporn.
It´s totalitarianism, it´s dystopia under under the guise of –
domestic-safety.
This comes at a time when Americans are now
reporting that they trust corporations more than they trust their own government or media,
when pundits are gleefully proclaiming in The New
York Times that "CEOs have become the fourth branch of government" as they pressure the
entire political system to smoothly install Biden, when the leading contender for the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is an Obama holdover who went from the
administration to working for both Amazon and Google, and when Americans are being
paced into accepting an increasing amount of authoritarian changes for their own good.
And this manic celebration and increasing brazenness of corporate power are of course
overlaid atop an unceasing river of human blood as the globe-spanning empire continues to smash
any nation which disobeys it into compliance so as to ensure lasting uncontested planetary
hegemony.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
DH Fabian , January 18, 2021 at 12:03
Yes, nervous middle classers pray Joe Biden will be their salvation. The rest of us know
why "business as usual" will continue. The only real difference between Biden and Trump is
that Biden is more likely to start a catastrophic war (as his record clearly indicates).
Jeff Harrison , January 17, 2021 at 23:17
Good points. Since Americans don't see any consequence to their government's outrageous
behavior, everything's outstanding (there are real benefits to those two oceans)! And it will
remain outstanding until someone shoves our bad behavior in our faces (which could really
happen. The Russians and Chinese are arming themselves to defend themselves from the US.
That's a lot cheaper than having to support a major offensive capability) or our brokeness
blows our economy to hell. You might want to read up on what happened to Sparta ..
No, I am not excited for the inauguration of a man who: Wrote the crime and bankruptcy
bills, voted for the Iraq War, took more money from Wall Street than Trump, and told a room of
rich donors that "nothing will fundamentally change." Democrats are part of the problem
too.
"... Here we are in Weirdsville, USA where most people, whether of the left, right, or center, are hypnotized by the flickering screens. That's what movies do. That's what long planned psychological operations do. That's what digital technology allows corrupt rulers and the national security state with its Silicon Valley partners in crime to do. ..."
"... We now live in a screen world where written words and logic are beside the point. Facts don't matter. Personal physical experience doesn't matter. Clear thinking doesn't matter. Hysterical reactions are what matter. Manipulated emotions are what matter. Saying "Fuck You" is now de rigueur, as if that were the answer to an argument. ..."
"... It's all a movie now with the latest theatrical performance having been the January 6, 2021 stage show filmed at the U.S. Capitol. A performance so obvious that it isn't obvious for those hypnotized by propaganda, even when the movie clearly shows that the producers arranged for the "domestic terrorists" to be ushered into the Capitol. They let the "Nazis" in on Dr. Goebbels orders. Thank God Almighty they were beaten back before they seized power in their Halloween costumes. ..."
"... Now who could have given that order to the Capitol and D.C. police, Secret Service, National Guard, and the vast array of militarized Homeland Security forces that knew well in advance of the January 6 demonstration? Who gave the stand-down orders on September 11, 2001, events that were clearly anticipated and afterwards were described by so many as if they were a movie? Surreal. Dreamlike. ..."
"... To accept that Trump and Biden are scripted actors in a highly sophisticated reality TV movie is a bit of "reality" too hard to bear. Exposing them and their minions doesn't hurt at all. There's no business but show business. ..."
"... "A magician is only an actor," ..."
"... "an actor pretending to be a magician." ..."
"... "Will wonders ever cease," ..."
"... On a conscious level, however, many people continue to rationalize their grasp of what is going on in the United States as if ..."
"... The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy .My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation ..."
"... still cling to the belief that he is the man they believe in and was going to "clean the swamp" but was sabotaged by the "deep state." Biden supporters, driven by their obsessive hatred for Trump and the ongoing delusions that the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is not thoroughly corrupt, look forward to the Biden presidency and the new normal when he can "build back better." For both groups' true faith never dies. It's very touching. ..."
"... As I have written before, if the Democrats and the Republicans are at war as is often claimed, it is only over who gets the larger share of the spoils. Trump and Biden work for the same bosses, those I call the Umbrella People (those who own and run the country through their intelligence/military/media operatives), who produce and direct the movie that keeps so many Americans on the edge of their seats in the hope that their chosen good guy wins in the end. ..."
"... But if that is so, why, despite Trump and Biden's superficial differences – and Obama's, Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's for that matter – have the super-rich gotten richer and richer over the decades and the war on terror continued as the military budget has increased each year and the armament industries and the Wall Street crooks continued to rake in the money at the expense of everyone else? These are a few facts that can't be disputed. There are many more. So what's changed under Trump? We are talking about nuances, small changes. A clown with a big mouth versus traditional, "dignified" con men. ..."
...Life today seems like a dream, doesn't it? Surreal to the point where everything seems
haunted and betwixt and between, or this against that, or that and this against us... Or a Luis
Buñuel film. The logic of the irrational. Surrealistic. A film made to draw us into an
ongoing nightmare. Hitchcock with no resolution. Total weirdness, as Hunter Thompson said was coming
before he blew his brains out. A life movie made to hypnotize in this darkening world where
reality is created on screens, as Buñuel said of watching movies:
This kind of cinematographic hypnosis is no doubt due to the darkness of the theatre and
to the rapidly changing scenes, lights, and camera movements, which weaken the spectator's
critical intelligence and exercise over him a kind of fascination.
Here we are in Weirdsville, USA where most people, whether of the left, right, or
center, are hypnotized by the flickering screens. That's what movies do. That's what long
planned psychological operations do. That's what digital technology allows corrupt rulers and
the national security state with its Silicon Valley partners in crime to do.
We now live in a screen world where written words and logic are beside the point. Facts
don't matter. Personal physical experience doesn't matter. Clear thinking doesn't matter.
Hysterical reactions are what matter. Manipulated emotions are what matter. Saying "Fuck You"
is now de rigueur, as if that were the answer to an argument.
It's all a movie now with the latest theatrical performance having been the January 6,
2021 stage show filmed at the U.S. Capitol. A performance so obvious that it isn't obvious for
those hypnotized by propaganda, even when the movie clearly shows that the producers arranged
for the "domestic terrorists" to be ushered into the Capitol. They let the "Nazis" in on Dr.
Goebbels orders. Thank God Almighty they were beaten back before they seized power in their
Halloween costumes.
Now who could have given that order to the Capitol and D.C. police, Secret Service,
National Guard, and the vast array of militarized Homeland Security forces that knew well in
advance of the January 6 demonstration? Who gave the stand-down orders on September 11, 2001,
events that were clearly anticipated and afterwards were described by so many as if they were a
movie? Surreal. Dreamlike.
As with the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, the recently
staged show at the Capitol that the mainstream media laughingly call an attempted coup
d'état will result in a new "Patriot Act" aimed at the new terrorists – domestic
ones – i.e. anyone who dissents from the authoritarian crackdown long planned and
underway; anyone who questions the vast new censorship and the assault on the First Amendment;
anyone who questions the official narrative of Covid-19 and the lockdowns; anyone who suggests
that there are linkages between these events, etc.
Who, after all, introduced the Omnibus
Counterterrorism Act in 1995 that became the template for the Patriot Act in 2001 that was
passed into law after September 11, 2001? None other than former Senator Joseph Biden .
Remember Joe? He has a new plan.
Of course, the massive Patriot Act had been written well before that fateful September day
and was ready to be implemented by a Senate vote of 98-1, the sole holdout being Democratic
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the House of Representatives the vote was 357-66.
For those familiar (or unfamiliar) with history and fabricated false flags, they might want
also to meditate on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 that gave Lyndon Johnson his seal of
approval to escalate the war against Vietnam that killed so many millions. The vote for that
fake crisis was 416-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate.
In the words of Mark Twain:
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat
myself.
Harry Houdini, the magical performer who was able to escape from any trap, any nightmarish
enclosure, any lockdown, once said,
It's still an open question, however, as to what extent exposure really hurts a
performer.
The question has been answered. It doesn't hurt at all, for phoney events still mesmerize
millions who are eager to suspend their disbelief for the sake of a sad strand of hope that
their chosen leaders – whether Biden or Trump – are levelling with them and are not
playing them for fools. To accept that Trump and Biden are scripted actors in a highly
sophisticated reality TV movie is a bit of "reality" too hard to bear. Exposing them and their
minions doesn't hurt at all. There's no business but show business.
Houdini knew well the tricks used to deceive a gullible audience hypnotized by theatrics.
"A magician is only an actor," he said, "an actor pretending to be a
magician." This is a perfect description of the charlatans who serve as presidents of the
United States.
Life today seems like a dream, doesn't it? "Will wonders ever cease," said Houdini,
as he closed his shows.
When I was a child I had a repetitive dream that I was trapped in a maze. Trying to escape,
all I could hear as I tried desperately to find an exit was a droning sound. Droning without
end. The only way I could escape the maze was to wake up – literally. But this dream
would repeat for many years to the point where I realized my dreams were connected to my actual
family and life in the U.S.A.
Then, when I was later in the Marines and felt imprisoned and was attempting to get out as a
conscientious objector, the dream changed to being trapped in the Marines, or the prison I was
expecting if they didn't let me go. Even when I got out of the Marines and was not in prison,
the dreams that I was continued.
It took me years to learn how to escape.
I mention such dreams since they seem to encapsulate the feelings so many people have today.
A sense of being trapped in a senseless social nightmare. Prisoners. Lost in a horror movie
like Kafka's novel The Castle in which the
protagonist K futilely seeks to gain access to the rulers who control the world from their
castle but can never reach his goal. But these are dreams and The Castle is
fiction.
On a conscious level, however, many people continue to rationalize their grasp of what
is going on in the United States as if what they take to be reality is not fiction.
Trump supporters – despite what are seen by them as his betrayals when he said on January
7 that
The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American
democracy .My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.
This moment calls for healing and reconciliation
still cling to the belief that he is the man they believe in and was going to "clean the
swamp" but was sabotaged by the "deep state." Biden supporters, driven by their obsessive
hatred for Trump and the ongoing delusions that the Democratic Party, like the Republican, is
not thoroughly corrupt, look forward to the Biden presidency and the new normal when he can
"build back better." For both groups' true faith never dies. It's very touching.
As I have written before, if the Democrats and the Republicans are at war as is often
claimed, it is only over who gets the larger share of the spoils. Trump and Biden work for the
same bosses, those I call the Umbrella People (those who own and run the country through their
intelligence/military/media operatives), who produce and direct the movie that keeps so many
Americans on the edge of their seats in the hope that their chosen good guy wins in the
end.
It might seem as if I am wrong and that because the Democrats and their accomplices have
spent years attempting to oust Trump through Russia-gate, impeachment, etc. that what seems
true is true and Trump is simply a crazy aberration who somehow slipped through the net of
establishment control to rule for four years. A Neo-Nazi billionaire who emerged from a TV
screen and a golden tower high above the streets of New York.
This seems self-evident to the Democrats and the supporters of Joseph Biden, and even to
many Republicans.
For Trump's supporters, he seems to be a true Godsend, a real patriot who emerged out of
political nowhere to restore America to its former greatness and deliver economic justice to
the forgotten middle-Americans whose livelihoods have been devastated by neo-liberal economic
policies and the outsourcing of jobs.
Two diametrically opposed perspectives.
But if that is so, why, despite Trump and Biden's superficial differences – and
Obama's, Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's for that matter – have the super-rich
gotten richer and richer over the decades and the war on terror continued as the military
budget has increased each year and the armament industries and the Wall Street crooks continued
to rake in the money at the expense of everyone else? These are a few facts that can't be
disputed. There are many more. So what's changed under Trump? We are talking about nuances,
small changes. A clown with a big mouth versus traditional, "dignified" con men.
Trump's followers were betrayed the day he was sworn in, as Biden's will be shortly unless
they support a crackdown on civil rights, the squelching of the First Amendment, and laws
against dissent under the aegis of a war against domestic terrorism.
I'm afraid that is so. Censorship of dissent that is happening now will increase
dramatically under the Biden administration.
Now we have the "insurrection," also known as an attempted "coup d'état," with
barbarians breaching the gates of the sacred abode of the politicians of both parties who have
supported bloody U.S. coups throughout the world for the past seventy plus years. Here is
another example of history beginning as tragedy and ending as farce.
But who is laughing?
If you were writing this script as part of long-term planning, and average people were
getting disgusted from decades of being screwed and were sick of politicians and their lying
ways, wouldn't you stop the reruns and create a new show?
Come on, this is Hollywood where creative showmen can dazzle our minds with plots so twisted
that when you leave the theater you keep wondering what it was all about and arguing with your
friends about the ending. So create a throwback film where the good guy versus the bad guy was
seemingly very clear, and while the system ground on, people would be at each other's throats
over the obvious differences, even while they were fabricated or were minor. This being the
simple and successful age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
I realize that it is very hard for many to entertain the thought that Trump and Biden are
not arch-enemies but are players in a spectacle created to confound at the deepest
psychological levels. I am not arguing that the Democrats didn't want Hillary Clinton to win in
2016. I am saying they knew Trump was a better opponent, not only because they could probably
defeat him and garner more of the spoils, but because if he possibly won he was easily
controlled because he was compromised. By whom? Not the Democrats, but the "Deep State" forces
that control Hillary Clinton and all the presidents. A compromised and corrupt lot.
The Democrats and Republicans were not in charge in 2016 or in 2020. Their bosses were. The
Umbrella people. Biden will carry out their orders, and while everyone will conveniently forget
what actually happened during Trump's tenure, as I previously mentioned, they will only
remember how the Democrats "tried" to oust this man in the black hat, while Biden will carry on
Trump's legacy with minor changes and a lot of PR. He will seem like a breath of fresh air as
he continues and expands the toxic policies of all presidents. So it goes.
If there must be a CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it.
William Burns in 2014 as U.S. deputy secretary of state. (State Department)
By John Kiriakou Special to Consortium News
P resident-elect Joe Biden has finally named a new CIA director, one of the final
senior-level appointees for his new administration. Much to the surprise of many of us who
follow these things, he named senior diplomat Williams Burns to the position. Burns is one of
the most highly-respected senior U.S. diplomats of the past three decades. He has ably served
presidents of both parties and is known as both a reformer and as a supporter of human
rights.
Burns is currently the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an
important Washington-based international affairs think tank. He served as deputy secretary of
state under President Barack Obama and was ambassador to Russia under President George W. Bush
and ambassador to Jordan under President Bill Clinton. He was instrumental in the negotiations
that led to the Iran Nuclear Deal and spent much of his career focused on the Middle East Peace
Process. Burns joined the Foreign Service in 1982.
Please
Contribute to Consortium
News ' Winter Fund Drive
"Bill Burns is an exemplary diplomat with decades of experience on the word stage keeping
our people and our country safe and secure. He shares my profound belief that intelligence
must be apolitical and that the dedicated intelligence professionals serving our nation
deserve our gratitude and respect. The American people will sleep soundly with him as our
next CIA Director."
The message from Biden is clear: The CIA will not be led by a political hack like Mike
Pompeo, a CIA insider like John Brennan, or someone associated with the CIA's crimes of
torture, secret prisons, or international renditions like Gina Haspel. Instead, the
organization will be led by someone with experience engaging across a negotiating table with
America's enemies, someone experienced in solving problems, rather than creating new ones,
someone who has dedicated much of his career to promoting peace, rather than to creating
war.
Rank & File Response
The question, though, is what will be the response from the CIA's rank-and-file to Burns'
appointment? I can tell you from my 15 years of experience at the CIA that there will be two
reactions. At the working level, analysts, operators, and others will continue their same level
of work no matter who the director is. Most working level officers don't even care who the
director is. It doesn't matter to them. They never encounter the director and policies made at
that top level generally don't impact them on a day-to-day basis.
At the senior levels, the leadership levels, CIA officers will be of two minds. Some will
welcome Burns and his professionalism. They'll welcome a director who doesn't attract adverse
press because of a past history of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. (Even if
they supported those crimes when they were being committed, press attention is always
unwelcome.) They'll welcome a director who didn't head secret prisons overseas. They'll
welcome a director who wasn't in charge of Guantanamo. They'll welcome a director who
wasn't in charge of maintaining a secret "kill list."
Others will resent Burns, though, as they resented an earlier outsider, Admiral Stansfield
Turner. Turner had been appointed by President Jimmy Carter to "clean up" the CIA. Turner then
fired fully a third of the CIA's operations officers, some just months away from qualifying for
retirement. He was universally reviled after that, and he never regained the trust of agency
personnel.
That's not Burns' style. He's not a military officer who demands fealty. He's a diplomat, a
negotiator. The CIA has to be cleaned up. Its policies have to be reformed. If there must be a
CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it. At the very least, we should give him
enough time to at least get started.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
As a top-level State Department official through the administrations of Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton, Bush II and Obama, Burns is implicated in virtually every crime of US imperialism
over the past three decades, including the war in Iraq, the US-NATO attack on Libya, the
military coup that drowned the Egyptian Revolution in blood, and the US intervention in
Syria.
After such a career, as the saying goes, Burns knows where all the bodies are buried. Now
he is assigned to head an agency that is probably responsible for more killing, torture and
mass suffering than any other on the planet: the CIA.
A preview of what to expect from a Burns-led CIA was given during an interview with
National Public Radio's Mary Louise Kelly on "US Global Leadership" held June 19, 2019 at the
Truman Center for National Policy in Washington, DC. In the extended conversation, Burns
defended the US and NATO-led coup in Libya which ended with the grisly murder of Muammar
Gaddafi, followed by an ongoing civil war, the torture and killing of refugees and the return
of slave-markets.
"It was right to act in Libya in the way that we did," Burns said. While the US government
might have "got some assumptions wrong," he expressed no regrets, saying that he still
thought Obama's "decision to act was unavoidable."
Anne , January 12, 2021 at 14:15
I would agree with your estimation some one, anyone who can think, believe, say etc that
what we did in Iraq, Libya (I don't doubt Serbia), Syria is "rightful" has a heinously
distorted mind (pretty much everyone in DC, in the MICIMATT) And Biden has revealed himself
– again – as a subject of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist plutocratic ruling
elites (and one with his hand forever stuck out)
was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows
(including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator. Follow him on Twitter
@georgegalloway
19 Jan,
2021 18:23 It's hard not to wonder if Joe Biden will even last his first 100 days in office...
but those arguing his mind isn't sound enough shouldn't expect a swift exit, because since when
was that a disqualifier?
... ... ...
The madness of Donald Trump had nothing on his Republican predecessor and fellow-impeachee
Richard Nixon. So disturbing were the last days of Tricky Dicky, it came as a relief to America
and the world when he resigned – even though it was famously said his successor Gerald
Ford couldn't chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time. Bovine he may have been,
but a mad-cow he wasn't.
The Raging Bull Donald J Trump – grotesque, bizarre, unbelievable – had the
misfortune to go quite mad in the age of cable news and social media. His narcissistic
predilections always bordered on personality disorder. But his natural braggadocio stormed him
to victory in 2016 in a backlash against the super-smooth professorial presidency of Barack
Obama, with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton riding shotgun.
Under Obama, the Clintonite deindustrialisation of America became almost complete .
China was presented with America's lunch. And in no less than nine conflicts across the
globe Obama was 'nation-building' in other people's countries while his own country was falling
apart. But a dark storm was gathering
If only the Democrats had not started out by trying to steal Trump's election in a flurry of
pussy-hats and fake Russiagate hoaxes. If only they hadn't striven might and main to railroad
the Electoral College into betraying their mandate and – in the case of
Nancy Pelosi – make a thinly disguised call for "uprisings throughout the country."
If only they hadn't spent countless millions and two whole years of a four year-term with the
Mueller Inquiry and the cockamaney theorem that the man who confronted Russia from Ukraine and
the Baltics through the wrecked INF and Open Skies treaties to the killing fields of the Levant
was, in fact, an agent of Vladimir Putin. If only, if only
As it happened, the descent into madness of Trump was complete by the end. The coronavirus
he derided at first, before predicting it would disappear in the warm weather of spring, before
pondering whether bleach up the bahookie might not be an option as a cure. The Tammany Hall
skullduggery of election day, practiced over a century in places like New York, rolled out
across the country. The political suicide of only half-making a revolution on January 6 dug
his own grave. Nobody ever beat a candidate who polled over 75 million votes before. But
Sleepy Joe Biden did.
And he did it hardly ever leaving his basement home studio, where he painfully struggled to
read an autocue even with an earpiece shrieking the words to him. When he did speak, it was
often gibberish that would have made Ronald Reagan blush. He oftentimes plainly didn't know
where he was, what office he was running for, which woman was his sister and which was his
wife.
When Boris Yeltsin was rattling down, the world endlessly amused itself at the sight of
Russia on its back, legs akimbo with thieves picking its pocket. With Joe Biden, though, the
political class and its media echo-chamber merely look the other way.
Despite Democratic Party control of all levels of Federal power, it seems unlikely we are
about to witness an FDR or a JFK barnstorming 100 days. It seems fair to wonder if Sleepy
Joe will even see out a hundred days in office. It is, however, certain that if he is in office
he will not be in power. Because power has already passed to the cavernous uncertainty of Vice
President Kamala Harris.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Mark Conley 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Thanks for reminding the world that the president of the USA including his puppet elected
office bearers has absolutely no power whatsoever. Well said. Thus you have answered your own
observation at the end. The future is indeed dark and uncertain with the only certainty that
nothing good can be expected from any USA government. Thus the onus is on the peaceful
majority to do what is necessary.
Atilla863 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:15 PM
One thing is certain in the new leadership - the debt will go on growing, perhaps reaching
40+ T dollars before the next elections. While this trend continues - the Chinese will be
laughing all the way running to their banks as their economy records fortune after fortune
proportional only inversely to the rate at which America recedes into superpower sunset.
JJ_Rousseau 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
I'm surprised at George Galloway's comments, as he is a former MP in British politics. Kamala
in charge? Don't make me laugh. The cabal is in charge, as they have been since Woodrow
Wilson. Before actually, as Garfield was assassinated for shedding light on the banker
machinations. Garfield knew that control of the nation's money was control of the nation. The
coup of America is complete. The POTUS is only the spokesman for the cabal, nothing else
Biden will be much easier to control and manipulate by the Jewish Banking Cartel, which
ultimately controls the US government and Wall Street. Trump was too unpredictable and would
have made it difficult for them to achieve their historical hope. "The Jews energetically
reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope
of World Empire." - Dr. Max Mandelstamm ***We should always listen to the doctors.
Not stolen.....50 states certified, 60 plus courts found nothing fraudulent, and the
electoral votes were confirmed by the House and Senate, with the Senate led by Pence. So, as
the world knows and anyone who knows election laws, the election was one of the most
legitimate ever held in the US.
KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The Jewish Banking Cartel is ultimately in control of the US government and Wall Street.
They've been in control for decades. Now they've obviously teamed up with the Jewish Big Tech
companies like Facebook and Google in order to gain even more control. Controlling the money,
money system, and the minds of the masses has been their goal. Two Jewish controlled
companies control over $9Trillion of American's wealth. (BlackRock Inc. & Goldman Sachs)
They've finally achieved their goal. The cartel is now in control of a country that is
completely out of control. Karma!
Daffyduck011 KarlthePoet 38 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:18 PM
Ashkenasty banking cartel.
JJ_Rousseau KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:29 PM
It's not only the banking cabal, it's the media (which the same gang own, of course). This
cannot happen without a complicit media. This is a very old strategy
Blackace180 7 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:49 PM
He'll be impeached multiple times, along with his family. Removed and jailed. People need a
reminder of just how messed up Obama/Biden was and it is coming. The caravans are already on
the way and gas has jumped 55 cents a gallon since the election, for no reason other than it
is Biden. People will run the nutcracker right out of office, hopefully before the country
collapses from his nutcracker policies.
White Elk 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:45 PM
The press-elected.
Xilla White Elk 33 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:23 PM
How did the press elect him?
Franc 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Xilla/Herrbifi, you're not welcome here. We all know what your goals are, and we all know
you're just here to make a pointless mess.
5th Eye 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
An Italian bureaucrat once said, "Everything is changed, so that it remains the same." It
will be exactly like that under Biden to legitimate his regime.
The_Chosenites 51 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
Since both Trump and Biden are proud zionists, the only thing I am certain of is Israel and
the Jewish community have won another election and we'll see many jewish politicians elevated
to positions of power in the Biden administration. Biden best do what's best for Israel if he
knows whats good for him and his health.
KarlthePoet The_Chosenites 16 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:40 PM
Maybe when Kamala becomes President she can get advice from her Jewish husband, who is a
lawyer. What a coincidence.
Enki14 9 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:48 PM
That Henry Kissinger, long time shadow government puppet endorsed demented biden is a clue as
to what might happen as they know in 2 years the masses will reinstate conservatives and in 4
years another trumpster. We may see sweeping changes, with some huge blowback.
The_Chosenites Enki14 4 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:53 PM
Kissinger has had a bed in the oval office for many a President, he must have been installed
by the Chosennites to stay in office forever. Presidents come and go, but Kissinger remains
to pull the strings. Goldman Sach's et al rule the roost.
Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:42 PM
Biden's 100 days are interesting. It's exactly 100 days from January 20 to May 1, which is
the communist May Day.
Skeptic076 Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Used to be the American May Day as well, you know? Interesting if you research why it is not
anymore.
Michael Knight 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:46 PM
Impossible to believe he'll be in charge????? That's probably because he won't be!
RCBreakenridge Mike Freeman 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Mike, seriously? What echo chamber are you living in? How can you look at Biden and not
understand that he's little more than a life-size cardboard cutout of the man that used to be
Obama's puppet? He'll be in office as long as they can continue to stand him up for photo ops
and he continues to do exactly what he is told. As soon as either of those conditions falter,
Nancy and friends will roll out the 25th amendment, show him the door and lead KH to the
presidents chair. But make no mistake, the only choices Sleepy Joe will be making are to do
as he is told.
"... "A month after the election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to fulfill his ..."
"... to donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet appointments ..."
"... What little organized left political infrastructure exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum deserve a loyal opposition. The ..."
"... being done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp creatures a free pass ..."
"... Despite Tanden's ..."
"... push for Social Security cuts ..."
"... , Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to defend Social Security ..."
"... . Despite Tanden having her organization ..."
"... rake in cash ..."
"... from Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and ( ..."
"... ) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer advocacy group ..."
"... CAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tanden ..."
"... a union at CAP, ..."
"... union leaders ..."
"... in Washington lauded her. ..."
"... American Prospect ..."
"... "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ..."
"... "a President Putin would be in the business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and other nations that are near the U.S. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Bernard Schwartz, ..."
"... a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin ..."
"... (which is by far the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th, ..."
"... "Biden allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter" ..."
"... , and reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate. ..."
That didn't take long. He's not even in office, and he has already surrounded himself, as
the incoming President, with individuals who derive their wealth from (and will be serving)
America's top defense contractors and Wall Street. The likelihood that these Government
officials will be biting the hands that feed them is approximately zero. Great investigative
journalists have already exposed how corrupt they are. For that to be the case so early (even
before taking office) is remarkable, and only a summary of those reports will be provided here,
with links to them, all of which reports are themselves linking to the incriminating evidence,
so that everything can easily be tracked back to the documentation by the reader here, even
before there are any 'Special Prosecutors' (as if those were serving anyone other than the
opposite Party's political campaigns, and, ultimately, the opposite Party's billionaires).
First up, is the independent investigative team of David Sirota and Andrew Perez. On
December 4th, they bannered "The Beltway
Left Is Normalizing Corruption And Corporatism" , and reported that "A month after the
election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to
fulfill hispromiseto donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit
admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in
Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet
appointments ."
Liberal (that's to say Democratic Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness of Democratic
politicians, and conservative (that's to say Republican Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness
of Republican politicians; and, so, the public today are getting corrupt leaders whichever side
they vote for. No mainstream 'news' media report what independent investigative journalists
such as Sirota and Perez report. Authentically good journalists use as sources -- and link to
in their articles -- neither Democratic nor Republican allegations, but instead are on the
margins, outside of the major media, and so rely on whistleblowers and other trustworthy
outsiders, not on people who are somebody's paid PR flacks, individuals who are being paid to
deceive. As Sirota and Perez state: " What little organized left political infrastructure
exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum
deserve a loyal opposition. Thegood workbeing done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is
getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp
creatures a free pass ." It's all some sort of mega-corporate propaganda -- 100%
billionaire-supported on the conservative side, 100% billionaire-supported also on the liberal
side, and 0% billionaire-supported for anything that is authentically progressive (not
dependent, at all, upon the aristocracy).
That independent reporting team focused on Biden's having chosen an economic team which will
start his Administration already offering to congressional Republicans an initial Democratic
Party negotiating position that accepts Republicans' basic proposals to cut middle class Social
Security and health care benefits in order for the Government to be able to continue expanding
the military budgets and purchases from the billionaire-controlled firms, such as Northrop
Grumman -- firms whose entire sales (or close to it) are to the U.S. Government and to the
governments (U.S. 'allies') that constitute these firms' secondary markets. (In other words:
those budget-cuts aren't going to be an issue between the two Parties and used by Biden's team
as a bargaining chip to moderate the Republicans' position that favors more for 'defense' and
less for the poor, but are actually accepted by both Parties, even before the new
Administration will take office.) Obviously, anything that both sides to a negotiation accept
at the very start of a negotiation will be included in the final product from that negotiation;
and this means that during a Biden Presidency there will be reductions in middle-class Social
security and health care benefits in order to continue, at the present level -- if not to
increase yet further -- Government spending on the products and services of such firms as
Lockheed Martin and the Rand Corporation (firms that control their market by controlling their
Government, which is their main or entire market).
Sirota and Perez focus especially upon one example: Neera Tanden, whom Biden chose on
November 30th to be the White House Budget Director, and who therefore will set the priorities
which determine how much federal money the President will be trying to get the Congress to
allocate to what recipients:
Despite Tanden'spush for Social Security cuts, Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to
defend Social Securitylauded
herthink
tank. Despite Tanden having her organizationrake in
cashfrom Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and (previously) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer
advocacy group
praisedCAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the
rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tandenbustinga union at CAP,twonationalunion
leadersin Washington lauded her.
Next up: One of the rare honest non-profits in the field of journalism is the Project on
Government Oversight, POGO, which refuses to accept donations from "anyone who stands to
benefit financially from our work," and which states in its unique "Donation Acceptance Policy" that,
"POGO reviews all contributions exceeding $100 in order to maintain this standard." In other
words: they refuse to be corrupt. Virtually all public-policy or think-tank nonprofits are
profoundly corrupt, but POGO is the most determined exception to that general
rule.
On 20 November 2020, POGO headlined "Should
Michèle Flournoy Be Secretary of Defense?" and their terrific investigative team of
Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey delivered a scorching portrayal of Flournoy as irredeemably
corrupt -- it ought to be read by everybody. It's essential reading throughout, and its links
to the evidence are to the very best sources. So, I won't summarize it, because all Americans
need to know what it reports, and to be able to verify, on their own (by clicking onto any link
in it that interests them), any allegation that the given reader has any question about.
However, I shall point out here the sheer hypocrisy of the following which that article quotes
Flournoy as asserting: "It will be imperative for the next secretary to appoint a team of
senior officials who meet the following criteria: deep expertise and competence in their areas
of responsibility; proven leadership in empowering teams, listening to diverse views, making
tough decisions, and delivering results." (Of course, that assertion presumes the
given 'expert' to be not only authentically expert but also honest and trustworthy,
authentically representing the public's interest and no special interests whatsoever -- not at
all corrupt -- which is certainly a false allegation in her own case.) She had urged the 2003
invasion of Iraq, and had participated in planning and overseeing both the war against Syria,
and the coup that destroyed Ukraine (and none of those countries had ever invaded, or even
threatened to invade, the United States); and, so, for her to brag about her
"delivering results" is not merely hypocritical, it is downright evil, because she is obviously
proud, there, of her vicious, outright voracious, record.
Her business-partner, Tony Blinken, has already received Biden's approval to become his
Secretary of State, and the first really good investigative journalist that American
Prospect magazine has had, Jonathan Guyer, headlined on November 23rd, "What You Need to Know About Tony Blinken" , and what Guyer
reports is just what any well informed reader would expect to see for a business
partner of Flournoy's.
Guyer's report closes by making passing reference to a CBS 'news' puff-piece for Blinken. In
that CBS
puff-piece , Blinken says, "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting
Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its
deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer
space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to
countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ." What would Americans think if
Russia were to have retained its Warsaw Pact, and "a President Putin would be in the
business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing
them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new
capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I.,
electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and
other nations that are near the U.S. "? Guyer pointedly noted that "The [CBS News] podcast
was sponsored by a major weapons maker. 'At Lockheed Martin, your mission is ours,' read an
announcer." Tony Blinken's mission is theirs. These people get the money both coming and going
-- on both sides of the "revolving door." Today's American Government is for sale to
the highest bidders, on any policy, domestic or foreign. 'Government service' is just a
sabbatical to boost their value to the firms that will be paying them the vast majority of
their lifetime 'earnings'. This is the reality that mainstream U.S.-and-allied 'news' media
refuse to publish (or, especially , to make clear). Only an electorate which
is ignorant of this reality can accept such a government.
Back on 26 January 2020, I had headlined "Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They
Come" and documented the reality of this, but America's mainstream media were hiding that
fact so as to decrease the likelihood that the only Democratic Party Presidential candidate whom no billionaire
supported , Bernie Sanders, might win the nomination. Perhaps now that it's too late, even
those 'news' organizations (such as CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times ,
Washington Post , PBS, and NPR) will start reporting the fact of Biden's corruptness.
Where billionaires control all of the mainstream media, there is no democracy -- it's not even
possible , in such a country
Bernard Schwartz,a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin(which is by far
the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's
allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th,"Biden
allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter", and
reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's
campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just
that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor
of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate.
Near the end of the Democratic Party's primaries, on 16 March 2020, CNBC headlined
"Megadonors pull plug on plan for anti-Sanders super PAC as Biden racks up wins" , and
reported that Bernard Schwartz had become persuaded by other billionaires that, by this time,
"Biden could handle Sanders on his own." They had done their job; they would therefore control
the U.S. Government regardless of which Party's nominee would head it.
Biden -- like Trump, and like Obama and Bush and Clinton before him -- doesn't represent the
American people. He represents his mega-donors. And he is staffing his Administration
accordingly. He repays favors: he delivers the services that they buy from him. This is today's
America. And that is the way it functions.
Biden is clearly an enforcer for a faction of what we might call the permanent
establishment, the hidden real government that runs on automatic imperial pilot regardless
who is nominal US President.
That "permanent establishment" is currently becoming "dis-established" everywhere in the
world. It sees with horror that its grip on the entire world is crumbling.
It does only what it has always tried in such cases -- war, war, war. Only of late, those
wars -- war against Russia over Ukraine, war against Assad's Syria, an attempted war against
Erdogan in Turkey, a war against the growing economic muscle in the world of China -- have
been impotent flops.
Biden, a dutiful servant of those interests, carries the flag of war to where he is sent,
much like the character in Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks.
"These leaders are trusted at home and respected around the world, and their nominations
signal that America is back and ready to lead the world, not retreat from it,"
Biden said on Saturday in a statement announcing his picks to fill top positions under his
nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken.
Like Blinken, the five latest State Department picks are veterans of the Obama-Biden
administration. Nuland , a
neoconservative who was named undersecretary for political affairs, goes all the way back to
former President Ronald Reagan's administration and was a foreign policy adviser to former Vice
President Dick Cheney.
Other new re-hires include: Wendy Sherman, deputy secretary of state, who led the
Obama-Biden administration's negotiating team on peace talks with Iran; Brian McKeon, deputy
secretary for management and resources, who was a national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden; Bonnie Jenkins, undersecretary for arms control and international security,
who previously coordinated nonproliferation programs; and Uzra Zeha, undersecretary for
civilian security, who formerly was charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Paris.
After four years of President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, including efforts to
wind down foreign interventions and broker peace deals, Biden's declaration of "America is
back" portends a sharp contrast in foreign policy. He said his latest nominees will "use
their diplomatic experience and skill to restore America's global and moral
leadership."
Nuland, who studied Russian literature at Brown University, wrote last summer in Foreign
Affairs of how "a confident America should deal
with Russia " with a more "activist" policy, including "speaking directly to
the Russian people about the benefits of working together and the price they have paid for
(President Vladimir) Putin's hard turn away from liberalism." She added, "Washington and
its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results
for many years after."
Nuland perhaps was using such "statecraft" when, as assistant secretary of state in
December 2013, she handed out cookies
to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti square who were demanding the resignation of
President Viktor Yanukovich. An audiotape leaked in February 2014 showed that
her involvement in the uprising went well beyond cookies, as she spoke with US Ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt about plotting to replace Yanukovich with Washington's chosen opposition leader,
Arseny Yatseniuk, and about involving the UN to "f**k the EU" by pushing through a
US-preferred Ukraine policy.
Ironically, Nuland's appointment comes just as politicians in Washington fret over this
month's storming of the US Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, which some called a
coup attempt.
"I knew it wasn't a real coup because Victoria Nuland wasn't handing out cookies,"
Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow said of the Capitol assault. "She'll be back
overthrowing governments in the Biden administration, so it remains a valid standard."
In light of Nuland's hawkish history, 25
anti-war groups have jointly called for the Senate to
reject confirmation of her nomination as undersecretary for political affairs.
"Victoria Nuland is returning to the State Department," one commenter wrote on
Twitter. "The United States is returning to the former Soviet republics with great strides.
A fierce struggle with Russia begins."
"... , and author of several books, including ..."
"... Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran ..."
"... . @medeabenjamin; Nicolas J. S. Davies, an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
"... . @NicolasJSDavies; and Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 Democratic delegate for Bernie Sanders,and is Coordinator of ..."
Yves here. Biden's nominees have skewed towards the awful, particularly on the foreign
policy front. But his plan to install Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland at State is a standout. For
those of you new to this site and not familiar with Nuland's sorry history, this post gives an
overview of her role in fomenting the coup in Ukraine and in putting relations with Russia on a
Cold War footing. The authors encourage readers to call their Senators and urge them to vote
against her nomination.
And before you get unduly excited by Biden nominating Gary Gensler to the SEC, I would much
rather have seem Gensler at Treasury. Gensler demonstrated at the CFTC that he's effective and
dedicated to combatting abuses by Big Finance. However, his best shot at making the SEC feared
and respected again is to appoint a tough head of enforcement, so keep an eye out for that
pick.
The problem that Gensler will have at the SEC is that it is the only Federal financial
services industry regulator that is subject to Congressional appropriations, rather that living
off its fees and fines (the SEC collects far more than Congress allows it). And Democrats, like
Joe Lieberman, then the Senator from Hedgistan, have been if anything more aggressive than
Republicans in threatening the SEC and in keeping it budget-starved.
I had said to Lambert that if Biden wanted to be Machiavellian, the way to pretend to reward
Elizabeth Warren while actually sandbagging her would be to make her SEC chair. Let's hope that
isn't his logic for appointing Gensler.
Photo Credit: thetruthseeker.co.uk Nuland and Pyatt planning regime change in Kiev
Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her because the U.S. corporate
media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that
President-elect Biden's pick for Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs is stuck in
the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an
arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.
Nor do they know that from 2003-2005, during the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq,
Nuland was a foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the Bush
administration.
You can bet, however, that the people of Ukraine have heard of neocon Nuland. Many have even
heard the leaked four-minute audio of her saying "Fuck the EU" during a 2014 phone call with
the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
During the infamous call on which Nuland and Pyatt plotted to replace the elected Ukrainian
President Victor Yanukovych, Nuland expressed her not-so-diplomatic disgust with the European
Union for grooming former heavyweight boxer and austerity champ Vitali Klitschko instead of
U.S. puppet and NATO booklicker Artseniy Yatseniuk to replace Russia-friendly Yanukovych.
The "Fuck the EU" call went viral, as an embarrassed State Department, never denying the
call's authenticity, blamed the Russians for tapping the phone, much as the NSA has tapped the
phones of European allies.
Despite outrage from German Chancellor Angela Markel, no one fired Nuland, but her potty
mouth upstaged the more serious story: the U.S. plot to overthrow Ukraine's elected government
and America's responsibility for a civil war that has killed at least 13,000 people and left
Ukraine the poorest
country in Europe.
In the process, Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, the co-founder of The Project for a New
American Century , and their neocon cronies succeeded in sending U.S.-Russian relations
into a dangerous downward spiral from which they have yet to recover.
Nuland accomplished this from a relatively junior position as Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs. How much more trouble could she stir up as the #3 official
at Biden's State Department? We'll find out soon enough, if the Senate confirms her
nomination.
Joe Biden should have learned from Obama's mistakes that appointments like this matter.
In his first
term , Obama allowed his hawkish Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republican Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, and military and CIA leaders held over from the Bush administration to
ensure that endless war trumped his message of hope and change.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, ended up presiding over indefinite detentions without
charges or trials at Guantanamo Bay; an escalation of drone strikes that killed innocent
civilians; a deepening of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan; a self-reinforcing
cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism; and disastrous new wars in
Libya and Syria
.
With Clinton out and new personnel in top spots in his second term, Obama began
to take charge of his own foreign policy. He started working directly with Russia's President
Putin to resolve crises in Syria and other hotspots. Putin helped avert an escalation of the
war in Syria in September 2013 by negotiating the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpiles, and helped Obama negotiate an interim agreement with Iran that led to the
JCPOA nuclear deal.
But the neocons were apoplectic that they failed to convince Obama to order a massive
bombing campaign and escalate his covert,
proxy war in Syria and at the receding prospect of a war with Iran. Fearing their control
of U.S. foreign policy was slipping, the neocons launched a
campaign to brand Obama as "weak" on foreign policy and remind him of their power.
With
editorial help from Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan penned a 2014 New Republic
article entitled "Superpowers Don't Get To Retire," proclaiming that "there is no democratic
superpower waiting in the wings to save the world if this democratic superpower falters." Kagan
called for an even more aggressive foreign policy to exorcise American fears of a multipolar
world it can no longer dominate.
Obama invited Kagan to a private lunch at the White House, and the neocons' muscle-flexing
pressured him to scale back his diplomacy with Russia, even as he quietly pushed ahead on
Iran.
The neocons' coup de grace against Obama's better angels was Nuland's 2014 coup
in debt-ridden Ukraine, a valuable imperial possession for its wealth of natural gas and a
strategic candidate for NATO membership right on Russia's border.
When Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych spurned a U.S.-backed trade agreement with
the European Union in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia, the State Department threw a
tantrum.
Hell hath no fury like a superpower scorned.
The EU trade
agreement was to open Ukraine's economy to imports from the EU, but without a reciprocal
opening of EU markets to Ukraine, it was a lopsided deal Yanukovich could not accept. The deal
was approved by the post-coup government, and has only added to Ukraine's economic woes.
The muscle for Nuland's $5 billion coup was Oleh
Tyahnybok's neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the shadowy new Right Sector militia. During her leaked
phone call, Nuland referred to Tyahnybok as one of the "big three" opposition leaders on the
outside who could help the U.S.-backed Prime Minister Yatsenyuk on the inside. This is the same
Tyanhnybok who once
delivered a speec h applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and "other scum" during World
War II.
After protests in Kiev's Euromaidan square turned into battles with police in February 2014,
Yanukovych and the Western-backed opposition
signed an agreement brokered by France, Germany and Poland to form a national unity
government and hold new elections by the end of the year.
But that was not good enough for the neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing forces the U.S. had
helped to unleash. A violent mob led by the Right Sector militia marched on and invaded the
parliament building , a scene no longer difficult for Americans to imagine. Yanukovych and
his members of parliament fled for their lives.
Facing the loss of its most vital strategic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, Russia
accepted the overwhelming result (a 97% majority, with an 83% turnout) of a referendum in which
Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which it had been a part of from 1783 to
1954.
The majority Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine
unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine, triggering a bloody civil war between U.S.-
and Russian-backed forces that still rages in 2021.
U.S.-Russian relations have never recovered, even as U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals still
pose the greatest single
threat to our existence. Whatever Americans believe about the civil war in Ukraine and
allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, we must not allow the neocons
and the military-industrial complex they serve to deter Biden from conducting vital diplomacy
with Russia to steer us off our suicidal path toward nuclear war.
Nuland and the neocons, however, remain committed to an ever-more debilitating and dangerous
Cold War with Russia and China to justify a militarist foreign policy and record Pentagon
budgets. In a July 2020 Foreign Affairs article entitled "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland
absurdly
claimed that Russia presents a greater threat to "the liberal world" than the U.S.S.R.
posed during the old Cold War.
Nuland's
narrative rests on an utterly mythical, ahistorical narrative of Russian aggression and
U.S. good intentions. She pretends that Russia's military budget, which is one-tenth of
America's, is evidence of "Russian confrontation and militarization" and calls
on the U.S. and its allies to counter Russia by "maintaining robust defense budgets,
continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear weapons systems, and deploying new conventional
missiles and missile defenses to protect against Russia's new weapons systems "
Nuland also wants to confront Russia with an aggressive NATO. Since her days as U.S.
Ambassador to NATO during President George W. Bush's second term, she has been a supporter of
NATO's expansion all the way up to Russia's border. She calls
for "permanent bases along NATO's eastern border." We have pored over a map of Europe, but
we can't find a country called NATO with any borders at all. Nuland sees Russia's commitment to
defending itself after successive 20th century Western invasions as an intolerable obstacle to
NATO's expansionist ambitions.
Nuland's militaristic worldview represents exactly the folly the U.S. has been pursuing
since the 1990s under the influence of the neocons and "liberal interventionists," which has
resulted in a systematic underinvestment in the American people while escalating tensions with
Russia, China, Iran and other countries.
As Obama learned too late, the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time can, with a
shove in the wrong direction, unleash years of intractable violence, chaos and international
discord. Victoria Nuland would be a ticking time-bomb in Biden's State Department, waiting to
sabotage his better angels much as she undermined Obama's second-term diplomacy.
So let's do Biden and the world a favor. Join World Beyond War , CODEPINK and dozens of other
organizations opposing neocon Nuland's confirmation as a threat to peace and diplomacy. Call
202-224-3121 and tell your Senator to oppose Nuland's installation at the State Department.
Nuland has also been declared persona non grata by Russia, so she would not be able to go
with Biden, were he to visit Moscow. Russian foreign minister Lavrov, actually refused to
shake her hand when she attended a US-Russia meeting with Kerry. She is poison to any attempt
to peaceful relationships.
Yes, I remember that meeting clearly. Can't cite the network, but it covered her closely
– body language only. I wonder where Biden stood on that act of diplomacy given his own
corruption, and also what John Kerry's thinking is about now. John Kerry's stepson was in
cahoots with Hunter Biden. It looked like Kerry brought her along for some rehabilitation and
Lavrov was having none of it. Instead he went directly to the delegation from Ukraine and
they stood in a circle all with their backs turned to Vicky who had no choice but to wander
over to the coffee table and pretend she wasn't totally uncomfortable. Totally excluded. How
can she recover from that?
If there is one thing that Russia hates it is fascists and that is because of the enormous
damage caused by them in WW2. We call those invaders Nazis but the Russians seem to call them
fascists. I sometimes wonder if it is part of their mother's milk this hatred. For people
like Nuland to help topple the government of a large, bordering country like the Ukraine and
install people that were literally fascists was too much for the Russians. These were fascist
of a very low order that had the old 1930s routines down pat, including the torchlight
parades. And there was Nuland, handing out cookies to the rioters, many of whom had been
trained in rioting tactics in Poland and were being paid about $100 a day by the US if I
recall correctly. Of course Nuland was not alone as there was also a Representative from the
EU also handing out cookies. The only equivalent that comes to mind is a violent revolution
in Canada using professional rioters and having diplomatic representatives from the Russian
Federation and China handing out donuts to the rioter. I wonder what Washington would say
about a stunt like that.
Nuland is a disgusting human being. Since she is a right winger, regardless of what party
may be listed on her voter ID, I don't think Bettridge's law applies here at all.
So glad all these 'woke' people put good old Uncle Joe back in office. Wonder how many
realized they were supporting people being burned alive by actual Nazis in doing so?
Thanks for this. Our "learned nothing/forgot nothing" Bourbon restoration will be led by
one of the dimmer Bourbons who couldn't even set up a good grift in Ukraine without boasting
about it and then angrily denying it. Should the press finally, improbably turn on him it
should make for some fun news conferences. But perhaps he'll merely be moving to the White
House basement from his Delaware basement.
CFTC's budgets are also set through congressional authorization and appropriations. Yes,
the CFPB is not subject to Congressional appropriations, but for good reasons. However, all
financial regulation can be overturned by the Congressional Review Act.
As for the article, citation needed. Sort of a laundry heap of questionable material. Make
no mistake, the Russo-Ukrainian War is a real war. Uniformed Russian armored infantry of
331st regiment of the 98th Svirsk airborne division dropped into Ukraine territory on 24
August 2014. From 25 to 27 August, Russian troops in civilian clothing, backed up by an
armored column [not in disguise] took Novoazovsk. This is about Russia not being able to
station 25,000 troops in Crimea as they had under Yanukovych. US troop levels in Europe have
been at their lowest for the last 20 years. The US would like to [nay, needs to] keep it that
way. However, the erosion of territorial integrity is a touchy subject in Europe given the
lasting peace of the post-war period in a place where the wars have a pre-fix like "Hundred
Years".
President Arseniy Yatsenyuk is of Jewish origin so the claims of coordination with Nazi
sympathizers is dubious. Not even going to get the boycotted unconstitutional Crimean
referendum.
As for WW III, Obama's defense department made it a priority to recover all the MANPADS,
such as the Chinese-made FN-6 [via Qatar], Russian-made Strela-2's and Igla-S's [via Libya]
from the FSA without so much as a thank you from the Russian Air Force. [Turkey, on the other
hand, armed the FSA with Stinger's.] It should be noted that the Syrian conflict's death
toll, in just four years, surpassed the 19-year death toll in all the Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Iraq war theatres combined.
Think about this way: who needs NATO and the EU more to maintain his power structure, Joe
Biden or Vladimir Putin. Isn't it clear Americans don't care, and American business does not
look to compete in Russian anytime soon. The geography is wrong. But Putin must find a way to
engender ethnicities who do not like the Russian Empire, who had been cleansed by Stalin. One
way is to sell energy below cost to the republics and buy in back from political allies in
the form of electricity. Something upon which the EU frowns. [Personally, I did not care for
the way Putin early on systematically and indiscriminately starved Chechen civilians for
years. It was cruel on a level unseen outside of the Rwandan genocide. More importantly, it
was the Russian Federation abdicating its authority by not providing for its own citizens and
not letting NGO's fill the calorie gap. I'd like to think had Putin's admin not been so
wobbly the first few years, he might've let the Red Cross feed the children.]
Russia was never going to permit a US orchestrated coup in Ukraine without resistance. The
idea that Putin needs NATO more than Biden does seems unreasonable.
Talking about "citations", perhaps you could supply the readership of this site with some
credible citations and links for a few of the far fetched claims you're making here. Most of
this comment reads like pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
I heard about Gary Gensler, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland, and I immediately
thought, "The good, the bad, and the ugly."
Gensler surprised everyone when he was at the CFTC by doing his job, and doing it well,
and his running the SEC is a good thing.
Samantha Power is an aggressive war monger, and in her position at USAID, she will likely
have her fingers in regime change pie, since USAID is part of the deep state regime change
apparatus..
I've long suspected that NATO has existed since 1991 to allow the US/EU axis to control
Middle-Eastern and African resources. For example, the Rammstein military hospital is where
every Gulf War soldier was airlifted for major treatment and convalescence.
Also, there is a huge international trade in opium. It's grown in Afpak and shipped out in
every direction. I suspect that a fair amount of that flows through Ukraine and Crimea. If
you look at a topo map of Crimea, there's a lot of seashore that could be good "smuggler's
coves". Following this line of argument, Russia grabbing it from Ukraine was a gimme to
Russia's gangsters. This, as well as the "Pipeline Wars", gives Russia a strong reason to
encircle Ukraine.
The Putsch Govt and Tech & Media Oligarchs are "Riding the Tiger"
The reason I'm laughing, is because Joe and the deep state are exposing themselves for
who they are, a bunch of corrupt government officials who don't have the support of the
citizens.
Joe is going to have a really hard time unless they institutionalize the election
fraud and continue it, which is my biggest fear because it means we've become a corrupt
banana republic, and poverty will quickly ensue.
Big government brings poverty to the
public (and riches to the deep state) while freedom (i.e., small government that just
protects our freedoms, rather than socialism that promises to provide for us but instead
brings government forcing us to work) brings prosperity to the people.
A central rule of a color revolution is to avoid an "orderly transition". The new regime
must have a revolutionary mandate instead of a democratic one. Only then can it operate
outside the constitution and outside the law.
The plan here is to declare not only Trump illegitimate but his whole administration
illegitimate. The new regime can then undo all of Trump's executive decisions. There is no
need to "stuff" the Supreme Court with extra judges. Simply declare Trump's appointments null
and void.
Biden, Ds, reneging on $2K stimulus promise . Contortionist language is already being
employed by Biden even before he becomes POTUS, which should surprise nobody, and provides
plenty of I told ya so for Red America.
As I previously calculated, much more than $2K is needed to stave off very dire economic
hardship and further deepening of Great Depression 2.0. But for any stimulus to be effective
for small and medium businesses, operating restrictions related to the pandemic need to be
greatly eased; and even then, it's projected that 1/3 of businesses already closed will
remain closed regardless. That reality constitutes a huge blow for small businesses were seen
by many as a way out of the never ending downsizing and offshoring of decent paying jobs.
Anyone who thought voting in Biden was going to end the circus is sadly mistaken. The refusal
of a large section of the population to recognize Trump as President has merely set the tone
for a large portion of the population to think of Biden as illegitimate. If Biden uses
domestic terrorism legislation to try to control the opposition it won't end well. Bring on
the lions and Christians and any other unpopular section of the country.
A half century of downward mobility -- crippling of the real economy in which productivity
was rewarded -- and neglect causing deterioration of infrastructure (including meeting basic
human needs like health care), have brought the U.S. to a state of collapse.
Almost everyone seems to sense this and we feel powerless to rectify the situation through
accepted channels, thus some people believe they have a 'patriotic' duty to use other means.
The combination of disenfranchised minorities and disgruntled middle class becomes dangerous
(to the established order) as soon as both groups realize they can't win by blaming and
fighting each other.
We haven't reached that stage yet, judging from the comments I've read in the mainstream
media, however it's just a matter of time until they do. The divide-and-rule political game
keeps people attached to ideology of left vs right until it becomes clear that we all lose by
adhering to this mode of thinking.
The war racket and a whole range of other exploitative financial policies are driven by
the top echelon of elites, who also control the narratives through media propaganda.
Their game is failing and they're resorting to draconian control measures to prop it up,
but this can't continue much longer.
As I see it, the collapse of the Western financial system could happen suddenly or
gradually, or it could bring the ultimate destruction of human civilization. In any case, I
believe our degradation of the natural world will be the real catalyst leading either to
human extinction; or else if we're lucky and smart enough, will induce us to massively
downsize our population and industrial activity in order to let the ecosystem heal
itself.
Giraldi's current essay hits on numerous points already brought forth by b and barflies,
and IMO is a very well balanced look at the outcome and possible road that lies ahead.
The citation he opens with IMO gets to the heart of the matter of what's been building
since the 2000 election and its Judicial Coup:
"In a recent article Catholic University professor Claes G. Ryn wrote [Link at
original]
"Few people are really open to persuasion in any case -- not just on political subjects
but on any subject about which they care and on which they have adopted certain views.
Diehard partisans for a certain outlook will refuse to have their beliefs questioned, and
so will many others. They will be no less dismissive of a document challenging their
opinions if it is full of footnotes and appendixes. Such a document will, indeed, make them
resist it even more. As for the relatively few people who are truly open-minded, they will
not find another person's observations dispositive. They will, as they should, want to
consider the evidence on a contested matter for themselves."
We experience the above daily here at MoA. IMO, economic reality will alter the equation
once the eviction and foreclosure restrictions end unless some very enlightened legislation
is proposed and enacted.
Rep Jason Crow (Dem Colo) "I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues. ...
A couple of them broke down in tears ... saying that they are afraid for their lives if they
vote for this impeachment."
The only thing they (RINO's, the non Trumpers) are afraid of loosing is their seat on the
gravy train express. They are afraid of loosing their seat at the sleaziest brothel in the
world, totally bought and controlled by powerful interest groups and foreign governments with
Israel being by far the biggest one that controls that chamber. There, fixed it for you Mr.
Crow. Rep Crow could well end up eating crow when this is all over.
IMO a large number of his supporters like Pat Lang don't care much for him or his policies
specially his Israel first policies, majority are America first conservative nationalist they
will look for someone else to lead and reorganize, that's when this divide will become
dangerous and scary. IMO that is the only reason they really didn't damage the building or
even hide themselves behind mask they are not afraid of being identified.
That is even more scary for those who hope there wouldn't be a civil uprising challenge the
establishment .
"The hostility the Democrats have show will create a huge backlash. Do they really
believe that can suppress 74 million Trump voters?"
They don't have to suppress 74 million Trump voters. They don't have to suppress
any of the Trump voters. They just have to hold on to the 81 million Democratic
voters, and will probably be joined by a relative handful of Republicans who, out of disgust
and anger at Trump, will cross over and join the Democrats.
Of course, if the mass of everyday, relatively uninvolved Democratic voters finds out the
truth about the true past and about the true intents and purposes of the Biden-Harris
wrecking crew, it's possible that some small percentage of them will stop voting and/or
switch to minor parties, but it's unlikely that such a small desertion will swing any
election to the Republicans, especially if the Biden administration is smart enough and
loose-fisted enough to toss a few financial crumbs to the mass of unfortunates who are
staring homelessness and starvation in the face.
One result of the eight-year Obama administration was a small group of Democrats who did
exactly that -- they walked away while the vast majority of registered Democrats ignored
Obama's long list of crimes and misdemeanors and pretended not to see or to know of his lies
and betrayals of the working class. So the principled deserters are already gone, and those
left in the party are hard-core, thick-headed party-above-principle-in-all-things grifters
and groupies who will stick to the party through all manner of thick and thin circumstances.
They're not going to participate in any "backlash."
The Democrats have proven themselves complete idiots for years and years and years. The
Republicans are batshit crazy. The last election from the Democratic POV was to remove what
they perceive as an existential threat to 'democracy' which is another word for 'deep state.'
It is no wonder the rush to judgment to confirm what they already believe about DJT. Critical
thinking and common sense are not attributes the elite political class possess. They are all
vainglorious grifters.
The USA is FUBAR and none of the king's horses and none of the king's men etc. etc.
etc.
The Trump supporters do not care that he is a murderer and a scoundrel as well as yet
another US President that started yet another war against a Muslim country.
They think that US can survive a centuries-long war against Islam.
That is a major flaw in their estimation of US power and fragility of what they have in
the United States.
1.2 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Chinese, and a 130 million Russians believing that the
United States is their enemy.
No amount of domestic political change in the United States can address this.
In 1976, a 17-year old American boy could travel alone in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
etc. without any fear; he would be welcome because of the correct foreign policy of the
United States.
Americans have lost that and are discussing the deck arrangements on Titanic.
In 1976, a 17-year old American boy could travel alone in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
without any fear; he would be welcome because of the correct foreign policy of the United
States.
In Laos, Vietnam or Cambodia the "correct foreign policy of the United States" was in full
display. The US was always a murderous monster. The only difference is that it has turned on
itself.
"The Trump supporters do not care that he is a murderer and a scoundrel as well as yet
another US President that started yet another war against a Muslim country."
As you know this is not unique to trump supporters for as long as I have experienced this
a fundamental group think in America. Americans from early school days are thought the you
are "special" and "indispensable "
And "exceptional" they are thought never to accept or believe defeat never agree or accept
"mistake" never agree or accept "lack of knowledge " this not just Trump is the entire
nation' by now this group think is injected in sole of the nation on hourly bases. This
people are just beginning to doubt or question their government' sincerity and its design
while middle easterners never trust the government. It will eventually become more difficult
for US governments to govern under the mistrust that is building up. New honest deal will be
needed.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
Few observations on Biden, Iran and the nuclear deal.
I don't know if US will or will not return to implement it's obligations under the UNSC 2231,
nor I know if US Jewish lobby will allow that. But for sure Iran will not renegotiate for new
terms or a new deal on nuclear program secondly under no circumstances Iran will negotiate
(with anyone) her conventional military capabilities or her policies and alliances toward her
allies in the region since these are real matter of national security for Iran. But also
there are signs from Biden that should be considered. Firstly almost all Biden's national
security team are diplomats with experience negotiating with Iran that could be a signal on
policy change, secondly I believe due to strategic failure of maximum pressure to subdue Iran
and more importantly due to US' own strategic necessity to keep China and Russia away from
ME, US and EU will want to decouple or even prevent Iran from a mutual strategic necessity or
alliance with China or and Russia for that reason IMO it might be possible US will adopt a
new posture toward Iran. I also believe Iran's foreign policy in ME is basically based on her
long term interests and security with her regional alliances, multipolarity, and stability in
her region, therefore any proposal by US or EU to agitate this policy will be rejected or not
adopted by Iran.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
A new JCPOA will obviously have to eliminate all sanctions. But that might not be
enough. Iran might want compensation for the economic damage done, compensation from the UK,
France, and Germany as well as the US. Moreover, Iran will want to keep its now much larger
stockpile of low-enriched uranium. It might want an even larger stockpile, and the right to
enrich to 20%, which it is now doing. A breeder reactor and a plutonium stockpile would be
nice, too.
But there are even other demands that might be made: reduction or removal of
US/NATO/Israeli forces in the Gulf; reduction or elimination of Israeli nuclear
weapons.
That train left the station.
In the past 5 years Iran re-configured it's economy into an autarcic fully industrialized,
food secure, and diversified economy. It now earns more from the sale of manufactures and
foods than from petroleum. It now manufactures AfraMax tankers, general cargo vessels, and
naval vessels. It manufactures cars and trucks, and railroad rolling stock. It built hydro
and irrigation schemes. It launches satellites into orbit.
Iran is now pressing ahead with the Arak heavy water reactor.
Khameni just banned import of NATO vaccines, and ordered the country to be vaccinated with
Iran's own vaccine.
Khameni and the hard liners will not permit Iran to rejoin or to negotiate any agreements
with the "Great Satan". Their line will be the US must show itself to be agreement capable by
rejoining the JCPOA and removing any and all sanctions while paying damages too.
Iran will increase the amount of assistance given the Houthis. Trump's declaration of the
Houthis as terrorists, benefits the resistance by solidifying their adherence to it. The
Houthis must now "go for broke" or surrender. They will not surrender.
The harsh reality is Biden/Harris will be occupied at home suppressing the MAGA crowd.
Since this group is 74 million strong, and mostly white, in a country trying to make them
second class citizens, will be quite a challenge that. The jury is still out on that one.
Then there is the not so small matter of US oil production dropping like a stone from 12
mmBbl/day to 7 by July with further drops in the following 12 months. This coupled with and
likely due to bankruptcies of a large number of producers going forward.
Thank you b for the Escobar/Hudson link. This proposition is interesting:
All of this [junk mortgage debt] was left on the books, foreclosed and sold to a private
capital companies like Blackstone. And the result is that home ownership in America
declined from 68 percent of the population down to about 61 percent. Well, right where the
Obama administration left off, you're about to have the Biden administration begin in
January with an estimated 5 million Americans losing their homes. They're going to be
evicted because they've been unemployed during the pandemic. They've been working in
restaurants or gyms or other industries that have been shut down because of the pandemic.
They're going to be evicted and many homeowners and, low-income homeowners have been unable
to pay their mortgages.
There's going to be a wave of foreclosures. The question is, who's going to bear the
cost? Should it be 15 million American families who lose their homes just so the banks
won't lose money? Or should we let the banks that have made all of the growth since 2008?
Ninety five percent of American GDP of the population has seen its wealth go down. All the
wealth has been accumulating for the 5 percent in statistics. Now the question is should
this 5 percent that's got all the wealth lose or should the 95 percent lose?
The Biden administration says the 95 percent should lose basically. And you're going to
see a wave of closures so that the question in China should be that, these intermediate
banks (they're not really banks they are sort of like payday loan lenders), should they
come in and, bear the loss or should Chinese localities and the people bear the loss?
Somebody has to lose when you're charging, you're collecting the land's rent that was paid
to the creditors, and either the creditors have to lose or, the tax collector loses and
that's the conflict that exists in every society of the world today.
Xerxes Biden and his pickpocket clown cart may part with a few $2000 dollar relief
payments to slow the mighty mortgage foreclosure/eviction rush. Will the clown cart maintain
that $2000 periodic payment for two years to get the Dimratss through the next election?
I doubt it but it would be good to see the people of the USA get a break.
Xerxes and team clown cart would have to rein in the military spend :) but that too could
be detrimental to them winning the mid term elections in two years. So I see Xerxes Biden
facing his very own waterloo here. For this lad to be suddenly jammed between a rock and a
hard place that he himself created by all his years of snuggling up to Repugnant legislation
and banksters and Obummers thieving manipulations, is a mighty fine view.
Biden will sell you out and the people will be destitute and the banksters will be
laughing - still. Time will tell.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
This is "V for vendetta" from neoliberal Dems. They at last got Trump...
While ZH commenters are too harsh on Biden who currently is sitting between two chairs, it
will be extremely difficult for Biden and his administration to navigate this minefield.
He really might face a national strike despite docile character of white working class... And
no in no way Trump was a friend of the working class. He governed like Bush III and appointed a
nasty clique of neocons and Wall street bankers in his administration. Just look at Pompeo. He is
probably as evil as Cheney.
Notable quotes:
"... Biden has been a mediocre politician for 47 years, taking advantage of his office to skim money for his family when he could. At no point in those 47 years has he demonstrated moral or ethical fortitude. ..."
"... But equally as malicious, at no point did Biden ever condemn the acts by other democrats to undermine an elected government with a series of fabricated and fraudulent investigation, or years of calls for violence and harassment of opposition politicians, and even calls for outright assassination. ..."
J. Turley said he didn't think this was a fraudulent election... If you can be so blind, irrational, and brainwashed
as to not see the fraud and illegitimacy of this election, I really can't trust your judgment
on other important matters.
Just Another Vietnam Vet 22 hours ago (Edited)
Bad Decisions : the Joe Biden Story... its all over the net......
100% correct. To try to normalize any of the treachery that has taken place lately or
these past four years is pure evil. To try to tell people at this point just to move on will not work...
deep-state-retired 1 day ago
He wants to stay in the cocktail party circuit. They all do.
Ex-Oligarch 1 day ago
If the elections are fraudulent, betraying their constituents won't end these politicians'
careers. They'll keep right on pulling in "campaign contribution" bribes and playing footsie
with the democrats, secure in the role they play in the system.
CheapBastard 1 day ago (Edited)
Biden also refused to denounce the riots and burning down of over 9 major cities across
the nation. In fact, his Ho, Harris, was bailing out the arsonists and looters.
JohnGault 1 day ago (Edited)
Biden has been a mediocre politician for 47 years, taking advantage of his office to skim money for his family when he
could. At no point in those 47 years has he demonstrated moral or ethical fortitude. Instead, he pandered to whichever
populist forces prevailed to maintain his office.
Biden has recently called for "a return of decency" to Washington, in sharp contrast to
his public statements about the current president saying "if we were in high school, I would
take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him". How incredibly "decent" of Joe, isn't
it?
But equally as malicious, at no point did Biden ever condemn the acts by other democrats
to undermine an elected government with a series of fabricated and fraudulent investigation,
or years of calls for violence and harassment of opposition politicians, and even calls for
outright assassination.
Can you imagine the level of outrage by democrats and the media if a republican called for
the assasination of obama or hillary? The uproar would be deafening.
No, Biden is just a mediocre shill with no moral or ethical compass to guide him. And that
kind of rudderless leadership inevitably ends in disaster.
NoBigDeal 1 day ago remove link
Biden reads the words from the teleprompter that are written for him. I wouldn't expect
much more from him than that.
bsdetector 1 day ago
I saw part of President Elect Biden's speech this week. He denounced President Trump for
everything he believes is wrong in America. His speech was hateful and divisive and was made
at a time when better words would have been helpful for America.
President Trump has many faults but he delivered a message during the last four years that
resonates with many Americans. By attacking President Trump in this speech, Mr. Biden attacks
the Americans that believe in President Trump's message.
It would be better for Mr. Biden to acknowledge that causes for election fraud allegations
will be investigated.
donkey_shot 1 day ago
how can Biden denounce an impeachment when he`s not sure if it`s his own impeachment, or
trump?
Sean7k PREMIUM 1 day ago
...that ship sailed when
numerous courts failed to grant any relief on election fraud. It is the main reason courts
exist. Therefore, the final nail in the coffin has been secured, the US is no longer anything
but a banana republic...
Leguran@premium PREMIUM 1 day ago (Edited)
Edit
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Biden is "America's" choice for president (lower case intended). In my
opinion he has already sold out his country. His base is exclusively the cities where stupid people who go back and forth like
hedonistic living dead believing that their future lies in a FASCIST Globalism...
My choice is to get my stuff out of reach and let these progressive idiots economically
starve.
Snaffew 1 day ago remove link
Biden can't put two words together, let alone two thoughts -- the man is far more criminal
and many levels dumber than Trump and "the people" believe this is the right "choice"...
Jon_noDough 1 day ago
Biden isn't and never was "presidential" material. Just a corrupt career politician mouthpiece for whoever is back there
running the show...
Whodathunkit 6 hours ago
That was a presidential moment missed by the President-elect.
joe ain't too bright.
Engenie 12 hours ago
Biden will do exactly what he is told, when he is told. Thinking he can make his own decisions is laughable.
PGR88 1 day ago
Biden wasn't very smart to start with, and now he's suffering from dementia. He'll say
whatever he's told to say.
gonediving 1 day ago
NOT Important says the Deep State...move along....nothing to see hear NY Times only
reported it once so you would not miss it! Plausible deniability when needed.
Nuland will be nominated for the position of under secretary of state for political affairs,
the US media said on Tuesday with Politico being the first to
drop the scoop. It's the highest-ranking post in the department after the secretary and deputy
secretary. During the Obama administration, Nuland served as assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian Affairs, and was a key official in formulating and implementing his
Russia policies. She also served as US envoy to the UN under George W. Bush and advised Vice
President Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
The news that the vocal Russia hawk was returning to the White House was understandably met
with loud cheering by the fans of Pax American on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics were
dismayed and somewhat horrified, considering her record.
Arguably the most publicly known episode of Nuland's Obama tenure came in 2014, when a tape
of her conversation with then-ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. It happened
shortly after Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a wave
of street protests culminating in an armed coup, which happened with much encouragement from
Washington.
Nuland and Pyatt were discussing who among the coup leaders should be in the upcoming
Ukrainian government, which indicated that Washington played a much bigger role in the crisis
than it publicly admitted. The infamous " F**k the EU" remark came as Nuland expressed
frustration with European nations, who were reluctant to lend legitimacy to the benefactors of
the events, and said UN officials could be called in to help "glue this thing"
instead.
The EU's skepticism at the time could have been due to the fact that President Yanukovich
was expelled under a threat of violence just hours after Germany and Poland helped seal a power
sharing
agreement between him and the opposition leaders, serving as guarantors of the deal. Her
return as a senior diplomatic official is likely to get on a few people's nerves in Europe,
which is ironic considering how the Biden administration is supposed to rebuild alliances
damaged by the Trump presidency.
While flying private in the world of academia and think tanks during the Trump years, Nuland
maintained her confrontational attitude to anyone challenging US dominance. Her recipe for
dealing with Russia, as outlined
in Foreign Policy magazine last summer, is more sophisticated weapons, permanent NATO bases on
the Russian border (which will require abolishing a key Russia-NATO agreement) and deniable
cyber operations against Moscow.
Nuland also played a
peculiar part in US domestic affairs, possibly having a hand in the promotion of the
notorious Steele dossier. The collection of opposition research and rumors was used by the FBI
to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign and fueled the endless flood of claims that the
incumbent president was somehow a Russian stooge.
An FBI memo released last
year revealed that Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson "and others were talking to Victoria Nuland
at the US State Department" about the file. The firm looked into Donald Trump for the
Hillary Clinton campaign and retained retired British intelligence agent Christopher Steele for
the job.
In multiple interviews, Nuland insisted that her role with the dossier was very limited
because it dealt with domestic politics. "[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points
of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, 'This is not in our
purview,'" she
told CBS News in 2018, adding that she advised him to go to the FBI. Some skeptics believe
her role in launching the Steele dossier may have been much more significant.
Nuland is one of many Obama-era officials tapped by Biden to serve again with him at the
helm. In addition to her, the latest reported batch includes Wendy Sherman, the former under
secretary of state for political affairs, Jon Finer, who had various roles under Obama, and
Amanda Sloat, ex-deputy assistant secretary for Southern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean
affairs.
The Capitol building was placed on lockdown, with senators and members of the House locked
inside their chambers, as Congress began debating President-elect Joe Biden's victory. President
Trump addressed supporters near the White House before protesters marched to Capitol Hill.
...the action hardens the bitter partisanship in Congress and is bound to leave millions of
voters questioning the legitimacy of Biden's victory in the November presidential election.
... More than a thousand people gathered at a park south of the White House before dawn on
Wednesday. At least three separate pro-Trump rallies are expected in Washington. Lawmakers have
been given security instructions, including using underground tunnels between chambers in the
Capitol and to nearby office buildings. The city of Washington has activated the National
Guard, and many local businesses boarded up their doors and windows in anticipation of possible
violence
The lawmakers objecting on Wednesday are poised to form the core of the anti-Biden group in
the new Congress, where they will likely urge GOP leaders to refuse any deals with a president
they consider illegitimate.
... Josh Hawley, a Republican of Missouri, was the first senator to indicate that he would
join the effort to challenge the results. Since then, several other senators, including Ted
Cruz of Texas and GOP Republicans elected to the chamber for the first time in November, have
indicated they would support the effort unless there is an investigation of the voting
process.
Victoria Nuland, wife of neoconservative Robert Kagan, is expected be nominated for under
secretary of state for political affairs
According to a report from
Politico , Joe Biden's transition team is expected to nominate Victoria Nuland to
be the under secretary of state for political affairs for the incoming administration's State
Department.
Nuland, who is married to neoconservative Robert Kagan, is known for her role in
orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine while she was the assistant secretary of state for
Europe and Eurasian affairs in the Obama administration.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and then-US
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked and released on YouTube on February 4th,
2014 . In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of former
Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced to step down on February 22nd,
2014.
The US-backed coup sparked the war in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region and led to the Russian
annexation of Crimea. Both regions have a majority ethnic-Russian population who rejected the
nationalist, anti-Russian post-coup government that even had
neo-Nazis in its midst .
In a
2020 column for Foreign Affairs titled, "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland said Russian
President Vladimir Putin "seized" on the 2014 coup and other "democratic struggles" to "fuel
the perception at home of Russian interests under siege by external enemies." She also cited
the war in the Donbas and annexation of Crimea as examples of Russian aggression, as most in
Washington do.
Nuland worked in the Bush administration from 2005 to 2008 as the US ambassador to NATO.
From 2011 to 2013, she served as the spokesperson for Barack Obama's State Department, and from
2013 to 2017, Nuland was the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs.
Politico also reported that the Biden administration is tapping Wendy Sherman to
work directly under Secretary of State-designee Anthony Blinken. Sherman worked in the Obama
administration's State Department and played
a crucial role in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Why the protégé of Cheney Nuland? Why now? Did Biden completely succumbs to
Alzheimer? Does Biden administration strive to be as dysfunctional, neocon-dominated and
destructive as Obama administration?
Politico reports Tuesday that President-elect Joe Biden is tapping former senior Obama
administration foreign affairs officials to serve in his cabinet.
Most notably among them is neocon Victoria Nuland, who has just been tapped as Biden's state
department undersecretary for political affairs.
Writes Politico :
"Another veteran diplomat, Victoria Nuland, will be nominated for the role of under secretary
of State for political affairs, one of the people said. Nuland also previously served in the
Obama administration, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs."
Recall that in this capacity she ran point for Obama's regime change "democracy
promotion" efforts in Ukraine . In 2014 leaked audio clip posted to YouTube caused deep
embarrassment for the State Department amid accusations the US was coordinating coup efforts
using the ongoing "Maidan Revolution" to oust then President Viktor Yanukovych.
In that leaked
phone call Nuland told US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt "F*ck the EU" - for which
she was later forced to apologize. Here's some of the audio for a little trip down memory
lane.
She had also been instrumental in her prior postings at the State Department in Obama's
disastrous Libya intervention.
After the Obama administration she's been part of various think
tanks, including the hawkish Brookings Institution, where she's been a fierce critic of Trump's
supposed "appeasement" of Putin. She's also argued for deeper military intervention in Syria
.
Politico in its description of the incoming Obama-era officials underscores they are
hawks on
Russia :
Nuland and [Wendy] Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving
the Obama administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign
policy -- particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin .
On the National Security Council, former State Department official Jon Finer will be named
deputy national security adviser, the people said, reporting up to incoming national security
adviser Jake Sullivan. Finer, a former journalist, joined the Obama White House as a fellow
in 2009 and served in various roles throughout Obama's tenure, including as a foreign policy
speechwriter for Biden and a senior adviser to then-deputy national security adviser Blinken.
Finer had been working in political risk and public policy at the private equity firm Warburg
Pincus, which was co-founded by Blinken's father, since leaving government in 2017.
The key NSC role of senior director for European Affairs will go to Amanda Sloat, a
Brookings Institution fellow ...
... ... ...
As is the unfortunate norm in the Washington beltway, the Liberal hawks under Obama simply
went to who's who of neocon think tanks like Brookings, and have now been called back in
revolving door fashion for pretty much a return to Obama era foreign policy (and its
disasters ).
"I am 100% confident that if @VP or members of Congress spent 15 minutes reviewing contents
of Hunter Biden laptop, they would NEVER let Joey "Bribes" Biden get within missile range of
White House.
Biden is a CCP puppet, a criminal, & a pervert. A few other things too. None good."
"Obama Official Ben Rhodes Admits Biden Camp is Already Working With Foreign Leaders:
Exactly What Flynn Did" [ Glenn Greenwald ]. "Any
doubts about how customary it is for such calls to be made by transition officials were
unintentionally obliterated on Monday night by former Obama national security official Ben
Rhodes, who is almost certain to occupy a high-level national security position in a Biden
administration. Speaking on MSNBC -- of course -- Rhodes, while amicably chatting with former
Bush/Cheney Communications Director turned-beloved-by-liberals-MSNBC-host Nicolle Wallace,
admitted in passing that ' foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden
talking about the agenda they're going to pursue January 20 ,' all to ensure 'as seamless
a transition as possible,' adding: 'the center of political gravity in this country and the
world is shifting to Joe Biden.'" • Presumably the FBI should be interrogating Rhodes
about his guilty knowledge. Anyhoo, I'm so old I remember when IOKIYAR was current in the
blogosphere: "It's OK If You're A Republican." But now IOKIIOG: "It's OK If It's Our Guy."
>David Sirota – "That was enough to barely defeat Trump.."
I'm getting confused, was Trump officially defeated. If not why are all these folks making
these kinds of statements without any qualifications, none, zip. He could have said "most
likely" or some other qualifier. Am I missing something here? Let the legal process of
contesting the election play out for Pete's sake.
"... The Biden administration, staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario, then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible coalition of allies against China. ..."
"... Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their Republican counterparts. ..."
Under Barack Obama, the containment of
China -- the "pivot to Asia" -- took the form of what might be called trilateralism, after
the old Trilateral Commission of the 1970s. According to this strategy, while balancing China
militarily, the United States would create trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade blocs with
rules favorable to the United States that China would be forced to beg to join in the future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended as an anti-Chinese, American-dominated Pacific
trade bloc, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sought to create a
NATO for trade from which China would be excluded.
Obama's grand strategy collapsed even before the election of 2016. TTIP died, chiefly
because of hostility from European economic interests. In the United States, the fact that the
TPP treaty was little more than a wish-list of giveaways to U.S. finance and pharma interests
and other special-interest lobbies made it so unpopular that both Hillary Clinton and
Trump
renounced it during the 2016 presidential election season.
Trump, like Obama,
sought to contain China , but by unilateral rather than trilateral measures. The Trump
administration emphasized reshoring strategic supply chains like that of steel in the United
States, unwilling to offshore critical supplies even to allies in Asia and Europe and North
America. This break with prior tradition would have been difficult to pull off even under a
popular president who was a good bureaucratic operator, unlike the
erratic and inconsistent Trump.
The Biden administration,
staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a
détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as
Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario,
then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible
coalition of allies against China.
An emphasis by the Biden administration on alliances may succeed in the case of the
U.S.-Japan-Australia-India "Quad" (Quadrilateral alliance). The UK may support America's East
Asian policy as well. But Germany and France, the dominant powers in Europe, view China as a
vast market, not a threat, so Biden will fail if he seeks to repeat Obama's grand strategy of
trilateral containment of China.
Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their
Republican counterparts. In part this is a projection of domestic politics. In the
demonology of the Democratic Party, Putin stands for nationalism, social conservatism, and
everything that elite Democrats despise about the "deplorables" in the United States who live
outside of major metro areas and vote for Republicans. The irrational hostility of America's
Democratic establishment extends beyond Russia to socially-conservative democratic governments
in Poland and Hungary, two countries that Biden has denounced as "totalitarian."
In the Middle East, unlike Eastern Europe, a Biden administration is likely to sacrifice
left-liberal ideology to the project of
maximizing American power and consolidating the U.S. military presence, with the help of
autocracies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any hint of retrenchment will be denounced by the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment that lined up behind Biden, so do not expect an end to
any of the forever wars under Biden. Quite the contrary.
Michael Lind is Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of The American Way of Strategy. His most recent book is The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite.
F ormer acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who has disingenuously argued for years that he had
nothing to do with the agency's torture program, but who continued to defend it, has
taken himself out of the running to be President-elect Joe Biden's new CIA director.
The decision is a victory for the peace group Code Pink, which spearheaded the Stop Morell
movement, and it's a great thing for all Americans. Now, though, we have to turn our attention
to Biden's nominee to be director of national intelligence (DNI), Avril Haines.
Haines is certainly qualified on paper to lead the Intelligence Community. A longtime Biden
aide, she has the president-elect's confidence. But that's not good enough. Haines is exactly
the kind of person who shouldn't be in a position of authority in intelligence. She is
the kind of neoliberal intelligence apologist whom so many of us have opposed for so many
years. Don't just take my word for it, though. Look at
her record .
Haines first began working for Biden when she served as deputy general counsel of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee when Biden was its chairman. When Biden became vice president in
2009, Haines moved to the State Department, where she was the assistant legal adviser for
treaty affairs. After only a year, she moved to the White House, where she became deputy
assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs,
the National Security Council's chief attorney.
That's quite a position. What it means was that her job was to legally justify President
Barack Obama's decisions on such intelligence issues as drone strikes and whether to release
the CIA Torture Report. She served there under CIA Director John Brennan. Obama apparently
liked the job she did for him because in 2013, he named Haines deputy director of the CIA
(DD/CIA).
Haines was the first woman to be named DD/CIA, and she served again under Brennan, who
proved time and again that he was no fan of
congressional oversight . Haines's attitude was similar to Brennan's: The CIA was going to
do what it was going to do, and she would make no apologies for it.
There were three controversial areas where Haines made a name for herself and for which she
should have to answer in a confirmation hearing: The CIA's refusal to release the Senate
Torture Report and the decision to hack into the Senate Intelligence Committee's computer
system; the CIA's decision to not punish those officers who carried out the hack and who killed
and tortured prisoners beyond even what the Justice Department said was permissible; and the
government's drone program, in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians were killed.
Drone "pilots" launch an MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle for a raid in the Middle
East. (U.S. military)
Haines' Torture Cover-Up
You may recall that in December 2014, the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee released a
heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the committee's torture report, the
result of years of investigation using primary-source CIA documents. The executive summary was
about 525 pages long, just a fraction of the nearly 6,000-page complete report. And the release
of the 525 pages was the result of protracted negotiations between the committee and the
CIA.
In the end, the public heard a few details of what the CIA's prisoners underwent at secret
prisons around the world. But the full story was never made public. It likely never will be.
And that's thanks to Avril Haines.
Earlier that year, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein took to the
Senate floor in a very unusual display and accused CIA Director Brennan of spying on her
committee's staff members. Specifically, Feinstein said that CIA officers had hacked into the
Senate's computers to see what it was that committee investigators were focusing on.
The hacking was unprecedented, and Feinstein referred it to the Justice Department for
prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder, however, chose not to pursue the case. Brennan took
responsibility for ordering the hacking and he made no apologies for it. But his top aide, his
assistant, his legal adviser through the episode was Avril Haines. She has never explained her
decisions in support of the hack.
Furthermore, it was Haines who
overruled the CIA's inspector general and who decided not to punish those CIA officers who
hacked into the committee's computers, or those CIA officers who had gone over and above what
the Justice Department had authorized in its "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" program,
killing and maiming prisoners.
In the end, not only were no CIA officers punished, but the leaders and most prominent
officers in the torture program were promoted, in some cases into some of the most sought-after
positions in the CIA. I know this to be true. I worked for them.
Haines and Drones
One area in which Haines has not received a great deal of media coverage has been her role
in the drone
program . When Haines was the National Security Council's top lawyer, Brennan was the
keeper of the so-called kill list. It was Haines who took phone calls in the middle of the
night asking her for legal authority -- permission -- to launch missile attacks from drones.
She has never answered for her actions.
Now is the time for Americans to put down their collective foot on Biden's national security
appointees. Morell was utterly inappropriate for a senior position in the Biden national
security apparatus. Haines is, too. She has, very simply, committed crimes against humanity.
I'm under no illusions that Biden is a progressive or that he will differ greatly from previous
Democratic presidents on national security.
But I do believe that wrong is wrong. Avril Haines is exactly the kind of person we
don't want running the Intelligence Community. This is the moment for opponents of her
nomination to lobby senators on the Intelligence Committee. There's still time to defeat
her.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Cadogan Parry , December 30, 2020 at 21:51
The Intercept (26-June-2020) reported Haines' consulting for controversial data-mining
firm Palantir. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel is also an investor in Carbyne, co-owned by
the late Jeffery Epstein and members of the Israeli political and intelligence establishment.
Ties between Palantir and Carbyne were cemented when it opened a center in Israel in 2013.
Hamutal Meridor, Palantir Israel's current head, served as senior director of Verint, with
deep ties to Unit 8200. Verint was previously implicated in being one of two companies hired
by the NSA to put a backdoor into US telecommunication systems and popular applications,
ensuring it's immediate access.
I urge all who have read this article to watch "Silenced", a James Spione film about John
Kiriakou, Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack -- whistleblowers who paid a very high price for
their honesty and integrity (hXXp://silencedfilm.com). Mr. Kiriakou gave up a lucrative job
and almost two years with his family for sharing the truth. His voice needs to be heard now .
Avril Haines' record of ignoring tremendous human rights violations makes it clear that she
should not hold a position of power in the intelligence community of the upcoming
administration.
Anonymot , December 29, 2020 at 19:31
Mr. Biden is a male clone of Mrs. Clinton who is a mouthpiece for the CIA/MIC/WallSt. She
is still the person who controls the Democrat National Committee (DNC) via Tom Perez and they
control and advise old Joe. Joe is merely the puppet at the end of the inner organization's
strings. They are all yes-men/women in the service of the shadow's mindset.
We will have another Obama puppet show.
After 4 years of the unique societal insanity ward that destroyed a maximum of the little
remaining democracy, including the directorship and key personnel of every Washington bureau,
there is little improvement to expect under the Biden Harris clone team. In the stupid
intelligence area that Trump damaged even more deeply than is publicly known, Brennan and
Clapper are back as Biden advisors.
Once again, the eagles have died, replaced by beagles sniffing out more war, more oil, and
more empire.
"... Listening to Joe Biden on the campaign trail is about as painful as listening to Trump. The gaffes just keep on coming! Running for the senate or the presidency? ..."
"... That Biden didn't break a sweat and seemed to know that he wouldn't win in liberal Massachusetts on Super Tuesday is one sign of just how fucked-up the political, economic, and social systems are. ..."
"... If a person buys into the argument that elections mean anything at all, and they do to some extent, then the fact that a left/progressive coalition couldn't pull it off here speaks volumes. ..."
"... Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer. He is the author of Against the Wall: Memoir of a Vietnam-Era War Resister (2017). ..."
Listening to Joe Biden on the campaign trail is about as painful as listening to Trump.
The gaffes just keep on coming! Running for the senate or the presidency?
That Biden breezed to a presidential primary victory in supposedly liberal Massachusetts
leaves nothing but a sense of despair for anyone on the political left. If Philip Berrigan or
Eugene Debs were alive, either leftist might say "I told you so."
That Biden didn't break a sweat and seemed to know that he wouldn't win in liberal
Massachusetts on Super Tuesday is one sign of just how fucked-up the political, economic, and
social systems are. What was the combination of demographics that gave Biden a victory in
much the same way as a runner on third base comes home and scores after the batter walks with
the bases full?
So-called moderates flocked to Biden, as did those over 50 years old and older Black voters.
Liberals, younger voters, young Black voters, and Latino voters supported Sanders. Political
analysts can go on and on, ad nauseam, but the fact remains that a vibrant and well-organized
campaign by Bernie Sanders on the ground in Massachusetts fell on its face, as did that of
Elizabeth Warren. If a person buys into the argument that elections mean anything at all,
and they do to some extent, then the fact that a left/progressive coalition couldn't pull it
off here speaks volumes. The people who went to the polls spoke, and they would rather
have a neoliberal bumbler than someone who would champion, at the very least, liberal
causes.
... ... ...
Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer. He is the author of Against the Wall: Memoir of a
Vietnam-Era War Resister (2017).
Professor Mearsheimer discusses the foreign policy agenda of the President Biden administration.
He shares his insights on the likely continuities as well as differences between the Biden administration's policies and the
policies pursued by President Trump over the past four years.
About the Speaker: John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell
Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He
graduated from West Point (1970), has a PhD in political science from Cornell University (1981), and has written extensively
about security issues and international politics. Among his six books, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014) won
the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize; and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), made the New York
Times bestseller list.
His latest book is The Great Delusion: Liberal Ideals and International Realities (2018), which won the
2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow.
In 2020, he won the James Madison Award, which
is given once every three years by the American Political Science Association to "an American political scientist who has made
a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." Recorded on the 17th of November 2020
His predictions here are coming true right now. I would also add that the polarization of politics in the US will have
continued unpleasant domestic social ramifications. Do I want to stay and endure it ? Trump did try like hell to back the
US out of long standing losing wars in the middle east. Nobody appreciates this though.
Mearsheimer expects the Dems to give up on the mindless saber-rattling directed at Russia for the last four years. He may be
right, the D's were likely cynically providing "boob bait for the bubbas." Taking a tough line vs China is more unlikely given
that PRC is so closely tied to the Silicon Valley and Wall Street plutocrats who are the real base of the Democrat Party.
According to three pages of embassy notes on the one-hour sitdown, Lamdan wrote that Biden
said he believed US officials openly criticising Israel - despite the US providing support for
the country as an important ally - was "paradoxical and a mistake," according to Haaretz.
"[Biden] wanted to say that even though the positions of the U.S. were, with a few
exceptions, alright, the U.S. continues to claim outwardly that it wishes to be equally
friendly to all sides," Lamdan wrote, referring to US efforts as a mediator between Israel,
Palestine and surrounding Arab countries.
Jordanian and Palestinian leaders pin
hopes on Biden reviving two-state solution
Read More "
"Biden believes that the U.S. should tell the Arabs that Israel is foremost among its
friends, and that if the Arabs had a problem with that, they should be aware that they would
have a problem with the U.S. as well," Lamdan continued.
Biden reportedly told the embassy officials that "the U.S. should change its public debate
with Israel" and that if he were president, the US would treat it "like it treats its other
friends".
"It would be inconceivable to openly argue with Mrs. Thatcher on disputed topics, but in the
case of Israel, the U.S. does not hesitate to openly disagree with it. This approach is
unacceptable to him," Lamdan noted.
"If he were elected, he would have a frank exchange with us, without publicity and through
diplomatic channels".
Four months later, Biden made similar remarks when addressing the US congress.
"It's about time we stop apologising for our support for Israel," he told lawmakers that
June. "It is the best $3 billion investment we make. If there weren't an Israel, the United
States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the
region."
Biden is expected to reverse or temper some of the more status-quo-breaking moves made
during US President Donald Trump's presidency regarding Israel and Palestine.
While the president-elect initially opposed the Trump administration's US embassy move to
Jerusalem, Biden has stated that he has no intention of moving it back to Tel Aviv.
Instead, his administration plans to reopen the US consulate in occupied East Jerusalem to
serve Palestinians. He will also reopen the mission of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation
(PLO) in Washington, which was shuttered by the Trump administration.
In the past, Biden had been a hardliner against the PLO, which, now a recognised observer
member of the United Nations, had been considered a terror organisation until the early
1990s.
Progressives promote roster of
foreign-policy staffers for Joe Biden Read
More "
During his 1986 meeting with Rosenne and Lamdan, he compared the PLO to the Irish Republican
Army (IRA), a paramilitary group that originally fought British colonial rule during the
country's War of Independence (1919-1921).
"As someone of Irish descent, [Biden] considered the IRA to be like any other terror
organization which would never compromise with the moderates, with the lowest common
denominator always holding sway," Lamdan wrote.
At the end of the meeting, Lamdan said that "Biden repeated his commitment to Israel,"
adding that he "believes the United States did not do enough for the Jews during World War II.
He ended by saying that we wouldn't be sorry if he were elected to the White House."
Speaking more recently to Haaretz, Lamdan said he did not remember his 1986 meeting with
Biden, and Rosenne passed away in 2015, so neither man was able to provide further insight.
Biden has said he will reinstate several Palestinian aid programmes that the Trump
administration has cut, such as funds for security cooperation, economic development, and
humanitarian aid.
But he has also echoed the Trump administration's view of conditioning aid to the
Palestinian Authority (PA) on cuts to government welfare payments that go to the families of
Palestinian prisoners and Palestinians killed by Israel, a policy the PA has refused to
negotiate.
At the same time, Biden has vowed to re-enter a
nuclear deal with Iran, a position Israel has strongly argued against as it considers Tehran a
fierce rival.
Before our national self-inquest on Donald Trump has run its course, we will be prompted
to remember again that the world exists. President-elect Joe Biden's appointments at the
departments of defense, state, and the national security council are likely to include some
combination of Michele Flournoy, Jake Sullivan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others of the
globalization group around Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These people believe in
the rightness of a world with the United States at its center, deploying commercial strength,
trade agreements, diplomatic suasion, and military alliances in a judicious synthesis. Armed
intervention, preferably multilateral, is held in reserve. They take on trust the global
politics of neoliberalism. For them, the Trump presidency, though unanticipated, was merely a
disagreeable hiatus. They have never stopped planning for their return.
SPONSORED CONTENT
How To Entirely Empty Your Bowels Each Morning (1 Min Routine) Your Gut Reboot
[Photos] The Most Dangerous Place Where You Should Never Swim Is Actually In New Jersey
Tie Breaker
[Photos] Marisa Tomei Gave The Crew A Little Extra Graduatez
They did not study the catastrophe of Vietnam, and they have not learned from it. As
Gareth Porter showed in Perils of Dominance , that war, whose atrocities the world
remembers more vividly than Americans do, was protracted not from morbid credulity regarding
the domino theory but rather a primitive fear of losing face. It was carried forward through
presidencies in both parties with a maximum of deception. The War in Afghanistan has
similarly extended over three presidencies; and yet, to the neoliberal establishment,
Afghanistan in 2020 is a good deal like Vietnam in 1971. It must not be "abandoned." A recent
New York Times story praised some generals for "tempering" the rashness of Donald
Trump's attempt to withdraw once and for all.
For reasons of personality that hardly bear looking into, Trump in foreign policy
represented a break from the militarized globalism the United States had adopted with the
fall of the Soviet Union and the coming of a unipolar world. The laboratory for this approach
was the Yugoslavia intervention commandeered by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The madness
under the idealism was revealed in the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
That seems a long generation ago, to the short memory of Americans. Even more thoroughly
forgotten has been the Libya War -- President Obama's disastrous bid to show support for the
Arab Spring -- with all the destruction it wrought: the civil war that followed, the swollen
mass migrations from North Africa to South Europe, the opening of slave markets in Libya
itself. After Libya came Syria, in which the United States supported an Al Qaeda offshoot in
another humanitarian cause. After Syria came the Obama-Trump support for the Saudi
obliteration of Yemen.
The United States has long faced the peculiar choice -- messianic on both sides -- of
serving the world as an exemplary nation or as an evangelical one. The former image was best
drawn by Abraham Lincoln when he said that the proposition "all men are created equal" was
meant as "a standard maxim for free society," which would be "constantly approximated" in the
United States itself, "constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the
happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere." By contrast, the
evangelical image was epitomized by John Kennedy's eloquent and dangerous inaugural address:
"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Lincoln's standard
maxim meant the force of our example. Kennedy's bear any burden meant the force
of our weapons.
A new Cold War with Russia was dragged onto center stage in 2013–2014. The process
began at the Sochi Olympics and was locked in by the American reaction to the Russian
reaction to the coup in Ukraine. The neoliberal elite is deciding, at this moment, whether to
prefer Russia or China as the number-one U.S. enemy on the horizon. But must we have one?
"Faith in a fact can help create the fact," said William James. A named expectation of
trouble creates the conditions for that trouble. And yet, informed citizens today in the
United States, in China, and in Russia all know that such a return to the inveterate habits
of the old Great Powers would be supremely irresponsible. Our most dire confrontation now is
with the natural world, which, in the form of climate change, is taking its revenge on
humanity for a century of abuse.
SPONSORED CONTENT
[Photos] At 56, Laura Ingraham Has Never Been Married And Now We Know Why Graduatez
[Photos] Behind Her Fame, Milana Vayntrub Has Some Secret Now Out In The Open Penguin M.D.
[Photos] 35 People That Forgot to Check The Background Before Taking Photo Penguin
M.D.
If the fires and floods of the last many years, in Australia and California, in Prague and
Houston, have nothing to say to you, it is not clear what planet you are fit to live on. The
best thing the policy elite could do, for the United States and the world, would be to put
themselves out of business. Begin a series of international agreements to cooperate in
slowing the progress of climate change, and in anticipating and defending against the worst
of its effects. Practically speaking, as a matter of course, this will require a new ethic of
international cooperation. Not war, not even an enhanced trade war, and not with China and
Russia most of all.
David Bromwich is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. He is the author
of American Breakdown:
More information from the horse's mouth – John Paul Mac Isaac tells the full story of his interaction with the FBI and their negligence.
It is worth seven minutes of your time.
As you saw in the video, the FBI was inept, at best, in exploiting the Hunter Biden hard drive. And this is indirectly damning
of Bill Barr's incompetence in this matter I am sad to say. A Special Counsel is warranted when the son of a man, who is perceived
at present as the next President, is embroiled in serious allegations of tax fraud and violations of the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and possible bribery by a foreign power.
If you want to help John Paul fight this battle you can support him
here .
"... Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, for example, was eviscerated on the campaign trail in 2016 over her apparent coziness with Wall Street and Goldman in particular, slammed by Democratic socialist rival Bernie Sanders over her refusal to release the transcripts of several highly-paid speeches she gave to the bank. Supposed transcripts of the speeches released by WikiLeaks ahead of the vote had Clinton gushing that only Wall Street insiders were qualified to regulate Wall Street , suggesting the candidate planned to hand regulatory power to the same people who'd broken the economy in 2008." [ ] ..."
"... That honor goes to BlackRock and its fellow private equity vulture capitalists. As usual, Biden's people have their finger squarely on the nation's pulse as they prepare to rip the still-beating heart out of the US' economic corpse: BlackRock exec Brian Deese has been tapped to lead the cabinet's National Economic Council. " ..."
'Like Obama, like Trump: Biden embraces Goldman Sachs bankers after Electoral College win',
15 Dec, 2020 , Helen
Buyinski, RT.com (a few excerpts)
"Despite spending the campaign season painting himself as the anti-Trump, Democratic
President-elect Joe Biden has further followed in his predecessor's footsteps, appointing not
one but two Goldman Sachs alums to his cabinet.
Ex-Goldman banker Eric Goldstein , who worked on the investment bank's Merchant Banking
division for nearly two decades, will join Biden's Homeland Security Review Team, Politico
revealed on Monday. His erstwhile colleague Monica Maher – currently vice president of
cyber threat intelligence at Goldman Sachs – has been appointed to the National Security
Council Review Team." [ ]
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, for example, was eviscerated on the campaign
trail in 2016 over her apparent coziness with Wall Street and Goldman in particular, slammed by
Democratic socialist rival Bernie Sanders over her refusal to release the transcripts of
several highly-paid speeches she gave to the bank. Supposed transcripts of the speeches
released by WikiLeaks ahead of the vote had Clinton gushing that only Wall Street insiders were
qualified to regulate Wall Street , suggesting the candidate planned to hand regulatory power
to the same people who'd broken the economy in 2008." [ ]
"The Democrat's cabinet is populated almost entirely with second-stringers from the Obama
years, from the then-Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen (now tapped for Treasury secretary) to
virulent anti-Sanders harpy Neera Tanden (poised to become head of the Office of Management and
Budget) – and Goldman Sachs and its fellow investment banks aren't even the most
rapacious financial firms on the scene anymore.
That honor goes to BlackRock and its fellow private equity vulture capitalists. As usual,
Biden's people have their finger squarely on the nation's pulse as they prepare to rip the
still-beating heart out of the US' economic corpse: BlackRock exec Brian Deese has been tapped
to lead the cabinet's National Economic Council."
It will be Deese's job to shepherd the nation through the coming depression and Wall Street
meltdown Save Wall Street & Sergeant Dow Jones, F Main Street!
"And even former President Barack Obama, under whom Biden served as vice president, was
lambasted by progressive Democrats for essentially allowing investment bank Citigroup to
appoint his cabinet in the wake of the almost half-a-trillion-dollar TARP bailout that put
taxpayers on the hook for paying off Wall Street's gambling debts. Citi exec Michael Froman,
whom Obama appointed as US trade representative, sent out a list of nearly three dozen cabinet
selections, most of which the incoming president filled as advised .
Buyinski then proceeds to narrate:
There's been plenty of buzz afoot that Biden' been 'considering' appointing Sam Power to
head USAID, most mentions circling back to
Axios , which coverage was a disgusting homage to her and her qualifications for what Biden
intends pretends the job to be.
" Why it matters: Installing Power -- a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and author
of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide -- would signal the Biden administration plans
to revitalize foreign assistance and use it as an instrument of soft power and to achieve
humanitarian goals." [ ]
" The big picture: Power, currently a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School, has been a
leading advocate for using military force, when justified, to achieve humanitarian goals.
USAID is an independent government agency but works in tandem with the State Department. The
administrator's job requires Senate confirmation, but isn't part of the Cabinet." [ ]
" Between the lines: Power's husband, Cass Sunstein, who ran the highly influential Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs in Obama's first term, could return to government, as
well."
That she's married to the O-so-nauseatingly brilliant Cass Sunstein is hilarious, but the couple
would prove to be a Twofer, and dovetails so well with CIA whitleblower Philip Agee's long
credo that in the main, both the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID are both CIA
cut-outs . There are likely a host of similar examples, but you may remember what was in the
USAID convoys
Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro had refused to allow in: guns, barbed wire, and Special Operations
forces dressed as Aid workers on behalf of the opposition government (Juan Guaido and
friends).
I'd seen Ann Garrison's earlier reaction to the buzz, citing her Aug. 2015 ' Africa's problem
from hell: Samantha Power ', and she's up with a new one at Black Agenda Report : ''The
Planet's Problem from Hell: Samantha Power' , Ann Garrison, blackagendareport.com, Dec. 16,
2020
"Having successfully advocated for US-led NATO wars in Libya and Syria, Power set her
sights set on the tiny, impoverished East African nation of Burundi."
Just when it seemed that Joe Biden's coming administration couldn't be more of a horror
show, Axios
reported that he's likely to appoint another monster from the deep, violent know-it-all
Samantha Power, to head the US Agency for International Development (USAID). I rescheduled my
piece on contact tracing's potential to further empower the surveillance state for next year's
first Black Agenda Report and instead updated my 2015 piece " Samantha Power:
Africa's Problem from Hell ."
As I said then, when Power was serving the second of her four years as President Obama's US
Ambassador to the UN, she was on a mission to save Africans from African savagery, but her
largesse extends to all those who need American bombs to calm ethnic strife. She wants you to
call 1-800-GENOCIDE ,
so she can alert the president to send in the Marines or other US Special Forces. As head of
USAID, she'll be in perfect position to wield foreign aid as a cudgel for beating foreign heads
of state till they line up behind US empire, which she understands as a never-ending campaign
to stop genocide and defend human rights.
Indeed, Power actually seems to believe this, unlike those who shamelessly invoke human
rights but know full well that US foreign policy is about economic exploitation and/or
domination of any non-NATO nation that dares to raise an independent head. In '
The E
ducation of an Idealist: A Memoir' published in 2019, she writes of how she all but
immolated in her own burning self-righteousness while reporting from Bosnia in the 1990s:
" I had never been without opinions, but my certitude previously had to do with
seemingly trivial issues like an umpire's bad call in a baseball game. Now, as I researched
and reflected on real‐world events, I seemed unable to contain my emotions or modulate
my judgments. If the subject of Bosnia came up and someone innocently described the conflict
as a civil war, I would erupt: It is genocide!"
Antiwar activist and writer David Swanson wrote one of my favorite headlines of 2017:
Samantha
Power Can See Russia from Her Padded Cell . In the Counterpunch piece, he shared highlights
of Power's overwrought
performance at the Atlantic Council where she railed at Russia for aggression threatening
the US and the global rule of law, in Ukraine, Syria, France, Germany, Montenegro and beyond,
and demanded that NATO be on hair-trigger alert." The rest is here .
The ascendancy of neoliberal forces to the executive branch of the U.S. state represents a
development that potentially will be even a more dangerous period of aggression from the U.S.
white supremacist settler state and its white supremacist colonial European allies.
Why is this so? The primary agenda of the right-wing neoliberal forces represented by the
Biden Administration is to reassert U.S. global leadership by reconsolidating a common
U.S.-European capitalist program of domination that was disrupted with the "America first"
positions of the Trump Administration.
The Biden Administration is animated by the belief that the objective logic of overall
Western hegemony is tied to finding a way for more effective collaboration around a common
imperialist agenda. This belief is shared by Angela Merkel of Germany, and despite some
contrary public declarations from French President Macron on issue of European independence,
Macron sees an effective Western alliance as critical, even if it is under U.S. leadership
once again.
The racialist character if these appeals are obvious to those of us who operate from a
critical anti-colonialist frame that centers race and violence as the essential elements of
the rise of the Pan-European white supremacist colonial/capitalist patriarchal project. The
commitment to continued white colonial/capitalist global hegemonic dominance is clear.
Biden's objective to revive a U.S. hegemonic role over the Western project of collective
domination must be seen as a race project.
Trump's plan from the beginning of his administration was to complete the Obama pivot to
Asia, but those efforts were undermined by the domestic political obstacles he faced in just
trying to gain full control of the Executive Branch. And while Trump was eventually
successful in winning over elements of the U.S. and European ruling classes to a more
aggressive stance against China, his short-sighted, erratic "America first" policies and his
inability to consolidate effective power over the U.S. state were a destabilizing force for
the continued hegemony of the Western colonial/capitalist project.
The U.S.-EU unity project with its NATO military wing in the service of collective
imperialism and under U.S. leadership is the neoliberal corrective strategy to
Trump.
Biden's Intersectional Imperialism is Exposed
Obama represented the last stage of what Gramsci called a passive revolution where
oppressive state mitigates the influence of antagonistic groups through "gradual but
continuous absorption."
The U.S.-EU race and class project of unity adopted by the Biden Administration will face
serious political and economic challenges. The clumsy attempt to utilize Obama's soft power
ideological mystifications in the present circumstances of capitalist crisis together with a
deep legitimation crisis will result in abject failure by the Biden administration on both
the global and domestic levels.
First among the challenges facing the incoming administration is the competing economic
interests among Western capitalists. The abrogation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPA) with Iran by the Trump Administration and the reimposition of sanctions that required
economic disengagement from Iran by many European firms, was a major fissure in the Atlanta
alliance.
The lost revenues by European firms as a result of economic disengagement with Iran and
the efforts to undermine the Russian NORD stream two pipeline that alienated significant
elements of German capital are just two of the issues that will weigh on the trust factor in
U.S. political leadership going forward.
Moreover, there are two interrelated contradictions of this unity strategy that the
Northern neoliberal capitalist class must confront but will be unable to resolve: first, the
impact of the capitalist crisis exacerbated by COVID that has unleashed forces disruptive to
the capitalist order from both the left and the right. And secondly, the attempt by the left
and social democratic movements and nations to develop, however tentatively, from the
obviously failed neoliberal capitalist model.
The U.S.-EU Unity Process Requires a Countervailing Peoples Unity Process
The strategic challenge for the left in Northern countries is countering these efforts
with a coherent anti-capitalist, internationalist, anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist
and pro-socialist popular movements and structures.
But in the U.S. and Europe, that is easier said than done. Along with the ideological and
organizational fragmentation of the left, one of the main issues that undermines the ability
for the left to cohere in the U.S. and Europe is the cultural and ideological influences of
white supremacist ideology.
The inability to reject the fiction of a "Europe" and its civilizational superiority has
thoroughly corrupted the worldviews and politics of Western leftism. In the face of the
U.S/EU/NATO attacks and subversion on Syria, Libya to Venezuela and Bolivia, instead of
anti-imperialist solidarity, the left engaged in torturous abstract "discussions" around the
merits and mistakes made by these various Southern nations, not recognizing the arrogant
white supremacist positionality of that approach.
Anti-imperialist marginalization is reflective of the shift in the consciousness not only
of the public in various Western nations but of the putative left as well. Even among Black
liberationist forces in the U.S., who have traditionally had internationalism and
anti-imperialism at the center of their worldviews and politics, a strange U.S.-centrism has
emerged. This tendency along with an ironic embryonic racial chauvinism that elevates a
distinctive "African American" construction of so-called global anti-blackness as an
intractable ontological phenomenon, has created serious ideological and political challenges
for anti-imperialist coalitional work.
Yet, those challenges must be met by African/Black left and left forces in general. It is
impossible for forces in the U.S. and Europe to avoid their unique responsibilities situated
at the center of the colonial empires, to the peoples of the world who have the knee of
collective imperialism on their necks.
Bringing this discussion closer to the territory referred to as the United States,
anti-imperialism, and the struggle against U.S. chauvinism among the left must be taken up as
an area of struggle. For African/Black revolutionaries, and indeed for the working and
laboring classes, our gaze must extend beyond our local and national realities. Not because
those realities are unimportant but because we are unable to understand local realities
without understanding the full constellation of class, race and material forces that shape
those structural realities nationally and locally.
Mobilizing our forces to confront and defeat the Pan-European project is not a call to
abstractionism. The organizational challenge is to answer the question of how does local
work, that is, building a real, concrete internationalism, look.
It is not enough to position ourselves in solidarity with the victims of U.S. imperialism.
The base-building work that we engage in must reflect that mutual connection with the
colonized.
That is why the Black internationalist stance is not some exotic addition to radical
organizing but must be seen as fundamental to our movement building work. Understanding that
we are immersed in a system of exploitation and oppression that is global, even though it has
local manifestations, is critical for us to effectively address that perennial task of
determining "what must be done" to advance our forces.
Confronting that question of what is to be done has become even more crucial today amid
the irreversible decline of the capitalist order. And while we commit to building a mass
movement of the exploited and oppressed, we must take account of some troubling developments
over the last four years.
The unveiling of the left patriots who were concerned with "our democracy" and who
enthusiastically propagated the talking points of neoliberalism while remaining silent on
U.S. imperialism, and entered the intra-bourgeois class struggle as junior partners to
neoliberal right, revealed once again that if the left is not prepared to defeat whiteness
and the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination, it will join as the tail to the neoliberal right in
the cross-class white supremacist fascist project led by neoliberals.
Our survival demands that we remain "woke" to that possibility and plan accordingly.
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
Sen. Lindsey Graham: "If you believe a special counsel was needed to look at the Trumpworld
regarding Russia -- how can you say that there's no need for a special counsel regarding Hunter
Biden?"
"I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware advised
my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs," Hunter Biden
said. "I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective
review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately,
including with the benefit of professional tax advisors."
Hunter Biden is also under federal investigation over his China business dealings –
This was previously reported by James Rosen at the Sinclair Group.
The federal investigation into Hunter Biden and his associates focused on allegations of
money laundering which began back in 2018.
According to CNN, Joe Biden, AKA "The Big Guy" who got between 10% and 50% of Hunter's money
from foreign countries is not implicated.
President Donald Trump is considering pushing to have a special counsel appointed to advance
a federal tax investigation into the son of President-elect Joe Biden, setting up a potential
showdown with incoming acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen.
Trump -- angry that out-going Attorney General William Barr didn't publicly announce the
ongoing, two-year investigation into Hunter Biden -- has consulted on the matter with White
House chief of staff Mark Meadows, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and outside allies.
That's according to several Trump administration officials and Republicans close to the
White House who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss private
matters.
The AP also reported that Trump is interested in appointing a special prosecutor to
investigate the massive voter fraud that took place in the 2020 election.
President Trump has support from Republican lawmakers.
Senator Lindsey Graham said he is also calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Hunter
Biden's business deals with China.
"If you believe a special counsel was needed to look at the Trumpworld regarding Russia -- how
can you say that there's no need for a special counsel regarding Hunter Biden?" Lindsay Graham
said to reporters on Wednesday.
Without competence, though, even the most unquestioning loyalty is all but meaningless.
Mining his former boss' personnel files to fill important roles may seem like the noble thing
for Biden to do now, given Obama's central role in getting his former vice president elected
commander-in-chief, but when it comes time for these nepotism beneficiaries and glorified
back-benchers to actually govern, the country will be effectively screwed.
Why, for example, is former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who held multiple
foreign policy roles in that administration, being named as head of the White House Domestic
Policy Council despite having zero experience in the domestic policy arena? She was reportedly
passed over for both vice president and secretary of state – which, given her record ,
may have saved the US from entering another unwinnable war or two – but other than
loyalty to the Obama team, it's hard to see what qualifies her for any stateside policy
role.
In a country still wrestling with the Covid-19 pandemic, one wonders how the Biden campaign
can justify appointing California Attorney General Xavier Becerra – a man with no
expertise in medical matters – as head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The bar for " medical expert " has been disastrously lowered with the enthusiastic
tongue-baths given to Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates by the media establishment, but Gates is
paying his
worshipers handsomely – Becerra's sole credential seems to be his performative
courtroom " resistance " to the Trump administration, whose own HHS director hails from
one of the most
corrupt pharmaceutical firms in the US.
Biden's administration is mired in such question marks. The selection of Denis McDonough as
head of Veterans Affairs – a man who spent four years as Obama's chief of staff but has
never served in the military or done any work with veterans – similarly makes no sense if
viewed from the traditional standpoint of prioritizing experience and relevant skill-sets in
hiring decisions. But the manner in which the president-elect's campaign has doled out cabinet
appointments resembles less a traditional hiring process and more a blindfolded, sadistic game
of " pin the fail on the donkey. "
The president-elect himself has never known any other way of being – politically
speaking – than the perverted form of loyalty that consists of sucking up to power in the
hope of being rewarded with crumbs from the ruling-class table. He spent his political life as
a self-avowed " prostitute ," even joking about whoring himself out to the
highest bidder. But he's certainly not the first, nor will he be the last, to reward loyalty
over ability. Ever since Citizens United opened the financial floodgates for Big Business to
bankroll political campaigns, making it prohibitively expensive to run without corporate
backers, meritocracy hasn't had a prayer.
That entire agencies have become repositories for loyal yet inept careerists is not exactly
a secret in Washington, however. The directorship of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was
recently described by the New Republic as " a reward for good behavior – more like an
ambassadorship doled out to political loyalists than a post for subject-area experts at the
peak of a long career ," after Ohio congresswoman Marcia Fudge complained the Biden
administration was marooning her there instead of appointing her Secretary of Agriculture.
While Fudge was actually qualified for the agriculture post, Biden opted to reappoint Tom "
Mr. Monsanto " Vilsack, the man who held the role for eight years under Obama, to the
role in yet another display of
blatant favoritism.
HUD has long been a running joke thanks to appointees like the current director, black
neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who infamously
confused the term for a bank-owned foreclosed home with an Oreo cookie after two years on
the job. Carson was simply being rewarded for his loyalty after dropping out of the 2016 race
to support Trump's candidacy. Failing upward is the rule, not the exception, and it's a
bipartisan phenomenon.
When incompetence is bipartisan – and mandatory
Even Trump, whose supporters viewed him as an outsider determined to drain Washington's
proverbial swamp, was ultimately forced to appoint a coterie of Israel-first warmongers to
influential cabinet positions in order to repay favors to the big-dollar donors he had to seek
help from in order to compete with the deep-pocketed Hillary Clinton campaign. Begging for
funds from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and vulture capitalist Paul Singer meant Trump had no
choice but to mothball his pledge to end the US' endless wars and appoint unhinged hawks like
John Bolton – and, later, Raytheon lobbyist Mark Esper – to senior roles.
And while Trump may have tried to throw a wrench into Washington's machine by appointing a
slate of deregulation enthusiasts to run the departments they hated into the ground, this
tactic also saw loyal incompetents rewarded with plum positions. Longtime Republican donors the
DeVos family were repaid for their generosity with the appointment of the decidedly
anti-public-schooling militant-ignorant Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, a transaction in
which the only party to be shafted was America's children. As icing on the corrupt cake, DeVos'
brother Erik Prince got all the mercenary contracts he could eat – even spying on the
teacher's unions his sister's office was trying to crush.
The corruption and self-dealing in US politics goes so deep it's questionable whether there
would be anything left if the 'swamp' was truly 'drained', and the rapid decline of the US
empire has both parties scrambling to strip whatever assets are left before the whole structure
collapses. At that point, when the ordinary Americans who are being mercilessly ripped off by
Left and Right have no choice but to confront their tormentors, loyalty to the
pillagers-in-chief will no longer be an asset on one's resume, but a target on one's back.
HypoxiaMasks 15 hours ago 16 Dec, 2020 02:55 PM
Competence is not required for politics or the federal government and never has been as far
back as I can remember
LoveYouLoads 14 hours ago 16 Dec, 2020 03:00 PM
Competence is not really the primary consideration in most (western) hierarchies.... in
either politics or business .... even in the entertainment industry "it's not what you know
it's who you know"..... but systems infected with nepotism always end the same.
SheepNotHuman 9 hours ago 16 Dec, 2020 08:27 PM
Helen is right on! Anyone votes for a career politician needs their head examined but again
that voting in America is all completely fake. New boss same as the old boss, friends and
family first. This is the result of many years of childishness and manufactured consent for a
brain in adults of America. Not much improved over Circus Circus in Rome from days gone by.
Keep the foolish masses occupied with childish sports nothing too violent so as not to harm
those transferring their out of body delusions. (Let's not hurt the sheep very sensitive may
get censored here.) I'm sure Soros will be the first calling Biden giving his orders to him.
Soros is the real president of America and America is a state of Israel.
In today's episode of 'Things that should have come out during the impeachment,'
just-released diplomatic memos reveal that Vice President Joe Biden's office was warned in 2015
that the Ukrainian oligarch who hired his son, Hunter, was deemed corrupt - and that the US
Justice Department had gathered evidence to support that conclusion, according to
Just The News .
"I assume all have the DoJ background on Zlochevsky," wrote former US Ambassador Geoffrey
Pyatt in Kiev in a 2015 letter to Biden's top advisers, referring to Burisma Holdings founder
Mykola Zlochevsky.
"The short unclas version (in non lawyer language) is that US and UK were cooperating on a
case to seize his corrupt assets overseas (which had passed through the US)," Pyatt added,
noting that the asset forfeiture case against the Ukrainian billionaire "fell apart" when
individuals in the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office "acted to thwart the UK case."
Talking points
Pyatt's email also includes responses to several talking points Joe Biden's Washington staff
crafted, should he be questioned about Hunter's role on the board of Burisma .
" Have you asked Hunter to step down from the board? Has he discussed that with you?" the
talking points anticipated being asked.
" I'm not going to discuss private conversations with my family. Hunter is a private
citizen and does independent work ," the memo recommended the vice president answer.
If pressed by a question asking whether Joe Biden thought "Zlochevsky is corrupt," the
talking points suggested the vice president respond, "I'm not going to get into naming names
or accusing individuals." -
Just The News
... ... ...
The memos, released last week by Senate committees investigating Hunter Biden, also reveal
that the US Justice Department was involved in the 2014 asset forfeiture brought against
Zlochevsky in the UK , right as Hunter Biden was hired to sit on the board of Burisma.
Multiple State officials have attested to the awkward appearance of conflict of interest
posed by Hunter's position on the board as the United States led efforts to fight corruption in
Ukraine. In a September, 2015 speech, Pyatt railed against Ukrainian prosecutors for thwarting
the UK asset forfeiture case against Zlochevsky.
Pyatt was recently deposed by investigators for the Senate Finance Committee and the
Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee about the Ukraine controversy.
Though his staff had reported an alleged Burisma bribe and believed the Bidens' conduct in
Ukraine created an apparent conflict, Pyatt said he never felt compelled to raise such
concerns with the vice president.
" So you never gave thought of raising a concern to the Vice President about this board
position his son had? " a Senate investigator asked Pyatt during the deposition back in
September.
"No," the ambassador answered. "He's the Vice President of the United States, and it would
have been wildly out of place for me to raise something like that, especially insofar as it
had zero impact on the work that I was doing ." -
Just The News
Meanwhile, let's not forget that according to evidence from Hunter Biden's laptop published
by the New York Post , Biden didn't just know about his son's business dealings in Ukraine and
elsewhere,
he participated in them .
And Democrats impeached Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate.
2 play_arrow
Max21c 26 minutes ago
Joe Biden Warned In 2015 That Son Hunter's New Employer And Burisma Boss Was Corrupt
This information might have been useful during the impeachment ...
But if the government secret police agencies revealed the truth to the public then how
would Washingtonians have been able to push the impeachment scam as far as they did... and
without the government distracted and bogged down in phony scandals and scams and lies and
distortions then the swamp people might not have been able to pulloff their election fraud
and seize power again. There might not even be as many dead people and as much damage to the
country and its economy without the impeachment getting in the way of the pandemic response
early on.
jammyjo 20 minutes ago remove link
C'mon man! Joe didn't know where his 50% was coming from.
rwe2late 40 minutes ago (Edited)
The Dems did not want a repetition of 2016 when the revelations of Hillary's misconduct
helped thwart her election bid.
Thus, any exposure of Biden's misconduct and corruption was to be smothered and prevented
from thwarting his election bid.
Hardly different than to stop showing the homecoming coffins and civilian casualties so
that the war racket can continue.
Obama is running the show and Joe will resign leaving Barack's honey pot running the
country. The election was fixed by Obama, he always was the smartest guy in the room when it
comes to making his dreams of destroying America come true. Obama only set people in place to
destroy America and now he can blame Uncle Joe and DR of Love Jill.
walküre 1 hour ago
Barrack Hussein Robert Mugabe Obama
NoSoyBoys 59 minutes ago
Barry is too inept and lazy to have thought any of this out.
HANGTHEOWL 58 minutes ago
Obaqama is irrelevant,,,,he is just an ex puppet with no power,,,,,,this world is run by
multi trillionaire Zionist bankers,,,peeon's like Obaqama are just used then disposed
of,,,
walküre 1 hour ago remove link
FFS, Hunter was/is a crack head. His mind is mostly gone. He couldn't run a lemonade
stand, let alone be a board member and understand the ramifications of major business
decisions at foreign companies.
Hunter does not have the wherewithal to be held accountable for any white collar
crimes.
Hunter's name on the documents is to conceal the identity of the real gangster, who is no
other than the head of the family, the Pretender-Elect in Depends Joe Biden.
Sickening to watch how Joe obviously is allowing his own son being fed to the lions.
Man up Joe! He's your son and you're responsible!
Giant Meteor 1 hour ago remove link
The big guy is responsible for his crimes, that is to say, being the head of the crime
family .. His son, being well, past the age of consent, is wholly responsible for his own
crimes ..
nope-1004 1 hour ago (Edited)
Biden = Clinton = Bush = Obama = Holder = Rice = Podesta = corruption
" Correspondence between Hunter
Biden and CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming from 2017 shows President-elect Joe Biden's son
extending "best wishes from the entire Biden family ," and urging the chairman to "quickly"
send a $10 million wire to "properly fund and operate" the Biden joint venture with the
now-bankrupt Chinese energy company.
The $10 million transfer to the joint venture was never completed.
Fox News obtained an email Hunter Biden sent on June 18, 2017, to Zhao Run Long at CEFC,
asking that they please "translate my letter to Chairman Ye, please extend my warmest best
wishes and that I hope to see the Chairman soon.""
Biden went on to note that Bobulinski had "sent a request to Dong Gongwen [Gongwen Dong] and
Director Zang for the funding of the $10 MM USD wire."
"I would appreciate if you will send that quickly so we can properly fund and operate
Sinohawk," Biden wrote.
"I am sure you have been well briefed by our dear friend Director Zan g on the political and
economic connections we have established in countries where you are interested in expanding
during the coming months and years, " he continued. "I look forward to our next meeting."
"Fox News also obtained the response from Ye as part of an email, dated Sept. 6, 2017, from
Biden business associate James Gilliar to Bobulinski. That email forwarded Ye's letter
responding to Biden. The letter is dated July 10, 2017.
Ye stated that he had arranged for Zang and Dong to "expedite the charter capital input to
SinoHawk."
"I am glad to hear from you! Time flies and it has been months since we met in the US. It
seems that we were always on a rush when we were together," Ye wrote to Biden, adding that "the
consensus we made last time has been materialized in a timely manner."
Ye also recommended Biden "arrange your people to coordinate with Director Zang and Gongwen
Dong for specific work."
"I will continue to pay attention and give my support," Ye stated. "I have arranged Director
Zang and Gongwen Dong to expedite the charter capital input to SinoHawk."
"I look forward to meeting you in the near future and discussing our joint undertaking. If
there is anything I could do please do not hesitate to write to me," Ye wrote. "Please accept
my best regards to you and your family."" foxnews
------------
Well, pilgrims, the Ron Johnson hearing today was fun. The best part for me was former
Director Krebs' (election security guy for DHS) repeated statements that the election was
secure, "the most secure in history." Pilgrims, the distinction betwixt "secure" and "honest"
seems to have escaped him as he ignored questions about actual evidence of fraud, a swampie to
the end.
And then, there is Chairman Joe. He knows that nothing will be easier than to kill off
prosecution of his creepy son, or to "suggest" to the Delaware federal prosecutor that a minor
indictment would be appropriate, something resulting in a suspended sentence.
I have watched Tucker debrief Bobulinski twice about that payment. The way Bobulinski tells
it (with documentation) the Bidens were loaned $5 million by MEFC to pay their side of the
capitalization and then actually pocketed the other $5 million as a direct payment to La
Familia from FEMC (Oh Danny Boy!) from - equal opportunity! That was too much for the Bobster
(former naval Lt., man of world finance, patriot, self-abnegator, etc.) Besides, where was his
share?
Pistols at dawn? Good! Tucker can act as his second. Where are my cased flintlock
smoothbores? They are somewhere around here, the English 18th Century ones in the fitted blue
velvet case. pl
Senator Rand Paul accused Georgia and other states of using the COVID-19 pandemic to steal
the election in a move he says could have came from the playbook of Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm
Emanuel, who famously said, "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Appearing on Fox News prior to the Wednesday Senate hearing on election irregularities,
Senator Paul was asked how revelations, such as the one out of Georgia showing more than 1,700
voters illegally submitted two ballots during the Nov. 3 contest, would effect the upcoming
runoff elections in the Empire State of the South.
Paul would respond, saying: "You'd think that all of this would be investigated and tried to
be fixed before the election."
He also pointed to potential illegal voting activity in Nevada:
"We're going to hear testimony from Nevada where 15 hundred people were deceased and
should not have voted, four thousand people were illegal aliens, and 15 thousand people voted
from commercial address when you have to vote from a home address."
Echoing the case laid out by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his recently dismissed
Supreme Court lawsuit, Paul accused states of using the COVID-19 crisis to dodge state and
federal election law, comparing the move to a play right out of the Obama, Rahm Emanuel
playbook:
"It's sort of Obama, Rahm Emanuel's playbook. They took the crisis of COVID and then they
changed election law not by changing law at the state legislature, they had secretaries of
state and or governors simply by fiat change the law to say 'oh you can keep counting votes'
when the law did say that. So, this election really was stolen in a way and it was stolen
because people changed the law "
Shortly after his appointment as Obama's Chief of Staff, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
famously uttered the words "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" during a corporate
panel sponsored by the Wall Street Journal .
"What I mean by that is never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it's an opportunity to
do things that you had never considered, or that you didn't think were possible," Emanuel would
explain at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/_mzcbXi1Tkk
Trump Campaign Attorney, Jesse Binnall, would laid out similar accusations of voter fraud to
those given by Senator Paul during the Wednesday Senate hearing.
See Binnall's opening statement below:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/RpLAW-7FBPs
But, Senator Paul was not done, as Douglas
Braff reports via SaraACarter.com , during today's Senate hearing examining irregularities
during 2020 presidential election the Kentucky Republican claimed:
"The fraud happened. The election in many ways was stolen...And the only way it'll be fixed
is by, in the future, reinforcing the laws."
"But I think [Kreb's] job was keeping the foreigners out of the election. It was the most
secure election based on the security of the internet and technology, but he has never voiced
an opinion [ ] on whether or not dead people voted -- I don't think he examined that," Paul
said toward the end of his speaking time, then questioning if Krebs examined non-citizens'
voting.
Many Republicans, in alleging that widespread election fraud occurred in the 2020 election,
have often cited claims that a lot of dead people and non-citizens voted. The over 50 lawsuits
challenging the results of the election in certain swing states alleging election fraud have
overwhelmingly failed in the courts.
"So to say it was the safest election -- sure, I agree with your statement if you're
referring to foreign intervention," Paul continued.
"But if you're saying it's the safest election based on no dead people voted, no
non-citizens voted, no people broke the absentee [ballot] rules, I think that's false and I
think that's what's upset a lot of people on our side is that they're taking your statement
to mean 'Oh, there were no problems in the elections.'"
"I don't think you examined any of the problems that we've heard here," he added, "so really
you're just referring to something differently, the way I look at it." ay_arrow 1
wee-weed up 6 hours ago (Edited)
Okay, Sen Rand Paul...
Now put your credibility where your mouth is...
And back up Mo Brooks on Jan 6th when he stands up to challenge the validity of the
election.
This will call for congresscritters with balls enough to say, "This illegal voting that
occurred threatens the Republic and will not stand!"
US Banana Republic 6 hours ago
Do you know why Biden is telling everyone to stay home from his inauguration (which will
never be anyway)?
Because NOBODY would have come. With or without COVID being a factor.
Fraudly Dementia Boy who is supposedly the most popular Democrat in history according to
the vote, never would have gotten more than 12 people to show up to see him sworn in,.
EightyEight Mike 6 hours ago remove link
"17 Intelligence Agencies confirmed that there was foreign interference in the
presidential election."
Remember hearing that every day?
sgt_doom 5 hours ago remove link
Even Matt Taibbi debunked that bullcrap --- a couple of guys at the CIA, friends of the
Clapper/Brannan bromance, who later transferred to the NSA, to prattle the same bullcrap!
[ China (the CCP) owns UBS Securities Co LTD >> which owns Staple Street Capital
>> which owns Dominion >> ergo, CCP owns Dominion --- this is the way it is
done in int'l finance]
Doom Porn Star 6 hours ago (Edited)
Laws were NOT changed. The legal procedures for changing the voting laws were NOT
followed.
The very laws about changing the election laws were not followed and thus laws were not
changed.
For instance: in Pennsylvania the Legislature is the only authority that can change the
state constitution and the laws governing elections within. The Legislature did NOT change
the constitution of Pennsylvania.
Saying that laws were changed is not the same as actually going through the legal
procedures required to change the laws and enacting new legally binding legislation.
Saying "We changed the laws."doesn't change anything no matter how many times you repeat
the phrase.
They did NOT change the laws -which is why SCOTUS freaked out and refused to hear the
case.
IF SCOTUS actually had been forced to admit that the laws were not actually changed ,
despite the repeated insistent rhetoric that they had been changed, Trump would easily have
won the Electoral College.
PGR88 6 hours ago
Let's look at California
This year, due to "COVID-19," California mailed out 25 million ballots to everyone on
voter rolls. Remember also, their DMV automatically registers everyone to vote - including
illegals, who are given drivers licenses. Mail-in-voting in CA has been a trend, but now
Newsom wants this to be permanent.
There are no checks on non-citizens voting.
Voter rolls have not been purged of people who left the State or who changed addresses
In November 2020, approx, 7 million ballots were returned. Normally, in some districts, up
to 10% of mail-in ballots may be rejected for problems. This year, due to the vast numbers,
less than 0.01% were rejected.
It is absolutely impossible for state election workers to check voter rolls, signatures,
addresses on 7 million ballots - so in effect, NO checks occur
California also allows "ballot harvesters." Any organized group my collect ballots from
Voters, and turn them in. Some activist groups are even funded by the state to "harvest"
ballots. That means political actors are collecting ballots, completely outside of any
verification or chain-of-possession steps.
I dare anyone to tell me such a system is not full of manipulation and fraud
NoBigDeal 6 hours ago remove link
The GOP have to fight this in the court of public opinion because no court judge is
prepared to listen to the case. They accuse them of telling lies without looking at the
evidence. A cynical Catch 22 position.
As the administrators of justice this is a frightening heads up for anyone who thought
there was any integrity and fairness in the legal system.
It's all bribes now..
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 5 hours ago (Edited)
Imagine sitting in court for tax fraud and the prosecutor saying........ "we gotta make
sure this doesn't happen in the future.".....but you get to walk and keep the money you
stole.
Onthebeach6 6 hours ago remove link
The Deep State actors are still trying to steal it by claiming no CCP interference in the
election.
The report on foreign interference in the US election is due for release on Friday (18
th ) afternoon. This will be 45 days after it was requested by the President. It
may be delayed.
The report is being prepared by the DNI (Department of National Intelligence) which is an
umbrella organization over 16 intelligence agencies.
There is currently a massive ongoing fight between agencies in respect of those who wish
to include the evidence of Chinese CCP involvement and those who wish to cover this up and
blame Russia.
Director Ratcliffe of the DNI wants the CCP involvement included in the report and has
stated that he will not sign the report unless this detailed CCP information is included.
It is important to understand that there is both evidence of CCP helping to fix the
election and ongoing CCP pressure to ensure that their asset Biden is sworn in as
President.
It is clear that CCP and deep state assets as well as the DNC and big tech worked together
to steal the election and remove Trump in support of a globalist agenda that would enrich a
small minority whilst impoverishing most Americans.
WatchOutForThatTree 2 hours ago
Whether the "election" turned out the way you wanted or not, it's pretty damned obvious
this bitch was rigged.
Can all the stupid trolls and mindless posters please go back into your caves? The
quality(or lack thereof) of discourse here sucks nowadays...
Linguo 1 hour ago
Rigged ? Corporate money by the billions, voter suppression, two parties whose sole
allegiance is to Wall Street deliberately excluding third and fourth parties and
gerrymandering to name a few, contributes to the democratic process ? What planet do you live
on ? This country has never been a democracy. If the election was rigged, why did the
republicans do well with the exception of the racist war criminal who is personally
responsible for hundreds of thousands of COVID-19 deaths, King BS the 1st ? Idiot.
wimvincken 3 hours ago remove link
It's unbelievable what happened in the US. Many countries have simple ID driven elections.
You show your ID and vote. Simple.
And in case the country has a computers, that computer can check if you're a citizen and
if you already have voted in almost real-time. Simple.
I didn't know that the US doesn't have computers. Who would have thought that? /sarc
Sorry, but the incompetence is there running amok. Strategy is not one of the strongest
thing there, because they could predict something like this to happen beforehand. The way how
the Americans vote is simply asking for trouble like this. Now I'm curious if they want to
fix it. I don't think so.
Soloamber 3 hours ago
The winner of the USA elections is now who cheats best .
The Democrats did nothing for four years except the fraud impeachment and the coordinated
effort to steal the election . It was their only chance with Dementia man .
Pdunne 2 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Elections are won or lost these days with influence and money.
It is time to go back to the days when only individuals can donate to a campaign, not more
corporate money or dark funds for PAC's.
Candidates will always pander to the money and if it was coming from the people maybe the
people would get a fairer government. play_arrow
ronin12 PREMIUM 4 hours ago remove link
It's super fantastic to hear Rand Paul speak the truth.
So wtf is he actually going to DO about it?
Soloamber 3 hours ago remove link
Three full years of MSM Russia , Russia started by the Clinton's , CIA , Obama and the
biggest dip **** to run the FBI .
Mass election fraud ....cheating Trump out of an obvious win . NOTHING .
Move on because the gang rapists say so .
Voters one access to democracy stolen by the corrupt Democrat Party , negated by an
algorithm, dead voters
, vote harvesting, billionaire globalist determined to destroy the USA and Chinese money
.
Then people like sleeve bag Schumer unilaterally trying to bribe students with their own
credit card .
Biden was right dark days .
Babadook 4 hours ago remove link
Gullible. That is the only word that describes the fantasy of faith in using electronic
voting machines. Pen, paper & observers work perfectly well in other developed
countries.
Don Storm 4 hours ago
Like someone posted earlier on ZH:
" In 2020 California mailed out 25 million ballots to everyone on voter rolls. Remember,
the DMV automatically registers everyone to vote including illegals, who are given drivers
licenses. Mail-in-voting in CA has been a trend, but now Newsom wants this to be
permanent.
There are no checks on non-citizens voting. Voter rolls have not been purged of people who
left the State or who changed addresses.
In 2020, approx. 7 million ballots were returned. Normally, up to 5% of mail-in ballots
may be rejected for problems. This year, due to the vast numbers less than 0.01% were
rejected.
It is absolutely impossible for state election workers to check voter rolls, signatures,
addresses on 7 million ballots. So, NO checks occured whatsoever.
California allows "ballot harvesters." Any organized group may collect ballots from voters
and turn them in. In fact, some activist groups are even funded by the state to "harvest"
ballots.
I DARE anyone to show that such a system is NOT subject to total abuse and fraud on a
massive scale. "
Here we have our answer, and California isn't the only state that allowed for such a weak
mail-in ballot system.
Perhaps even more disturbing, why were mail-in ballots allowed on such a massive scale to
begin with? And, we are not even talking about Dominion and other crap that took place.
Bjorn2bebad PREMIUM 4 hours ago
I live in Japan and they sent me a ballot - to Tokyo! I have not lived in CA for 8
years!!!
Nullifytodefy1835 6 hours ago remove link
Do you think that signature verification, the very thing that was touted, as being the
very thing, that makes voting by mail safe, secure and fraud free, was thrown out the window
for this election. Literally, the PA SOS told the election staff that ballots cannot be
excluded because of signature mismatch, along with a host of other "irregularities" that
would have the ballots, like the 26,000 that were tossed during the primary, excluded from
being legal ballots that count. It concerns me that, the talking heads parrot the signature
verification talking point everywhere you look, knowing that they had no plan on ever doing
such. It really smacks of impropriety and corruption, if you only look at that, and that
alone. When you then take account of the other issues, it looks like a stolen election. I am
certainly not a Trump supporter, did not vote for him, but I have had an issue with election
fraud for many years, as I have personally known of a migrant advocacy group that would bus
the non citizens to the polling places and they would vote. I reported this many times, still
it continued. Still it continues. When the only "proof" of citizenship you must provide, is a
check in a box that you, "attest under penalty of perjury" that you are a citizen, blah,
blah, blah, there is bound to be those that take advantage of the lack of oversight. Wherever
there is an opportunity, a criminal, fraudster or corrupt actor, will take advantage, to the
fullest extent possible. Human nature.
"... I will also state that in "real" democracies, rigging the vote count is a rarity--it is far more effective just to rig the candidates so it doesn't matter if Tweedledee or Tweedledum gets more votes. ..."
1) Biden got more votes
2) The intelligence agencies rigged the vote count via fraud
In the prior case, Biden will clearly be president. In the latter, Biden will also be
president because the agencies' authority is absolute.
I will also state that in "real" democracies, rigging the vote count is a rarity--it
is far more effective just to rig the candidates so it doesn't matter if Tweedledee or
Tweedledum gets more votes.
"... No doubt that is on its way, but I think it would have been too difficult to pull off without full control over the government's top figurehead. Once Harris is enthroned then they will move on that, I am sure of it. ..."
But somehow the Satan candidate won. "Impossible!! It must be the Russians!"
@Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 16 2020 17:51 utc | 136
There is one Russiagate shoe that I am still waiting to hear drop (maybe it already did
and I missed it).
In 2003 when the CIA succeeded in misleading this country into an invasion over
non-existent WMD
the finger pointing began, to explain away the lies as simply a pack of errors.
One excuse that gained some traction was that it was Saddam's own fault, he had pretended
to have WMD.
For Russiagate I have been waiting for the excuse makers to offer something like they did
with "Saddam's own fault".
That is, the Russians - Putin -, wanted the FBI, CIA, Hillary, MSM, etc to fall for
Russiagate.
Thus John Brennan did not attempt a coup (nor Comey, nor the FBI, CIA and the rest of the "17
intelligence agencies" the MSM
and the Democrats) by knowingly creating a false narrative about the Russians, it was the
dastardly Russians (Putin)
themselves that are to blame. No attempted coup, simply a pack of errors seeded by the
Russians themselves.
As the Durham investigation appears to be heading for the historical footnotes there will
be no need for the
traitors to create excuses. And I do not expect to ever hear that shoe drop.
librul @139: "I have been waiting for the excuse makers to offer something like they
did with "Saddam's own fault". That is, the Russians - Putin -, wanted the FBI, CIA,
Hillary, MSM, etc to fall for Russiagate."
No doubt that is on its way, but I think it would have been too difficult to pull off
without full control over the government's top figurehead. Once Harris is enthroned then they
will move on that, I am sure of it.
The announcement drew praise from many professional climate activists and groups, perhaps
assuming that Kerry was taking his lead from Bernie Sanders, who has for years been saying
the same thing. Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement, Varshini Prakash said his
statement was an "encouraging move," while 350.org's Bill McKibben, predicted Kerry would
be an excellent climate czar. Yet, as media critic Adam Johnson argued, Kerry's
proclamation should deeply concern progressive activists and will likely lead to expanding
the already bloated military budget.
Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank, the American Security Project
(ASP), whose board is a who's who of retired generals, admirals and senators. The ASP also
hailed the appointment of their man, explaining, in a little-read report, exactly what
treating the climate as a national security threat entails. And it is nothing like what
Sanders advocates.
For the ASP, climate change constitutes an "accelerant of instability" and a "threat
multiplier" that will "affect the operating environment," and notes that Kerry will have
three priorities in his role as President Biden's right-hand man. What were those three
priorities? Making sure people in the Global South could eat and have access to safe
drinking water? Reparations? Disaster relief or response teams? Cutting back on fossil fuel
use? Indeed not. For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
In the world of Democrat politics, there are no coincidences.
With that principle
in mind, it's possible to understand why Democrat media outlets are suddenly reporting about Hunter Biden's corruption, a story
that spills over onto his father. The first is to get ahead of potential breaking news about Hunter's imminent arrest. The
second theory is the one Monica Showalter advanced:
The leftists used Biden to attain
the White House
(or so they believe) and are now ready to get rid of him.
Having
a criminal son may be just what the Obama/Harris camp needs
to make that happen. And if there's any doubt about this
theory, an article in
The New York Times
seems to lay it to rest.
We conservatives remember how,
in October, the media and the tech tyrants conspired
to block any reports about Hunter Biden
, whether those reports were the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings about
the $3.5 million Hunter received from the wife of a Russian politician, or the shocking details of political corruption, drug
addiction, and sexual debauchery contained on his hard drive.
Well, to ordinary people, these stories were shocking.
To the media and the
tech tyrants, these stories were potential dangers to Joe Biden's candidacy. They had to be stopped – and stopped they were.
Twitter and Facebook, the two biggest social media tech tyrants, refused to allow any reports to circulate and banned people,
including President Trump's press secretary
, from their platforms when they refused to bow down to this censorship.
News outlets derided the reports
about the Biden family's corrupt dealings,
all of which implicated Joe Biden as the man who pimped out his addled son for huge sums of money, as non-stories. That's not
an exaggeration. It's explicitly what NPR's public editor said:
Likewise, CNN's Christiane Amanpour, who's served as a shill for every tyrannical regime on earth, insisted that, because she
was a real "journalist," it was not her job to investigate stories. Instead, it was only her job to determine whether the results
of other people's investigations met her standards. The Hunter Biden story did not:
When President Trump tried to bring the story to Americans' attention during the first
presidential debate, Biden snapped back that it was Russian disinformation, a lie that the media and tech tyrants enthusiastically
disseminated
Suddenly, though, the media is releasing information about the criminal investigations into not both Hunter Biden and Joe's
brother, James Biden. As the above tweet notes, these investigations have been ongoing for years. We also know that a
sizable number of voters
would have passed over Biden for Trump had they known about Biden family corruption. So, what
gives? Why are Hunter and, by extension, Joe himself, suddenly fair game?
It could be that bad things are about to come down from the FBI. After all,
Trump did promise
that "a lot of big things" will happen soon.
The sudden flurry of reports about the Bidens could
just be the Democrats' way of getting ahead of the story so that, if Hunter is shown doing the perp walk, they can say that
it's "old news."
However, it's equally likely that the Democrats are making plans to get Biden out of office as quickly as possible – or perhaps,
sideline him before he's even sworn in (assuming, of course, that Biden hangs onto that president-elect title). As
Monica Showalter pointed out
on Thursday,
Biden is not making leftists happy
.
He's filling his possible administration with
corporate insiders
, he wants a
former military officer
to head the defense department, and he's continuing to show
a very rapid cognitive decline
. He's offering Clinton-era politics with a side of dementia and that is not what the hard
left side of the party wants.
In any event, the goal, always, was to get Kamala into the White House.
It
didn't and doesn't matter that the voters don't like her -- as demonstrated by the fact that even her home state of California
didn't like her
and her
early retreat
from the primaries. What matters is that she, unlike both Hillary and Joe, is Barack Obama's true third term.
Harris is as hard left as they come and willing to do whatever it takes to maintain
power.
While Joe Biden, despite his corruption and his shift to the hard left, still cherishes some residual notions
about the Constitution, Kamala is not hindered by such old-fashioned ideas:
Harris is as hard left as they come and willing to do whatever it takes to maintain
power.
While Joe Biden, despite his corruption and his shift to the hard left, still cherishes some residual notions
about the Constitution, Kamala is not hindered by such old-fashioned ideas:
With Americans at large finally learning that Hunter Biden and James Biden are crooked and that Joe is the big, corrupt tree
from which these rotten apples fell, there's going to be lots of pressure on Joe to retire as quickly as is politely possible.
It's
The New York Times
that gives the game away. On Thursday, it published a positively wistful article entitled "Investigation
of His Son Is Likely to Hang Over Biden as He Takes Office: Unless the Trump Justice Department clears Hunter Biden, the new
president will confront the prospect of his own administration handling an inquiry that could expose his son to criminal prosecution."
The opening paragraph, speaks of Biden in a "no-win situation" that could be "politically and legally perilous," and the report
continues in that vein. The subtext is clear: Leave. Leave now.
Joe served his purpose by being the bland front person for a full leftist assault on
the White House. Now it's time for him to go.
And while his handlers may reward him for a job well done with the pleasure
of the inauguration, you can be sure that they'll pressure him to do
what he promised to do
, which is to invent a respectable disease and quit ASAP.
22,015
33
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"... Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of fact. ..."
"... If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim made by the infamous January 2017 "intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17 intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the time. ..."
"... Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations. After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized, this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous . ..."
Democrat Joe Biden, anointed by the US mainstream media and Silicon Valley as the next
president, "must call out Putin's secret war against the United States" when he assumes
office, the Post's editorial board argued this week.
But this "secret war" exists only in their feverish imagination. Each and every one
of the things they list as examples of it consists of assertions based on insinuation at best,
or has otherwise been debunked as outright fake news.
Exhibit A is the "mysterious attacks" that supposedly "targeted" US diplomats
and spies in Cuba, China, Australia and Taiwan. This 'Havana Syndrome' was blamed on Russia last
week in a coordinated media campaign, but the "scientific" paper it was based on
carefully avoids actual attribution, saying only that the vague symptoms were
"consistent" with a posited microwave weapon.
This is an evolution of the original story, which claimed that Russia had used "sonic
weapons," not microwave ones. Even the New York Times later admitted
that the headaches, sleep deprivation and other problems were more likely caused by the loud
chirping of Cuban crickets.
Exhibit B is another doozy, the infamous "Russian bounties" story. The New York Times
claimed in June that
some money captured from local mobsters in Afghanistan was somehow proof that Russia was paying
the Taliban to kill US soldiers – again, not on the basis of actual evidence, but on
conjecture that this was "consistent" with what the CIA and US military said were
Russian objectives.
Thing is, neither the US
intelligence community nor the Pentagon were
ever able to confirm the story, having investigated it for months. It just so happened that it
was brought up just as the DC establishment sought to torpedo President Donald Trump's plan to
pull out of Afghanistan and end the 20-year war that has long since forgotten its
purpose.
Exhibit C is the "looting of valuable hacking tools" from the cybersecurity firm
FireEye, announced earlier this
week. FireEye itself never named the culprit, with its CEO Kevin Mandia only saying it was
"consistent with a nation-state cyber-espionage effort."
That didn't stop the Post from claiming that "spies with Russia's foreign intelligence
service" are "believed" to have hacked FireEye, citing "people familiar with the
matter." Well there you go, anonymous and unverifiable sources asserted it, therefore it
must be true!
Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's
computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That
is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert
Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the
government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of
fact.Another nail
in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim
If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice
there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these
alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and
mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim
made by the infamous January 2017
"intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17
intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the
time.
Keep in mind that these are the same spies and media that never saw the demise of the Soviet
Union coming, and have been predicting Russia's impending collapse any day now – for the
past 20 years. So much for their actual knowledge of Russian goals or thinking.
Speaking of 'Russiagate,' the Post has been on the leading edge of that conspiracy theory
from the start. It won Pulitzers for pushing it on the
American public. It also played a key role in smearing Trump's first national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn, so he would be fired – and later cheered his railroading by Mueller.
At least they're consistent , so to speak.
Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's
Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a
mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations.
After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized,
this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous
.
That's because the Post is literally in bed with what Trump called the Washington
"swamp," the entrenched US political establishment. What they print is what that
establishment thinks and wants Americans to believe. With Joe Biden in the White House, the
objectives of that establishment and the official US government would be, to use their own
phrase, consistent .
Which is why the Post's "secret war" fantasy is, shall we say, highly likely
to become an actual shooting war with Moscow. As the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons
between themselves to destroy the world several times over, that can't possibly be good for
Amazon's bottom line. Someone ought to tell Bezos.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
In America, infrastructure ages, trains look like something from a Fifties movie,
transportation deteriorates as all the money goes to the military . Since the US
doesn't do much civil engineering, and hasn't for many years, it would probably have to
hire foreign firms should it decide to modernize. (See TSMC above.)
Regardless of what China is doing, or India, Iran, Russia or Botswana, the U.S. is
hollowing itself out politically, economically, spiritually, and physically. This is due to
how power structures have mutated from a government controlled republic to a corporate owned
dictatorship.
The fake bureaucracy's and infighting about equality, gender rights, and racism are
distractions while the corporate dictatorship rules by decree, and it is transferring more
wealth and power day by day, year by year. Freedoms and choices are being systematically
reduced to zero.
The day Johnny Carson died should be the swan song.
20 years ago, when the neo-cons were able to strongarm their way into power, this country
had such a huge advantage in terms of technology and military might, they felt they had no
equal and never would. their hubris and megalomania launched us on the disastrous path that
in a scant two decades has led us to the brink of destruction as a society. both russia and
china have eclipsed us in terms of military and civilian technologies. my greatest fear is
that these same neo-cons have stolen this election as well and will now flip the chessboard
rather than face the humiliating defeat that is the result of their corruption, stupidity and
hubris.
@Biff ot fed, those who
are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is
this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each
serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some
fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of
wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000
people.
You can't argue with the real engineering going on over there, especially the Civil
Engineering. When you don't have a thousand tax-payer-supported bureaucrats from a hundred
different agencies and even "Non-Governmental Organizations" blocking every thought you have,
it's hard to get things done. There's no doubt that the huge military spending on "democracy
for the world" and the squandering of the huge amount of goodwill and power accumulated at the
end of the Cold War is part of America's problem (thanks NotSoFast). Mr. Reed never mentioned
the increase in regulation and taxation by the Feral Beast that has turned America into a
Can't-Do country.
It's a great photo essay on the amazing engineering advances out of China, but, as usual,
Fred gets major things wrong.
I don't know what the deal is with Mr. Reed's repetitive harping on Americans' concern for
intellectual property rights. The Chinese will do fine without our help now, but it's the theft
of the IP of American engineering that has gotten them this far so fast. Why would you not be
concerned with your ideas being stolen? Not giving your stuff away for free is not the same as
trying to "cripple development. That's water under the bridge now but stupidity by Mr. Reed
nonetheless.
The oligarchs who own the system will not allow any relief for the poor and working class
until they fear the disenfranchised. We have to shut their profit system down until they
relent. The sooner we figure this out, the better chance humans have of surviving beyond this
century.
Eddie S , November 26, 2020 at 10:33
I definitely, 100% agree with Ms. Theoharis' 'should' statement in the 2nd to-last
paragraph, and all of the other ills she lists with this country. The solutions she lists are
humanistic, positive ones that are the best feasible ones available.
The extremely frustrating part is HOW do we get there?? It's an easy answer to glibly say
(as Chomsky and others always extoll) 'we need to organize', but getting a majority of the
electorate to support these solutions no longer seems plausible, tragically. For instance,
progressives can't even get widespread support for eminently-sane gun control measures in
this country, even with mass-shootings an almost weekly occurrence (much-less the
'background' shootings of the non-mass variety). On a global scale, there were large
anti-Iraq-invasion marches many of us took part in back in 2003, but to no-avail -- the US
'deep-state' prevailed and got their Iraq War-crime as well as subsequent military
interventions in Libya, Syria, etc. And even AFTER it was revealed by the MSM (in
uncharacteristically truthful coverage) that the Iraq invasion was concocted with bogus
reasons (NO WMDs, NO aluminum centrifuge tubes, NO uranium yellow-cake, 'Curveball' revealed
to have-been a non-credible source since day-one, etc, etc) -- the 'W' administration was
REWARDED with RE-ELECTION*, just as Richard Nixon was re-elected in 1972!!?
I'll continue to believe in the efficacy of progressive, humanistic solutions to political
problems, but it's really starting to feel like what the Weimar Republic was probably like,
with right-wing factions controlling the agenda and eventually the government, albeit with
obviously different policy-problems. One can only hope that it doesn't take a world-war to
dislodge that conservative/right faction, but it's hard to be optimistic.
There's too much deep-rooted US exceptionalism for it to be easily overcome by rational
arguments.
* (So guess what kind of message that sent to US politicians, who were already cowed by
electorate fear/anger over 9/11?).
Winter Is Coming for the American working-class.
Even if you don't care about the working poor, their suffering is going to affect you. In some
ways it already has. Despite the CDC eviction moratorium,
evictions have continued during the pandemic. This is led to hundreds of thousands of
people being
infected with Covid .
Expiring state eviction bans have led to hundreds of thousands of additional coronavirus
cases, new research finds, raising alarm about what will happen when the national eviction
moratorium lapses next month.
...
The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, University of California,
San Francisco, Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and Wake Forest University School
of Law, found that lifting state moratoriums and allowing eviction proceedings to continue
caused as many as 433,700 excess cases of Covid-19 and 10,700 additional deaths in the U.S.
between March and September.
If the CDC's eviction ban isn't extended until 2021, experts say, many new cases are
likely to emerge from people being forced out of their houses and apartments.
"This is a time where it's not an overstatement to say that for many people, eviction can
lead to death ," said Helen Matthews, communications manager at City Life Vita Urbana, a
nonprofit in Boston.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that making people homeless during the pandemic is a
public health nightmare. Yet the eviction moratorium did not mean free rent. All that unpaid
rent is build up to $36 billion.
So how many people are about to be evicted? How many people will be homeless on our streets in
the coming months?
It depends on who you ask, but it will be in the tens of millions. Let that sink in for a
moment. Tens of millions of Americans are about to lose their place of residence. The
government has no plans to do anything about it.
One study says 19
million Americans will be evicted in the next two months. That's the conservative
estimate.
Another study says
40 million Americans will lose their homes this winter. These are numbers that will
destabilize American society and the American political system.
The end of the moratorium comes at the same time as the
end of stimulus money .
UI, stimulus, and welfare combined, after spiking to an annual rate of $3.88 trillion in
April, fell to $1.04 trillion in October
39 million Americans
don't have enough to eat right now, and people are waiting in line for hours at food banks
all over the nation just for some Thanksgiving handouts.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 12 percent of all Americans did not have
enough food to eat between October 28th and November 9th.
Let's like clear about something. Politicians, the media, and of course the wealthy couldn't
care less about the suffering of the working class.
However, they do care about getting sick and dying. So what's going to happen is that working
class are going to be crushed, and only then, when the Covid cases spiked to unimaginable
levels, will the ruling elites have an epiphany. That epiphany is you really are your brother's
keeper.
Winter Is Coming for the American working-class.
Even if you don't care about the working poor, their suffering is going to affect you. In some
ways it already has. Despite the CDC eviction moratorium,
evictions have continued during the pandemic. This is led to hundreds of thousands of people
being
infected with Covid .
Expiring state eviction bans have led to hundreds of thousands of additional coronavirus cases,
new research finds, raising alarm about what will happen when the national eviction moratorium
lapses next month.
...
The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, San
Francisco, Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and Wake Forest University School of
Law, found that lifting state moratoriums and allowing eviction proceedings to continue caused
as many as 433,700 excess cases of Covid-19 and 10,700 additional deaths in the U.S. between
March and September.
If the CDC's eviction ban isn't extended until 2021, experts say, many new cases are likely
to emerge from people being forced out of their houses and apartments.
"This is a time where it's not an overstatement to say that for many people, eviction can
lead to death ," said Helen Matthews, communications manager at City Life Vita Urbana, a
nonprofit in Boston.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that making people homeless during the pandemic is a
public health nightmare. Yet the eviction moratorium did not mean free rent. All that unpaid rent
is build up to $36 billion.
So how many people are about to be evicted? How many people will be homeless on our streets in
the coming months?
It depends on who you ask, but it will be in the tens of millions. Let that sink in for a moment.
Tens of millions of Americans are about to lose their place of residence. The government
has no plans to do anything about it.
One study says 19
million Americans will be evicted in the next two months. That's the conservative
estimate.
Another study says
40 million Americans will lose their homes this winter. These are numbers that will
destabilize American society and the American political system.
The end of the moratorium comes at the same time as the
end of stimulus money .
UI, stimulus, and welfare combined, after spiking to an annual rate of $3.88 trillion in April,
fell to $1.04 trillion in October
39 million Americans
don't have enough to eat right now, and people are waiting in line for hours at food banks
all over the nation just for some Thanksgiving handouts.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 12 percent of all Americans did not have
enough food to eat between October 28th and November 9th.
Let's like clear about something. Politicians, the media, and of course the wealthy couldn't
care less about the suffering of the working class.
However, they do care about getting sick and dying. So what's going to happen is that working
class are going to be crushed, and only then, when the Covid cases spiked to unimaginable levels,
will the ruling elites have an epiphany. That epiphany is you really are your brother's
keeper.
Plenty of money to wage war and create suffering abroad, but not enough to take care of the
peasants at home. I keep hearing the US is a neofeudalist country...in classic feudal times
they took care of the serfs...perhaps that the neo part.
Sure is a sad state you present gjohnsit. Thanks for informing us.
or Donald Trump, truth is a matter of convenience, with facts entirely optional and plenty
of space allowed for make-believe. Yet in American public life, our current president is far
from being the sole purveyor of fictions and falsehoods. The very institutions that citizens
count on to distinguish between fact and fable engage in their own forms of mythmaking. While
they may steer clear of telling outright lies, they dispense no small amount of drivel,
concealing actual truth behind a veil of illusion.
Allow me to offer an illustrative example in the form of a recent column by the
Washington Post's David Von Drehle, a seasoned journalist now installed in that paper's
stable of political commentators and called upon twice weekly to reflect on the fate of
humankind.
The title of Von Drehle's essay poses a question: "Joe Biden says America is back. Back to
what?" Von Drehle then proceeds to spell out his own answer to that what. Yet in doing
so, he packages his views in a specific historical context. It's that context that is
instructive.
Let us acknowledge that the Biden team is no more likely to take its cues from some
garden-variety pundit than from members of the outgoing administration. Van Drehle's policy
recommendations -- that Biden should "end the mollycoddling" of Saudi Arabia, insist that China
"play by the rules," and knit "the Americas into a hemisphere of happiness" -- carry about as
much weight with the incoming administration as do Mike Pompeo's opinions, i.e. next to none
whatsoever.
Yet this is not to say that Von Drehle's column is just so much hot air. From his perch at
the Post, he is a small, but not inconsequential player in a grand project to which
members of the foreign policy establishment swear fealty. The aim of that project is to salvage
and rejuvenate claims of American Exceptionalism that Donald Trump mangled and trashed nearly
beyond recognition.
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as exemplar
-- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence to direct
history itself. Pumping new life into this hoary old notion requires persuading Americans today
that before Trump screwed things up, the United States had history well in hand, with the world
taking its cues from Washington.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.426.0_en.html#goog_738456037 Ad ends in
15s
Von Drehle purports to believe that such a world actually existed. Furthermore, he believes
that a sufficiently savvy U.S. president can restore that world -- all that's required is
assertive American leadership. Nor is he alone in entertaining the prospect of going "back" to
that triumphal time, before Trump appeared on the scene and messed everything up. Indeed, take
Biden's rhetoric at face value and our next president may well share in this fantasy.
So of considerably greater significance than Von Drehle's policy prescriptions is the
historical wrapping in which they arrive. It's history with a specific and carefully selected
time horizon. For Von Drehle (and probably for Biden), the history that matters begins with the
end of World War II, a moment that ostensibly inaugurated "seven decades of bipartisan [foreign
policy] consensus." Providing a foundation for that consensus was a "win-win view of America's
role in the world." Generations of postwar leaders, according to Von Drehle, understood that
"the long-term interests of Americans were best served by the gradual expansion of peace and
prosperity worldwide." The result was "an expansive, internationalist approach" to basic
policy. This, in sum, is the past that Von Drehle is selling as a roadmap to a happy
future.
Now such assertions may not qualify as bald-faced lies in a Trumpian sense, but taken
together they amount to a fairy tale. The postwar bipartisan consensus was never more than
partial and tentative at best. When put to the test -- with Vietnam as the most vivid example
-- it gave way. Nor did the Cold War and the accompanying nuclear arms race reflect a win-win
view of America's role in the world. The Cold War was a zero-sum game, pitting us against them
-- "better dead than Red," remember?
As for the United States promoting the gradual expansion of peace and prosperity worldwide,
that claim is difficult to square with Washington's marriages of convenience with sundry
dictators, involvement in numerous coups and assassination plots, and the U.S. penchant for
killing people in faraway places, unmatched by any other nation on the planet. Since 9/11 in
particular, war and disorder rather than peace and prosperity have been America's principal
exports. All of this predated Trump.
Von Drehle is eager for the United States to resume "its rightful place in the world order"
as "the friend of freedom and the scourge of tyrants." Forget just for a second that the United
States befriended a long list of tyrants: Batista, Somoza, Marcos, Noriega, the Shah of Iran,
Mubarak of Egypt, and, until 1990, Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Of greater relevance to the present
moment is this question: who or what assigns nations their rightful place in the world order?
This is not a matter upon which columnists in the employ of the Washington Post are
inclined to reflect, preferring to assume that history's decision is irreversible: we are
Numero Uno. Period. Full stop. Been that way forever.
Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence that
he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column, further
embellishing the nation's achievements as friend of freedom and scourge of tyrants, as will his
various counterparts at the Post, the Times, the Wall Street Journal , and
other prestige outlets.
They will collaborate in minimizing the moral ambiguity that permeates America's past. They
will shrug off crimes or lock them away in a box labeled "Sorry. Didn't Mean To." They will
inhibit learning and bury truth.
And they will get away with it.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and TAC's
writer-at-large.
I'm not sure that "they" can continue to "get away with it." The US financial situation
is not good. The US government is dysfunctional, and US society as a whole, the combination
of capital and people, is no longer particularly competitive. No matter what Biden, et al,
think they are going to do with respect to leading the world, it's not clear that the world
will pay any attention, or that the the US can even afford it.
It's a tragic, in the classic sense, situation, as almost everything that has weakened the
US empire has been self inflicted.
All true. To see a better reflection of America, maybe one should read Serghei Lavrov's
interviews and press conferences:
https://thesaker.is/foreign...
or see how the Chinese are trolling Australia in the aftermath of the scandal of the
Aussie special forces killing (with intent) scores of civilians (probably far less than the
US troops) in Afghanistan - just as a fast track on how Americans are regarded outside
their border...
While Mr. Von Drehle sees and praises Dorian Gray, the world at large watches with
fascination another patch of horror coming up on his portrait...
I totally agree with Bacevich. There is really nothing that generates global more
resentment than this kind of American hubris, American arrogance:
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as
exemplar -- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence
to direct history itself.
"Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence
that he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column..."
As will Andrew J. And you can be sure Bacevich will use any topic at hand to slip in as
many backhands against President Trump as he can muster. Once a RINO, always a RINO. But
despite all the snide slurs against the President here & elsewhere, Bacevich's
preferred candidate, stately Joe Biden may soon dignify the Oval Office (maybe); & then
Andrew can spend the next four years defending him, just like Von Drehle.
America HAS NO memory, particularly regarding the heinous aspects of its past. Who
remembers the Indian removals, Chinese and Japanese exclusion acts, or the Philippine
insurrection?
As success and comfort displace esteem and integrity and corruption turns pervasive the
virtuous order of society is overturned: independent, principled, talented spirits are
typically encountered only well away of the mainstreams of media while middling
obsequiousness and venality rise above their betters in pubic view.
Tripe, deception and corrupton are what one can expect from corporate governance no
matter which wing s dominant. We haven't seen the
worst of it yet, though we are getting there faster than we thought.
I agree w/Bacevich. I love how R's and D's pretend they are different.
'The America First policy is gone' scream the Laura Ingraham's as she (and the other
Republican Hawks) lament a possible decrease in hostility with China and Iran. The
Democrats pronounce, 'America is back, now we are really going to get tough with Russia and
do regime change in Venezuela right!'
Here is the new boss, same as the new boss. We will continue to waste our treasure and
energy harming other countries and neglect ourselves until we are spent.
Editor's note : US President-elect Joe Biden nominated Neera Tanden, a close ally of
Hillary Clinton and president of neoliberal DC think tank the Center for American Progress, on
November 29 to serve as director of his administration's Office of Management and Budget.
Tanden is notorious on Twitter for her aggressive attacks on the left.
In response to the nomination, The Grayzone is reprinting this
June 20, 2016 report by Ben Norton.
"Unless we take the oil from Libya, I have no interest in Libya," Donald Trump declared in
an April 2011 interview on CNN's "Newsroom."
The U.S. government was considering military intervention in the oil-rich North African
nation at the time. Trump said he would only participate if Washington exploited Libya's
natural resources in return.
"Libya is only good as far I'm concerned for one thing -- this country takes the oil. If
we're not taking the oil, no interest," he added.
NATO claimed its U.S.-backed bombing campaign was meant to protect Libyans who were
protesting the regime of longtime dictator Muammar Qadhafi. Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, used NATO's own materials to show that this was false.
"In truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start," Zenko
wrote in an exposé in Foreign Policy in March.
Trump was not the only figure to propose taking Libya's oil in return for bombing it,
however. Neera Tanden, the president of the pro-Clinton think tank the Center for American
Progress, proposed this same policy a few months after Trump.
"We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil," Tanden wrote in an October 2011
email
titled "Should Libya pay us back?"
"Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit. If we want
to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us
back doesn't seem crazy to me," she added in the message, which was obtained and first
published by The Intercept .
Liberal hawkishness
Tanden is a close ally of Hillary Clinton, and is frequently named as a likely
chief-of-staff in a Hillary Clinton White House. The Center for American Progress, which Tanden
leads, was founded by John Podesta, a key figure in the Clinton machine.
Podesta is the chairman of
Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign, and he previously served as chief of staff under
President Bill Clinton. With his brother Tony, John also co-founded the Podesta Group, a public
affairs firm that has
lobbied for Saudi Arabia , among other countries.
Tanden has expressed hawkish views, although in a statement to Salon she strongly opposed
being described as hawkish. The New York Times has described Hillary Clinton as
more hawkish than her Republican rivals , although it still endorsed her for president.
The Center for American Progress president
invited hard-line right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in
Washington, D.C. in November, after he had spent months aggressively trying to jeopardize the
Iran nuclear deal.
Tanden does not comment on international affairs much, but her tweets provide some insight
into her hawkish views, which do not reflect the official policy of the Center for American
Progress.
In September 2013, when the Obama administration was preparing to bomb Syria, she tweeted support,
writing, "On Syria, while I don't want to be the world's policeman, an unpoliced world is
dangerous. The US may be the only adult in the room left."
Just over a week later, the administration
backed off of its plans, in response to enormous backlash -- and in fear that it would end
up with another Libya on its hands.
During the lead-up to the war in Libya, Tanden expressed support for military intervention.
She suggested that Americans should
be "chanting" for Qadhafi's ouster.
Days after the NATO operation was launched, she wrote , "To liberal friends
worried re Libya, is there better reason 4 use of US power than 2 protect innocent civilians
from slaughter by a madman?"
Like many liberal figures who supported the NATO bombing of Libya, she
stopped talking about the country between 2011 and 2014, while it was roiled by violent
chaos and extremism.
These tweets came before the October email in which Tanden suggested taking Libya's oil in
return for bombing it. Trump made the same proposal several months before, in April.
After this article was published, Tanden stressed in a statement to Salon that her views do
not reflect those of the Center for American Progress, which did not take a position on
Libya.
She claimed being labeled "a hawk is a ridiculous caricature," adding, "I opposed the Iraq
war from the beginning." Tanden noted that the Center for American Progress "was among the
first think tanks to lay out concrete plans for ending the war in Iraq." She also said that she
does not support putting U.S. troops in Syria.
"CAP is a think tank," Tanden stressed, referring to the organization by its acronym. "We
have internal discussions and dialogues all the time on a variety of issues. We encourage the
deliberation of ideas to spur conversation, push thinking and spark debate. We do this in
meetings, on phone calls and yes, over e-mail. One internal e-mail exchange among colleagues --
which was leaked to another organization -- or a few tweets does not constitute a published,
official policy position."
Salon never once stated that Tanden's views reflect the Center for American Progress'
official policy, but Tanden accused Salon of implying this.
Leftist critics have long lambasted the Democratic Party's militaristic foreign policy,
arguing it is not much different than the GOP's. This exploitative idea proposed by both Trump
and Tanden lends further credence to the argument that, when it comes to the U.S. empire, the
Democratic and Republican parties are much more similar than their adherents make them out to
be.
A strange mix
At the time of his April 2011 CNN interview, Trump was considering running as a Republican
in the 2012 election. His nationalistic rhetoric then was very consistent to that of today.
Trump lamented that the U.S. was "just not respected" and had become "a laughing stock
throughout the world." He hoped that he could reverse this supposed trend, just as he now
promises to "make America great again."
Trump's proposal on Libya was consistent with his views on Iraq. He
declared at the American Conservative Union's 40th Conservative Political Action
Conference, in 2013, that the U.S. should "take" $1.5 trillion worth of Iraq's oil to pay for
the illegal war.
In his presidential campaign today, Trump has made similar proposals. His foreign policy is
a strange mix of skeptical non-interventionism and hawkishness.
In the 2011 CNN interview, Trump expressed skepticism about the rebels in Libya. "They make
the rebels sound like they're from 'Gone With the Wind,' very glamorous," Trump said. "I hear
they're controlled by Iran. I hear they're controlled by al-Qaeda."
The rebels had very little to do with Iran. Iran did express support for the opposition to
Qadhafi's dictatorship, but it
staunchly opposed Western military intervention, which it warned was hypocritical,
neocolonial in nature and motivated by Libya's large oil reserves.
By no means were all of the rebels extremists, but there were al-Qaeda-linked elements in
the opposition to Qadhafi. Human rights groups documented atrocities committed by extremist
rebels, including
ethnic cleansing of black Libyans .
After the NATO war toppled Qadhafi, the country was thrown into chaos. Rivaled forces,
including extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia and eventually ISIS, seized control of
swaths of the country, and weapons from Qadhafi's enormous cache ended up in the hands of
extremist groups throughout the region. To this day, large parts of Libya are not under the
control of the internationally recognized government.
Disastrous Libya war
Hillary Clinton played the
leading role in rallying up U.S. support for the NATO war. Reports have since shown that
the Pentagon was skeptical of U.S. involvement at the time, but, under the leadership of
Secretary of State Clinton, the Obama administration portrayed it as a humanitarian
mission.
President Obama insisted at the beginning of the intervention, "Broadening our military
mission to include regime change would be a mistake." The State Department likewise said
"President Obama has been equally firm that our military operation has a narrowly defined
mission that does not include regime change."
Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates later told The New York Times, "I can't recall any
specific decision that said, 'Well, let's just take him out,'" referring to Qadhafi.
Micah Zenko, the Council on Foreign Relations scholar, showed this to be false. "This is
scarcely believable," Zenko rejoined in his detailed report
. "Given that decapitation strikes against Qaddafi were employed early and often, there almost
certainly was a decision by the civilian heads of government of the NATO coalition to 'take him
out' from the very beginning of the intervention."
"The threat posed by the Libyan regime's military and paramilitary forces to
civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes and rebel ground movements within
the first 10 days," he explained. "Afterward, NATO began providing direct close-air support for
advancing rebel forces by attacking government troops that were actually in retreat and had
abandoned their vehicles." The military intervention continued for more than seven months.
Rebel forces went on to brutally murder Qadhafi, sodomizing him with a bayonet. When
then-Sec. Clinton heard that he had been killed, she rejoiced in front
of TV cameras, joking, "We came, we saw, he died!"
In April, Obama singled out U.S. support for the NATO war in Libya as the worst decision of his
presidency.
Zenko warned that the "intervention in Libya shows that the slippery slope of allegedly
limited interventions is most steep when there's a significant gap between what policymakers
say their objectives are and the orders they issue for the battlefield."
"Unfortunately, duplicity of this sort is a common practice in the U.S. military," he
added.
Interestingly, Trump himself cautioned in an interview on Fox News' "Fox
& Friends" in March 2011 that U.S. intervention in Syria would be a "slippery slope."
"It is a slippery slope and more and more, you realize that we're over there fighting wars
to open up these governments and they would have opened up themselves," Trump said, expressing
skepticism about U.S. military involvement very early on in the war.
Clinton called for the exact opposite in Syria. She would go on to oppose diplomacy and
insist the U.S. should support the "hard men with the guns."
DNC hack
Trump's unusual mix of anti-interventionist and exploitative foreign policy views are
highlighted in the Democratic National Committee's alleged opposition research.
A hacker broke into the computer network of the DNC and leaked its opposition research on
Trump. A 210-page
document that appears to be this report highlights Trump's past remarks on Libya, Syria,
Iraq and more.
Also revealed in the report is that Trump bragged that he "screwed" Muammar Qadhafi with an
unfair business deal.
U.S. media outlets immediately blamed the DNC hack on the Russian government. Soon after,
however, they quietly backed away from the hasty conclusions they made based on what
progressive media watchdog Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting pointed out
was incredibly flimsy evidence.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
Joe Biden is in charge of nothing and probably never will be. If the media's coronation of
him as president becomes reality despite allegations of election fraud, he will still be but
a
figurehead for what effectively amounts to an oligarchy.
It's useful to remember that Biden was an archetypal senator. During his career, he was
never at a loss for an effusion of vapid statements and undoubtedly pronounced millions of them
in a tenure that lasted nearly five decades.
Biden never really ran anything, but to the elites that are close to installing him as
president, that deficiency not only isn't a mark against him --
it's an asset . In fact, it's his key qualification and has been since his dying primary
campaign was resurrected by the elite to swindle Bernie Sanders out of the nomination
again.
The method is elegant as oligarchies go and recurs throughout history. After the long tenure
of Leonid Brezhnev in the Soviet Union, which lasted from 1964 until his death in 1982, the
Soviet elite decided it could best run things from behind the scenes with weak time-servers as
the face of the regime. It elevated the aging head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, to the job until
he died two years later. Undeterred, that elite then installed the even-more-fragile Konstantin
Chernenko, who at times literally had to be propped up, until he died after a year in office.
George H. W. Bush, then vice president and therefore the de facto funeral-attender for
President Ronald Reagan, is rumored to have joked to the U.S. embassy staff upon departing that
he would see them "same time, same place" next year. People know when an ailing figurehead
represents an ailing regime.
No one should doubt that our oligarchs, reeling from their brush with exposure and
destruction since Donald Trump's
election in 2016, are attempting much the same feat as the old Soviet elite.
Biden, soon to be age seventy-eight, is the oldest person set to become president and the
most unfit. Even William Henry Harrison, who died a month into his presidency, started much
stronger. Those who knew Biden in the Senate suggest that his mental and physical conditions
have noticeably eroded. He campaigned less than anyone in modern history, leaving most of the
work to his media handmaidens.
It remains unexplored and unexplained why his family pushed him to add still more of his
remaining time to an already-decades-long tenure in Washington. Presumably, a more with-it
Biden would not have allowed his son, Hunter, to peddle the family name and access to himself
in places like China and Ukraine -- the germ of a scandal that may soon consume a good deal of
Biden's dwindling energy.
With Biden in his dotage, people are scrambling to learn who the real power will be in a
titular Biden administration. Customarily, this can be discerned by who is rumored or named to
prominent positions at the White House and various agencies. In turn, one can usually infer
from staff choices what the priorities and ideological leanings of a new administration will
be.
It is less so with Biden. Certainly, some of the names bandied about are regarded by
analysts as closer to the Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton tribes in the party, but the
trajectory of the administration seems similar regardless of which names go in which boxes. The
reason is that the oligarchy's path is set and its interests will be maintained.
Wall Street and big tech might get a talking to by Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, but the
poses that be will make sure nothing too drastic will get in the way of these important
Democrat constituencies. Notwithstanding homages to Scranton, where you may have heard Biden
came from before decamping to Delaware, what's left of manufacturing will resume being exported
to China as the administration does away with Trump's tariffs.
Similarly, blue-collar jobs tied to the oil and gas renaissance of recent years will also
go. They are inconsistent with its secular religion of climate change, to be replaced by Green
New Deal jobs. If those displaced workers don't want to move to the coasts and learn to code,
then that's okay: the regnant elite prefers those jobs for its progeny. Meanwhile the
unemployed in flyover country can content themselves with a fentanyl addiction and a disability
check -- safely shuffled back into the shadows after a bit too much inconvenient attention
these past four years.
Sure the 2020 elections were about Trump and Biden. But the real issue at stake was whether
a left-wing elite accustomed to getting its way -- and which runs media, tech, academia,
Hollywood, the deep state, and Wall Street -- would return to
smooth sailing . That ugly and otherwise-incompetent elite is happy to prop up an old man
as its face, and even start him off early with a cute podium labeled with the make-believe
"Office of the President-elect." But there should be little doubt of who is in charge, and it
isn't Joe Biden.
Christian
Whiton, a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest, is the author
of
Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War. He was a State Department senior advisor
during the George W. Bush and Trump administrations.
P resident-elect Joe Biden's pick to run the Office of Management and Budget has a history
of defending British ex-spy Christopher Steele's
discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Years of controversial claims about the Trump-Russia controversy, particularly about the
dossier funded in part by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, presents one of several obstacles
for Neera Tanden, a longtime Democratic operative, to achieve Senate confirmation next
year.
A significant question that remains is how the two Senate runoff races in Georgia shake out
in January, with control of the upper chamber hanging in the balance. Tanden is sure to meet
stiff opposition from Republicans, who will be led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom Tanden
derisively tweeted in August 2019,
"Stacey Abrams just called McConnell 'Moscow Mitch.' Love it."
In selecting Tanden on
Monday, Biden described the president
of the left-wing Center for American Progress as "a leading architect and advocate of policies
designed to support working families." Tanden worked on Bill Clinton's successful run in 1992
and Barack Obama's successful presidential run in 2008. She was also an adviser on Hillary
Clinton's successful Democratic primary effort in 2016 and the failed general election run that
November.
Not mentioned in her Biden transition team biography was the role Tanden played in promoting
unsubstantiated claims throughout the Trump-Russia controversy.
Tanden launched the
"Moscow Project" in 2017, and after Buzzfeed published Steele's dossier in January 2017,
Tanden's think tank released a
statement saying, "The intelligence dossier presents profoundly disturbing allegations;
ones that should shake every American to the core." Tanden went on to defend the Steele dossier
repeatedly on Twitter, attacking those who critiqued the FBI for relying on its claims to
obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority against former Trump campaign associate
Carter Page and implying that critics of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation were doing
Russia's bidding.
"Make Chris Steele the next James Bond," Tanden tweeted in January
2017.
In a tweet about Rep. Devin Nunes's FISA memo in February 2018, which criticized the FBI's
surveillance of Page and its use of the dossier, the Washington Examiner's Byron York
noted that "no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele
dossier information." Tanden responded by saying, "Even
if this is true, hasn't the dossier been mostly proven to be true? It's amazing how comfortable
the likes of Byron York are happy to run interference for Russians intervening in our
elections." Tanden followed up with another tweet claiming that the
"dossier has been mostly established as right."
Tanden's "Moscow Project" also
released a flawed critique of the Republican FISA memo, with Tanden defending the FBI's
surveillance. In addition, Tanden tweeted in April 2018 that
the dossier was "started with funding by a GOP megadonor."
Although the conservative Free Beacon had hired the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS, it said in October 2017 that it "had no knowledge of or
connection to the Steele dossier." It later emerged that Steele was not commissioned by Fusion
GPS (and did not begin compiling his dossier) until Clinton campaign lawyer
Marc Elias hired Fusion.
"What parts of the dossier have been disproven?" Tanden tweeted in January 2019.
"I will wait."
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December 2019 report and subsequent
declassifications undermined Steele's claims in the dossier. Horowitz said the Trump-Russia
investigation concealed exculpatory information from the FISA court, and he
criticized the Justice Department and FBI for at least 17 "significant errors and
omissions"
related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele.
Declassified footnotes show the FBI knew Steele's dossier may have been compromised by
Russian disinformation . Horowitz said FBI interviews with Steele's main source, U.S.-based
and Russian-trained lawyer Igor Danchenko, "raised significant questions about the reliability
of the Steele election reporting."
FBI Director Christopher Wray called the FISA findings "utterly unacceptable" this
year and concurred with the DOJ's conclusions that at least two of the four FISA warrants
against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.
Nearly all the FISA signatories -- Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates , Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein , fired FBI Director
James Comey , and fired FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe -- indicated under oath they wouldn't have signed off on the surveillance if
they knew then what they know now, and a declassified FBI spreadsheet showed the
lack of corroboration for Steele's claims.
Other Russia-related claims Tanden has made could present sticking points during her
confirmation process.
She tweeted on Oct. 31, 2016,
that President Trump was a Russian "puppet" in part because there was a "Trump server connected
to Russian bank" and tweeted again in December
2016 that Trump may have gotten "talking points from the server at Trump Tower connected to
Russia."
The
claim that a Russian Alfa Bank server was secretly communicating with a server at Trump
Tower, also pushed by Steele, emerged in 2016, but Horowitz noted the FBI "concluded by early
February 2017 that there were no such links," and the Senate Intelligence Committee's August
report
did not find "covert communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel." Jake
Sullivan, Biden's pick for national security adviser, also pushed the refuted Alfa
Bank claim in 2016.
The week after Trump's victory, following reports that Russian cyberactors had targeted a
number of state election systems, Tanden mused, "Why would hackers hack in unless they could
change results?" The next day, she pushed back against
criticism she received, tweeting, "Funny, I don't remember saying Russian hackers stole
Hillary's victory." There is
no evidence that Russian hackers changed any votes in 2016.
"Mueller found Russian interference in the election. He also found Trump coordinated with
Russia. These are facts," Tanden tweeted in October.
Although Mueller's investigation concluded in 2019 that the Russian government
interfered in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," the report "did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities."
After the report's release, Tanden tweeted that
"Mueller has failed the country" and "Adam Schiff > Robert Mueller." Earlier this year,
Schiff released dozens of House Intelligence Committee witness interviews that showed Obama's
top national security officials
testified they hadn't seen direct evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Self-proclaimed President-elect Joe Biden has chosen a budget director, Neera Tanden, who
once argued the US should ease funding shortages for left-wing social programs by making
countries like Libya pay for being bombed. Biden's transition team on Monday announced its
nominations for the six people selected to fill key economic roles in the incoming
administration, led by former Federal Reserve Bank Chair Janet Yellen as treasury secretary.
Tanden, a Hillary Clinton loyalist who currently heads the Center for American Progress, will
be director of the Office of Management and Budget if Biden's media-declared election victory
withstands legal challenges from President Donald Trump.
This crisis-tested team will help lift America out of our current economic downturn and
build back better -- creating an economy that gives every single American a fair shot and an
equal chance to get ahead. https://t.co/F6JMBHUgVx
-- Biden-Harris Presidential
Transition (@Transition46) November
30, 2020
However, critics have already recalled an example of her unusual budgeting philosophy. In a
2011 email that was made public by WikiLeaks, Tanden said Libya should be made to pay for the
bombing campaign that helped to topple Muammar Gaddafi's government, which would help balance
the US domestic budget.
"We have a giant deficit, they have a lot of oil," Tanden said. "Most Americans
would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit."
If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil-rich countries
partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me.
Biden's cabinet is composed of CFR globalist 5th column who want to drain our nation and
keep us in endless wars. That coupled with the Dem party's apparent goal of starvation of our
citizenry in their blue regions, example the NM Governor shutting down 2 grocery stores in
Roswell, grocery stores that the cattle ranching surrounding communities depend on. Her
stupidity and callous disregard for human life, saw a grocery waiting line at least 1/2 to a
mile long for the local Walmart, that's not including the elderly in Roswell who were forced
by the Governor to stand out in the elements waiting to get some groceries. It appears that
the Dem party is in league with the UN/BillGates/NWO that want to reduced the planet of close
to 8 billion human beings through their murder plans.
his daddy was already experiencing dementia by his mid-70s.
Like Biden, or worse? Current Biden condition is medically termed "mild cognitive
impairment': he publicly confused his wife and sister, publicly stated at his campaign rally
in Ohio that he is running for senate, but still appears to remember his own name.
With President Donald Trump all but conceding to the transition team that will take over
after January next year, interest now shifts to President-elect Joe Biden's choices for
cabinet. On the national security front, the imperial-military lobby will have reasons to be
satisfied. If Trump promised to rein in, if not put the brakes on the US imperium, Biden
promises a cocktail of energising stimulants.
While campaigning for the Democratic nomination, Biden tried to give a different impression.
Biden the militarist was gone. "It time to end the Forever Wars, which have cost us untold
blood and treasure," he stated
in July 2019. Pinching a leaf or two out of Trump's own playbook, he insisted on bringing "the
vast majority of our troops home – from the wars on Afghanistan and the Middle East".
Missions would be more narrowly focused on Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Support would also be withdrawn
from the unpardonable Saudi-led war in Yemen. "So I will make it my mission – to restore
American leadership – and elevate diplomacy as our principal tool of foreign policy."
This was an unconvincing display of the leopard desperately trying to change its striking
spots. During the Obama administration, the Vice-President found war sweet, despite subsequent
attempts to distance himself from collective cabinet responsibility. These included the current
war in Yemen, the assault on Libya that crippled the country and turned it into a terrorist
wonderland, and that "forever war" in Afghanistan. In 2016, Biden claimed to be the sage in the
administration, warning President Barack Obama against the Libyan intervention. An impression
of combative wisdom was offered. He had "argued strongly" in the White House "against going to
Libya," a position at odds with the hawkish Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who insisted
on something a bit more than going to Libya. After the demise of Muammar Gaddafi, what then?
"Doesn't the country disintegrate? What happens then? Doesn't it become a place where it
becomes a – petri dish for the growth of extremism?" So many questions, so few
answers.
The Iraq War is another stubborn stain on Biden's garments. His approval of the invasion of
Iraq has been feebly justified as benign ignorance. As he explained
to NPR in September last year, he had received "a commitment from President [George W.] Bush he
was not going to go to war in Iraq." Bush looked him "in the eye at the Oval Office; he said he
needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam
Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program." Then came the invasion: "we had a shock
and awe". For Iraqis, it was a bit more than shock and awe.
With the warring efforts of the US in Iraq turning sour, Biden entertained
a proposal reminiscent of Europe's old imperial planners: the establishment of "three
largely autonomous regions" for each of Iraq's ethnic and confessional groups, governed by
Baghdad in the execrable policy of "unity through autonomy". Not exactly an enlightened
suggestion but consistent with previous conventions of dismemberment that have marked Middle
Eastern politics.
In considering Biden's record on Iraq, Spencer Ackerman of The Daily Beast was
clear in describing an erratic, bumbling and egregious performance. "Reviewing Biden's
record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that
arrayed people at the bloody intersection."
Now, we forward ourselves to November 2020. The
Trump administration has given a good cover to the incoming Democratic administration.
Considered putatively wicked, all that follows the orange ogre will be good. In introducing
some of his key appointments, Biden's crusted choices stood to attention like storm
troopers-elect, an effect helped by face masks, solemn lighting and their sense of wonder.
"America is back,"
declared Biden. A collective global shudder could be felt. The Beltway establishment,
mocked by Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as "the Blob," had returned.
In the cast are such figures from the past as former Deputy Secretary of State and former
Deputy National Security Adviser, Tony Blinken. He will serve as Secretary of State. National
Security adviser: former Hillary Clinton aide and senior adviser Jake Sullivan. Director of
National Intelligence: Avril Haines ("a reliable expert leading our intelligence community,"
remarked CNN's unflinching militarist Samantha Vinograd of CNN, herself another former
Obama stable hand from the National Security Council). Secretary of Defence: most probably
Michèle Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defence for Policy.
Blinken, it should be remembered, was the one who encouraged Biden to embrace the
antediluvian, near criminal project of partitioning Iraq. This does not worry The Guardian,
which praises his "urbane bilingual charm" which will be indispensable in "soothing the
frayed nerves of western allies, reassuring them that the US is back as a conventional team
player." He is a "born internationalist" who likes soccer and played a weekly game with US
officials, diplomats and journalists before joining the Obama administration.
Johannes Lang, writing
in the Harvard Political Review, is a touch sharper, noting that Blinken "is a committed
internationalist with a penchant for interventionism." The two often go together. As Blinken
recently told
The New York Times (members of the UN General Assembly, take note), "Whether we like it or not,
the world simply does not organize itself."
Flournoy and Blinken have been spending time during the Trump years drawing sustenance
through their co-founded outfit WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm promising to bring "the
Situation Room to the Board Room." Revolving door rhetoric is used unabashedly: We knew power;
we can show you how to exploit it. Having served in a presidential administration, these
individuals are keen to use "scenario
development and table-top exercises to test ideas or enhance preparedness for a future
contingency". The consultants are willing to give their clients "higher confidence in their
business decisions," as Flournoy puts it, in times of "historic levels of turmoil and
uncertainty around the world".
The Flournoy set have also been the beneficiaries of the US defence funding complex,
fronting think tanks that have received generous largesse. In a
report for the Center for International Policy, Ben Freeman notes that, "Think tanks very
considerably in terms of their objectives and organization, but many think tanks in Washington
D.C. share a common trait: they receive substantial financial support from the US government
and private businesses that work for the US government, most notably defense contractors."
Flournoy's own Center for a New American Security now
ranks second to the RAND Corporation in the cash it gets from defence contractors and US
government sources.
Biden's Department of Defense agency review team, tasked with informing what is hoped will
be a "smooth transfer of power," has its fair complement of those from entities either part of
the weapons industry or beneficiaries of it. According to
In These Times , they make up at least eight of the 23 people in that team. Think tanks
with Biden advisory personnel include the militarily minded Center for Strategic and
International Studies, which boasts funding from Raytheon, Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Lockheed Martin Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation.
America – at least a version of it – is back, well and truly. The stench of wars
continuous, and interventions compulsive, is upon us.
t is an undeniable fact that the republic has entered one of the most dangerous crises of
its short existence. This is not only due to the disputed election results of November 3
rd , but also to a multitude of other factors beyond American borders, including the
global financial crisis which a certain pandemic has unleashed upon the world, and slide
towards a major world war between great powers that has accelerated chaotically in recent
years.
As unpopular as it might be to state in polite society, as of this writing it is still
impossible to state with 100% certainty that Joe Biden will in fact be inaugurated on January
20, 2021. The simple reason for this is that verifiable evidence of vast partisan vote fraud
tied to the highest echelons of British Intelligence have mounted with every passing day with
Dominion voting systems most recently accused of
erasing 2.7 million Trump votes across the nation , and giving 220 000 pro-Trump votes to
Biden in Pennsylvania (along with hundreds of other vote counting anomalies and technology
glitches across all major swing states).
These and other major signs of mass vote fraud have giving rise to reasonable questions of
the validity of the official results which will be taken to the courts as Gen. Michael Flynn's
Attorney Sidney Powell eloquently laid out recently.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SFCXPw1t17o?feature=oembed TRUMP, BIDEN AND THE ONCOMING
MELTDOWN
By now most people reading this are aware (or should be aware) that the trans Atlantic
financial system has been set to melt down under a $1.5 quadrillion derivatives time bomb being
held together by a mix of wishful thinking, hyperinflationary money printing and vast unpayable
securitized debts waiting to default. It should also come as no surprise that the Great Reset
Agenda designed to coordinate the "post-COVID world order" has nothing to do with any actual
pandemic, and everything to do with imposing a new bankers' dictatorship onto the nations of
the earth.
Both Trump and Biden profess to support American leadership to the world going into this
storm, but both men operate on very much opposing paradigms of what this means, and what
foreign policy tradition should be activated.
Where Biden has championed the idea that "America should lead the world" in opposition to
the dangerous rise in "authoritarianism, nationalism and illiberalism" giving the reigns of
foreign policy over to a team packed with hawkish representatives of the Military
Industrial Complex, Trump has done something different.
On November 9 the incumbent president fired Mark Esper
(possibly to subvert a planned coup) and instated General Christopher Miller to the position of
Defense Secretary who has called for a total end to the 19 year Afghan war
stating :
we are not a people of perpetual war. It is the antithesis of everything for which we
stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end."
Having vocalized his desires to return the USA to its traditional protectionist,
non-interventionist agenda repeatedly over four years, Trump famously characterized the battle
at hand as one of "patriots against the globalists."
And yet, despite these facts, many apparently intelligent people have celebrated that the
"bad orange man" has finally been ousted and normality may once again occur.
Hogwash.
In an
April 2020 Foreign Policy article , Joe Biden called for the re-assertion of American
leadership of the world order stating that "for over 70 years, the United States under
democratic and republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules" of the
world order. Predicting the two possible scenarios that will befall the world should the USA
continue to "abdicate our leadership" as Trump has done, Biden says that either: 1)
Someone else takes America's place as global hegemon that doesn't "advance our interests and
values or 2) "No one will and chaos will ensue".
But wait a minute!
Shouldn't there be a third option in Biden's crystal ball? What about the option of a world
defined by sovereign nations working in win-win cooperation and mutual self interest? Sadly,
from a zero-sum mind that can only think in "balance of power" terms, this third scenario
cannot exist.
The paradox for such little minds, however, is that the very essence of America's emerging
from WWII in a leading position that Biden praises is entirely premised on the understanding
that the world is more than a zero-sum system.
THE FORGOTTEN MULTI-POLAR TRADITIONS OF
THE USA
From the drafting of the UN Charter in 1941, the formulation of the Bretton Woods system in
1944, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there is no doubt that there is very
little that America has not directly influenced.
While this leadership is undeniable and often objectively destructive as sin, it is too
easily forgotten that the UN Charter, as outlined by Franklin Roosevelt was premised on the
belief that America must never become an empire but merely help those in need by providing the
means of industrial development. This was essentially understood as the internationalization of
the New Deal which included social safety nets, bank regulation, productive work guarantees and
infrastructure projects to all other nations aspiring independence across Africa, Asia and the
Americas or struggling the heal from the destructive effects of the war.
FDR's vision for the IMF/World Bank mandates were never to reconquer poor nations under a
new system of debt slavery and conditionalities, but to extend productive credit for long term
megaprojects that were in the common aims of mankind and which
angered Churchill immensely.
Most importantly, this vision was premised on the need for a trust-based U.S.-Russia-China
alliance that never would have permitted the emergence of a bipolar Cold War.
Working alongside such anti-imperial co-thinkers as Republican leader Wendell Willkie, Vice
President Henry Wallace, economist Harry Dexter White, confidante Harry Hopkins, Asst.
Secretary of State Sumner Welles and Attorney General Robert Jackson (to name a few), this
small but powerful group of patriots representing both parties, worked vigorously to ensure not
only that the Wall Street/City of London Frankenstein Monster of Nazism would be put down but
that Churchill's vision of a restored British Imperial system would not succeed.
THE TRUE
SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world (and scaring the hell out of the thing that controls Joe Biden).
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common
ends.
These principles were expanded even further to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on
December 10, 1948 which re-iterated the founding principles of America's Declaration of
Independence- extending those unalienable rights to all mankind as FDR envisioned stating in its
preamble :
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule
of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between
nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as
a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every
individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
These were the ideas that were meant to give life to the "Four Freedoms" first enunciated by President
Roosvelt in 1941 and re-asserted by his anti-imperial Vice President Henry Wallace in
1942.
Now admittedly this positive American foreign policy outlook which launched the post-war age
is a far cry from anything the world has come to recognize in the USA since the emergence of
the Cold War and especially since the murder of John F Kennedy who had done much to resist
America's full takeover by this newly revised British Empire (which some have chosen in recent
years to label "the deep state").
Much like the US Constitution itself, these principles largely remained ink on parchment as
a new age of Cold Warriors, Rhodes Scholars and Fabians directed from
British Intelligence created NATO , divided the world among the lighter skinned haves and
darker skinned have nots while unleashing a system of endless wars onto the earth under a new
Pax Americana.
Today a small window is still open for a renewal of the forgotten traditions of the American
republican traditions that were upheld by such leaders as John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Grant,
Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR and JFK. President Trump has clearly taken a stand in
opposition to the reconquest of the republic by the deep state and it remains to be seen if the
American people have the fortitude to do everything in their power to organize themselves in
defense of the republic and civilization more generally.
"OR"
There are also middle ways: my ideal would be a real United Nations without dominant bullies,
capable of reigning in globalist MNCs, governments or religions.
Population numbers will have to weight in much more for voting power and no SC privileges for
amassing nuclear bombs.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:08 PM
This essay includes McKinley as a defender of "Republican traditions," and of course it's
hard to argue against that position, seeing as how McKinley was a tool of the Big City
corrupt political system. That he fraudulently used the sinking of the "Maine" to declare war
on Spain, and then put down an insurgent revolt by natives of the Philippines by allowing
U.S.soldiers to garott them, is simply in the tradition of Republicans. We agree.
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 1:02 AM Reply to
Doctortrinate
Excellent scripting in the court scene. I remember seeing this film when it was first
released. Made goose bumps
The public has been drummed down to the point where they refuse to question what props up the
fake wigs on the court jesters
yes, It was an eclectic time examination post experimentation perhaps .and there was room
for it, uncrowded by the weight of obligation – keeping it at distance was comfortable
even held the sense that the destructive order was being outrun, until..the reconditioning
ascent of a harpy and it's handbag,
The cess-pit beneath our seeming foundation, is become a source for self-righteous
vengeance – coming into our very private chambers after we seemed to 'save face' or
raise it over and against the hateful in conquest.
The presumption to be free of the evil that one has set ones face against is the
generating of the 'cess-pit' as something to be eradicated, lidded over, cancelled, such as
to preserve the 'order' that runs above its denial.
Self-revulsion as a concept, can be opined about, but human self-hatred is a hell indeed
if not a final fact.
The revealing of us to ourselves can be the dis-illusioning of what we thought to be and
truly believed but was never true – even though lived.
or the tarrying in such illusion as the exploiting of its underlying themes of 'getting' for
a self set apart from the life it represents.
richard , Nov 22, 2020 9:02 PM
"THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world "
Oh really? hear are some U.N. quotes:
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their
individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
– Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
"A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it
disapproves of their activities." – Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order
[referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if
they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial"
invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence.
It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights
will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the
World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship
Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial
and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit
and power.
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers,
triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market
.The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control
of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by
Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret
committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on
Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the
[State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all
the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial
Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).
"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to
bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They
want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase
business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship
and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting
disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an
all-powerful one-world government." Harpers, July l958
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 12:47 AM Reply to
richard
Hello richard: Excellent listing of verifiable quotes. Thanks!
The establishment of the United Nations has done more to dis-unite the world than any
other singular effort. Yet civilians are still looking for some daddy authority to straighten
out the sticky fuzz they found in their navels
I don't know, I think the US going around the world for the last 100+ years bombing anyone
who threatened their capitalist hegemony can pick up a pretty good share of the blame for an
unstable world
paul , Nov 22, 2020 6:02 PM
Neither will win. As always, the only real winners will be a certain Levantine minority.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
The great mock battle to choose Israel Puppet 46 will play out over the next few weeks as
pure theatre, with Creepy Joe picking up Trumpo's somewhat tarnished crown in due course. For
all the difference it makes. Creepy Joe will be marginally even more of a puppet than
Trumpo.
The court challenges are going nowhere. Some have already been dropped or dismissed, and the
rest soon will be, irrespective of vote rigging and ballot stuffing on an epic scale.
Likewise, there will be no attempt to reverse the current outcome at the electoral college
next month. Nothing's going to happen. Nada. Zilch. It's all pure kabuki.
Clowns and court jesters like Alex Jones or Giuliani will caper about making an exhibition of
themselves, peddling their vitamin supplements and lining their pockets.
Trump will squeeze whatever cash he can from his gullible base to pay off his campaign debts.
But none of this is serious. Trumpo has gone AWOL. He is not holding any public events. The
lawsuits have been dropped. He is not putting any of his own money into them. The electoral
college delegates will not go rogue to keep him in power. Georgia is gone. He is not going to
flip Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Trumpo deserved to lose, whether he actually did or not. He abandoned his base the minute he
was elected, and served out his time as a Zio Shill.
He built a grand total of 4 miles of his Big Beautiful Wall. Some of it has already fallen
down. That only leaves 1,996 miles for the Beaner Illegal Immigrant Hordes to walk through.
Obomber deported far more illegal immigrants than Trumpo, 1.1 million v. 800,000. His idea of
draining The Swamp was to appoint Bolton, Abrams, Pompeo, Haspel, and half of Goldman Sachs
to all the senior posts in his administration. The same goes for Bringing The Troops Home.
None will actually be withdrawn from Afghanistan, despite the latest announcement. Like
Rebuilding The Infrastructure.
Trumpo is a con man, a Bunko Artist. He achieved nothing. Because he never intended to. He
never even tried. He was just another Mitt Romney.
Trumpism will just provide him with a meal ticket for some time to come. He needs to find
another $400 million from somewhere to pay off his debts. The GOP will go full on Zionism,
Globalism, Faggots, Trannies, Globo Homo, Open Borders, Amnesties.
One of Trumpo's last of many favours for Israel is to pardon the traitor and Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. He will soon be on his way home to a hero's welcome in Kosherstan.
Biden's new administration will be virtually 100% kosher, apart from a few token black/ gay/
trannie/ vagina/ shabbos goys.
Chief of staff, Attorney General, Treasury, all Chosen Folk.
Trumpo was never more than a Zionist puppet, just like Wilders, Orban, Salvini, AFD, Duterte.
All 100% Faux Right Controlled Opposition created by the Chosen Folk.
Thanks Paul, for that excellent description of Trump and what we can expect from Biden
until he leaves/dies and we have Kamala. The policies will remain virtually unchanged as the
President is irrelevant.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 5:58 PM
Bankers have been running the world for centuries, not empires, not presidents, not
parties, not nations.
They provide nation states with two (or more) parties with seemingly oppositional values,
but who are controlled behind the scenes by the same banking cabal. Trump is working with the
cabal, just as closely as his predecessors, Obama, Bush, Clinton etc., to create the illusion
of opposition, the illusion of difference, the illusion of choice and the illusion of
hope.
Just as the election was obviously stolen, so too it was planned to create internal
conflict and violence. Both parties play the game of electioneering to obfuscate the theft of
civil rights and assets from the populace without opposition. The media enhances the process
of obfuscation. The voters are too busy fighting amongst themselves to see the outright theft
of their real assets.
There are no individuals or groups who attain positions of power in any government or
nation who oppose the banking cartel that rules the world, owns and controls all the largest
corporations, security state apparatus, the militaries and defense sectors of all
nations.
There are no heroes coming to anyone's rescue. No white hats, no black hats. They are all
agents of the cryptocracy, because the goal has always been the enslavement of humanity, and
that goal was attained long ago and has never wavered.
The New World Order was achieved with the formation of the United Nations as a front for
the cryptocracy (banking cartel) to further its objectives through the cooperation of
governments individuality and collectively controlling their populations.
Whether our enslavement was achieved using a kindler, gentler slavery called "capitalism",
based on the consumption of poorly made goods exploiting cheap labor by corporate entities
majority owned and controlled by the cryptocracy, in faux democracies, using the fake two
party system, or whether slavery was achieved by force through communism where an appearance
of state ownership obfuscated cryptocracy ownership and control, so wages could be lowered
and people more tightly controlled, both political systems were a sham. Both systems were
always controlled by the same cryptocracy; the banking cartel.
The cryptocracy ruled the capitalist West and the communist Eastern bloc with ease.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:06 PM Reply to
Researcher
Just as all political parties are false enemies who work together behind the scenes, so
too is the enmity between nation states and the supposedly opposed political and nation state
blocs and alliances.
Opposition is created as a facade and pretext to facilitate immensely profitable
skirmishes, occupations, hot wars, cold wars and civil conflicts. These methods of
manufactured conflict accomplish control and ownership for the cryptocracy of large tracts of
land with rare earth minerals and energy reserves as well as the labor and industry of large
and small populations plus access to the taxes and wealth of all nation states.
These faux oppositional forces whether they be internal or external, create an illusion of
a divided, hostile and fractured world for the unknowing and distracted public, who have had
their history altered and rewritten, indoctrinated with propaganda in a Prussian model of
education as 'learning by rote' instead of learning through exploration, reason, logic,
invention and experimentation. As such, 'educated' populations have become another tool of
the controllers where they are largely ignorant of the inextricable links between politics,
energy, economies, the monetary system, wars, governments, crime, industry and human
enslavement.
The false appearance of separation of these issues into compartmentalized subjects,
compartmentalized thinking, are further enhanced and driven through sound bites using the
cryptocracy owned corporate media.
Binary choices, compartmentalized issues, and supposed random events are sold to humanity
to corral thinking, coerce conformity, limit options and choices within illusory paradigms
where full spectrum dominance is fulfilled. Subsequently, all resources on earth including
populations can be easily exploited for the purpose of profiteering, while simultaneously
inflicting unnecessary misery and suffering through the leverage of usury and forced taxes
within the monetary system.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:10 PM Reply to
Researcher
The banking cartel (BIS, IMF, World Bank) own the major energy corporations, green and
carbon based and that is why there has been a decades long push for carbon control and
capture, using climate change pseudo science and propaganda as a way to control and limit our
individual, national and collective energy consumption and output.
Since energy is the real currency that runs the world, and energy is also the way which we
as humans and living creatures survive, innovate, create and function – as electrical
and energetic beings – the cryptocracy believe that all energy, including our physical
and neuronal bodily functions be wholly controlled by them, and them only. The cryptocracy
already control our external energy and power systems and grids, and all oil, coal, gas,
wind, hydro, nuclear, solar and hydrogen, which fuel human and economic activity.
The cryptocracy are not content to let us decide our own fates, occupations, business
dealings, economies, health or lives using our inherent freedom as thinking, sentient and
independent beings who are born free. They seek to further enslave our every thought,
function and action through the technocracy and the biometric control and data grid they have
built around us for the last century.
In the beginning of the 20th century, the banking cartel through their control of the
chemical industry, extended their model of human slavery to include profiteering from
destroying people's health, by controlling genetic and epigenetic expression through
increased toxic exposure to external radiation, a poisoned and altered food chain, deficient
soil, a poisoned fluoridated water supply, increased exposure to carcinogens, endocrine
disruptive chemicals and unnecessary vaccines that wrought irreversible, long term negative
effects.
The medical industrial complex and vaccine industry sought to claim credit for the
eradication of diseases that had already been quelled through proper sanitation, plumbing,
better nutrition and improved living conditions.
The control grid of populations through the economic system, military industrial complex,
monetary system, faux governments, and the medical industrial complex has merged into a
totalitarian model of complete control of all human behavior, health and bodily functions
using faux pandemics, where governments coordinate terror operations against the
citizenry.
The bankers are transitioning away from the current monetary, economic Ponzi scheme using
the US petro dollar fractional reserve banking system, which could only function for a
limited time, in a debt expansionary environment, underpinned by constant economic expansion
and population growth.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:13 PM Reply to
Researcher
A number of factors including increased standards of living, women entering the workforce,
contraception and immunocontraception and cultural changes have inhibited population growth
in developed nations, so that expansionary model has reached its 'limits of growth'.
Governments have been hiding the lack of population growth using immigration. They've been
hiding the contracting economic activity in developed nations by creating fake financial
products and accounting frauds, banking fraud, rigged market indices and markets. The
cryptocracy knowing this economic model would eventually collapse at their discretion,
created unseen enemies to unite us against, be it a fictional virus, or fictional global
warming, the result being a coordinated, top-down authoritarian monitoring, control of
populations, economies and individuals.
The bankers, governments and industrialists are forcing humanity to transition to a
technocracy controlled economy based on humans as capital, the collection, collation and
control of all organic and non organic resources on earth including our biometric data and
behavioral obedience, while they simultaneously enforce a liquidation of assets phase.
We are their assets and we are being liquidated.
At the end of every transitory economic cycle or created currency or financial crisis, the
banking cartel and their minions facilitate a global catastrophe, whether that's a planned
war between nations, civil unrest or a manufactured terror event. This serves as a cover for
the harm that their planned economic transition (and failure) creates. These planned failures
of economic systems created by the cryptocracy provide additional profits for the banking
cartel where real assets are stripped from citizens in the form of savings, land, property,
assets, businesses and redistributed by force, upwards to the oligarchs and cryptocracy.
That is the purpose of the lockdown and the faux pandemic. A continued and further
redistribution of the global wealth of the majority of citizens to the 0.01% so that bankers,
industrialists and governments who already control our food and energy supply, can force the
majority into compliance with the vaccine program. The vaccine program creates a legal and
cost efficient liquidation of the majority of humanity and the biometric enslavement of the
remaining youth who manage to survive, while transitioning to the new economic model of a
global digital currency based on physical human enslavement, human data management, with
central command control using Artificial Intelligence.
Jean Wilson , Nov 22, 2020 8:07 PM Reply to
Researcher
Thank you Researcher. Brilliant writing!
Lost in a dark wood , Nov 22, 2020 4:41 PM
No wonder the CIA hates Trump!
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/361227-us-begins-bombing-taliban-opium-plants-in-afghanistan
US begins bombing Taliban CIA opium plants in Afghanistan
11/20/17
The U.S. military has begun bombing opium production plants in Afghanistan as part of a new
strategy targeting Taliban revenue, a top general said Monday. "Last night, we conducted
strikes in northern Helmand [Province] to hit the Taliban where it hurts, in their narcotics
financing," said Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support in
the country.
--
What has happened to people? If the U.S. says it is bombing an opium production plant,
that means they're lying. First thing I think of is who did the U.S./CIA/Trump want killed
and why? But you interpret it as Trump trying to stop the opium business of the CIA?
And then you follow it with Trump, after four years of bombing Afghanistan, is somehow
being pressured by Germany to continue bombing Afghanistan?
Frankly, I don't think we have any idea what the CIA thinks of Trump.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 7:32 PM Reply to
wardropper
They must think he's the greatest actor on earth, since apparently some who understand the
bankers are in league with and controlling governments, the UN, WHO and the WEF against
humanity, yet they also believe that Trump is standing up for the Constitution against the
banking cartel, the military and the vaccine industry.
Except he isn't and hasn't.
By declaring a fake emergency and continuing that emergency, while creating OPERATION WARP
SPEED, he handed the country over to the military, PhRMA and FEMA.
He has no intention of handing it back to the citizens and he's had every means and every
opportunity.
I think a great majority of people are simply in denial on the left and the right because
they don't want to believe they've spent their entire lives being conned by bankers,
politicians and oligarchs using cheap tricks, third rate acting, fake science and obvious
monetary fraud and gangster governments.
The veil of their human enslavement has been lifted off their faces and they still refuse
to see the obvious truth.
Instead they hide behind masks, false enemies and the lies they tell themselves. It'd be
sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
wardropper , Nov 22, 2020 7:58 PM Reply to
Researcher
I agree with all that, but the CIA is not renowned for advertising what it 'thinks'
Moneycircus , Nov 22, 2020 11:08 PM Reply to
wardropper
The CIA does not 'think'. It was set up by Wall Street and the bankers as the muscle of
Wall Street and the bankers
Trumpo deserves to be put on trial and executed after a suitably fair trial if only for
his actions in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Palestine and elsewhere. For the murder of General
Soleimani and 30 others, for all the children who have died in those countries as a result of
US economic terrorism and actual terrorism on his watch. It doesn't matter if he failed to
control others who were allowed to pursue their own agenda. A commander who loses control of
his troops is fully liable when they run amok.
Their is very little to be said in his favour. We have come very close to war on a colossal
scale on several occasions over the past two years as a result of his actions. The fact that
this did not come to pass and disaster was avoided in no way goes to his credit. This should
be attributed to the Grace of God or my lucky rabbit's foot. And the fact that Russia, China,
and even Iran and North Korea have incomparably better and more responsible leadership than
we do.
Western leadership, Obama, Clinton, Trump, Sarkozy, Macron, Merkel, May, Cameron, Johnson, is
the worst in its history. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional and
ideologically driven.
So can anything positive at all about Trump's legacy?
Biden may be even worse.
Clinton, rabid and deranged, and even more dishonest, certainly would have been.
But we deserve something better than the choice between a dogshit sandwich or a catshit
sandwich.
Trump has at least exposed the MSM for what it is, and forced the deep state to take off the
mask of sham democracy and reveal its true ugly face.
But it's not much of a legacy for four years.
John Goss , Nov 22, 2020 1:08 PM
The Second World War was the turning point here in the UK and in the US, When the war
finished there was a Labour Party which was actually a Labour Party. For some years before
that the US Democratic Party had been and was a Democratic Party, When paper ballots
mitigated against fraud Franklin D, Roosevelt was elected for an amazing 4 terms. He died
days before the end of the war having introduced welfare reforms that endeared him to
people.
It has been pretty much downhill since then, ending up with Keir Starmer at the head of
the Labour Party and Joe Biden at the head of the Democratic Party. Need I write more?
el Gallinazo , Nov 22, 2020 3:19 PM Reply to
John Goss
Problem>reaction>solution. The Great Depression in the USA was triggered by
the banksters being instructed to create a vast credit bubble in the 20's with their
fractional reserve system (being able to lend 9 fake dollars for every one they actually
owned) and then instructed to withdraw credit very rapidly, creating a cascade of defaults..
That is a historical fact easily researched.
This article's view of recent history is among the most superficial I have ever read. I do
not believe in democracy being an Agorist, because democracy is a trick of the predator
class. When I see a government which does not enforce its rules through the barrel of a gun
and cages, I may be tempted to re-evalute my views. Still waiting however. That said, the one
thing that I agree with in this article is that Trump won the election handily based on legal
and valid votes and the apparent Biden win was based on huge fraud. One should never
underestimate Sydney Powell, even with her sweet Georgia Plantation accent. She may be the
first competent snd trustworthy hire Trump has ever made in the last four years, and one may
ask why this is. On one level, the fraud was designed to put Biden in the White House. On a
deeper level, it was designed to rip the country apart. I would recommend that the American
people rushing to the giant box stores (which are permitted to stay open while the various
governors' blatantly illegal EO's have shut down their mom and pop competitors) to buy toilet
paper for the coming Darkest Winter of the fake scamdemic, would be wise to load up also on
beer and popcorn so they can watch this shitshow on their giant plasma TV's from the
sofa.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:34 PM Reply to
el Gallinazo
The notion of "fraud" in the election is a charade. Research the Dominion voting system
and you will discover that Ms. Powell, despite the high regard she has attained, is blowing
smoke. Her entire case against Dominion from Chavez to German vote counting is a fat joke. On
her, and on us. Why is she doing this? We will find out in due time.
hroughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign policy,
claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called to make America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American Empire
Great Again.
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will task ending them to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic party and ideologues of permanent war.
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war going back to the Clinton
administration.
In the Trump era, they've cashed in, founding Westexec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for secretary of defense and Blinken is expected to be
national security advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate foreign relations committee chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS).
CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech
giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon.
She was keenly aware that the public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review, she crafted a new concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state
while giving the appearance of a drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program.
This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called for the U.S. to be able to
simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare, clandestine weapons
transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all buttressed with propaganda
campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and corporate news
media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban.
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future.
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal.
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an extensive propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
All of this was based on a report from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by
the Qatari monarchy that was arming extremist militias to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war.
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine,
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted.
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fuelled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift
called the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S.
used to maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia, seeking to ensure that the U.S. could win a war against China in
Asia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities, development of
futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones, hypersonic weapons,
cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence making unimaginably
complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind. All of this would
be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley giants that it
birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation.
In June, Flournoy published a lengthy commentary laying out her strategy called "Sharpening
the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration".
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia.
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea. Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia, a position Flournoy shares.
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast.
The end of forever
wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the
public doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support, but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
His Venezuela policy will be almost identical to Trump's – sanctions and regime
change.
In Central America, Biden has proposed a 4 billion dollar package to support corrupt
right-wing governments and neoliberal privatization projects that create even more
destabilization and send vulnerable masses fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy, escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
Feature photo | Graphic by Antonio Cabrera for MintPress News
Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports
and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and
tweets at @ DanCohen3000
.
This is nothing new, the war machine keeps going and going. I actually found an individual
that has the same outlook on stopping the behavior of the United States as I do.
International lawyer Christopher Black in this interview had the following to say.
Question: What in your view needs to change in order to make U.S. foreign conduct abide by
international law and therefore enhance the prospects for world peace?
Christopher Black: It will require a revolution in the United States to do that, an
overthrow of the economic powers that control the machinery of the state, but there is no
prospect of that happening. There is really no effective opposition to these policies in
the U.S. The peace movement is weak and fragmented, dominated by the "cruise missile
liberals". The voices of reason have no power, no real influence among the masses of the
people which are dominated by a sophisticated propaganda machine known as the "media".
Censorship is increasing and the few critical voices that exist are being silenced.
It will take, in my view, a military defeat of the United States in order to bring
about the conditions necessary for the required changes. And, perhaps that will happen,
as China has stated time and again, that if Washington decides to take direct control of
their island of Taiwan and the Americans interfere or if they are attacked in the South
China Sea, they will defeat the U.S. But such a war would have world consequences and would
cause realignments of power not only in the USA, if we all survive it.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces in retreat and determined to bring democracy building home
after their colonial expeditions extinguished it at home, hastening the rise of America's own
Saddam in Trump. Biden's own instincts may be decisive, however, and he was against war in
Libya while also in favor of splitting Iraq. The dementia rumors are nonsense; Biden is a
canny and often mendacious operator, and while I think Trump is a fascist and quite possibly
a Russian mafia sub-boss, Biden may well be the restoration of more homegrown, American mafia
rule. An argument that Giuliani has made in so many words, standing as he does on the Russian
side and yelling into the shifting parapolitical winds.
It's not really that complicated for China. They have no interest in or need to strike the
American mainland. That would only be necessary if they were seeking global hegemony like the
US, which they are not. Their strategic nuclear capabilities are strictly deterrence. All
China has to do is survive the coming conflict arising from the Thucydides Trap that the US
and China are caught in with minimal damage to their industrial capacity, infrastructure, and
population.
That I specified "survive" and not "win" is not a mistake. The default
outcome if nothing is done is that China ascends to uncontested sole global economic
superpower status. That is not necessarily their intention but rather the natural outcome of
China continuing the development of their domestic human capital and quality of life for 1.4
billion people. China doesn't have to take the fight to the US to end up on top, and the US
has no choice but to somehow turn back the economic clock in China to keep its position as
global imperial hegemon. Color revolution attempts, trade war, and bioweapon attacks have all
failed the empire miserably, so all the US has left is to go kinetic.
The "US aircraft carrier force projection model" is effectively nullified by China,
but those assets are still protected by America's delusional reality exclusion zone:
"Destroying our carriers is unthinkable! No one would ever dare do that!" . That
defense will prove inadequate against China's variety of "carrier killer"
missiles.
As for America's stealth aircraft, China's defenses will likely be a surprise to many in
the American empire. Furthermore, America's only stealth aircraft with sufficient range to
reach China's mainland on anything other than a one way suicide mission would be the B-2
bomber, of which America only has 21. Those 21 will not last long in a kinetic conflict.
Quite a few will likely simply be destroyed on the runway in Diego Garcia while the survivors
will get to find out how well China's nifty new quantum radar works. The F-22 and F-35 would
require refueling to get from carrier stand-off distance to the mainland and refueling again
to get back, with America's aerial tankers needing to loiter within range of China's air
defenses... not a good battle plan for the empire. Those stealth aircraft will not shift the
advantage in the empire's favor, and attrition will be much higher than expected among
them.
It must be repeated that China doesn't need to destroy the United States. They are not
playing the board game "Risk" after all. China just needs to defeat the American
empire's military force projection capabilities in their own neighborhood, and China already
has that capacity right now. Every day that elapses shifts the advantage further into China's
favor, so the empire needs to act while they still have the ability to do so. Trump's
unwillingness to do more than bark loudly and his resistance to going kinetic is why the
imperial elites had to fraud the elections so openly to get a more compliant figurehead into
office ASAP. That the empire couldn't wait another four years means that we will see
"interesting times" (yeah, even more interesting than the preceding twelve months!)
real soon now.
"A cornered dog will bite, even if it is obvious that it cannot win."
So will I, so what?
"It was never China's nor Iran's intention to "corner" the empire. That is simply the
situation that America finds itself in now that its economy is in "late capitalism" decline.
It is really not even anyone's fault, not even Trump or Reagan or any of the other usual
suspects."
I agree, but again, so what? I'm not concerned with who is morally correct, I'm mainly
concerned with whether there is going to be a big war and what happens if there is, that's
not a moral question. I've been waiting around 40 years to watch our collapse, and I still
think there is enough that is/was good here to be worth hoping for a soft landing. That's
probably better for the rest of the planet too, but it's arguable.
Neither Iran of China is cornered, they are well-prepared, well-supported by "partners",
and on their home turf. WE are not ready. We are vunerable. But we are not cornered either,
nobody is going to come over here and interfere while we fight among ourselves.
Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 13:10 utc | 109
What scares me about Blinken and Sullivan is the career trajectory. Both had completely
unearned and unreasonable success every step of their lives. There is never any explanation
for this manner of success but family connections. Neither has done anything of note other
than to occupy positions of power.
Sullivan is all of 43 years old, has been a mover and shaker since his twenties. Any who
have never read Halberstam's Best and Brightest might look at that now. We are in for a shit
show. Biden is not going to do anything but take his meds and take a lot of naps. Already he
is not to be seen. The crew named so far will steamroller Kamala, she is no more than a
figurehead.
Likely she won't even stay in the room when it gets serious. Best possible outcome is that
kids who have never done anything but suck up won't know what to do when they are left in
charge with no adult supervision. Or there will be shadowy figures in background who steady
the rudder.
Yes, it is not a moral question, it is an economic one. Wars have never been about
morality.
That said, China has for a number of years now been preparing for a minimally damaging
escape from the Thucydides Trap, and by "minimally damaging" I mean for the US as
well. As I said above the Chinese are not at all interested in hurting the US.
The plan is to "spring" the Thucydides Trap in the South China Sea and hopefully
confine most of the damage to that area. If successful then the empire gets its soft landing
(albeit with significant amounts of military materiel and personnel sacrificed) and humanity
moves beyond the Trap.
@ PB 75
visible costs of vassaldom . . costs of American presence....decreasing the national
security. . .participating in sanctions
Yes, plus a primary reason . . .Cost of buying US military junk like F-35. Foreign military
sales is a mainstay of the US economy.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 3:43 utc | 83
When you add the numbers, "military junk" has notable prestige -- with matching prices,
but the total loot of American companies is probably many times larger. For example, Trump
waged a series of trade wars to perpetuate negligible taxation of "technology giants" like
Google or Amazon. "Intellectual property" was a stumbling block in the trade war with China,
with dire consequences for soy growing farmers in USA (and a boon to their colleagues in
South America). Then there is pharma. It seems that the really big companies are comfortable
being in relative shadow behind arms makers, and discourse on security threats and needs
--because Russian use trolls to interfere with elections, we (all countries that cherish what
is good and precious) need new generations of nukes, planes, ships and toilet seats. However
illogical, it is more noble sounding than preventing the likes of Apple from more than
nominal taxation.
"... Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for the way it creates tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy. ..."
"... Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful. ..."
"... It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop letting the sociopaths manipulate you. ..."
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
This complete schism from reality, where you've got an incoming administration stacked with
Beltway insiders who want to attack Chinese interests running alongside an alternate imaginary
universe in which Biden is a subservient CCP lackey, is only made possible with the existence
of media echo chambers. It's the same exact dynamic that made it possible for liberals to spend
four years shrieking conspiracy theories about the executive branch of the US government being
run by a literal Russian agent even as Trump advanced mountains of world-threatening cold war
escalations against Moscow in the real world.
You see this dynamic at work in conventional media, where
plutocrat-controlled outlets like Breitbart are still frantically
pushing the Russiagate sequel narrative that Hunter Biden's activities in China mean that
his father is a CCP asset. You also see it in social media, where, as explained by journalist
Jonathan Cook in an article about the
documentary The Social Dilemma , "as we get herded into our echo chambers of
self-reinforcing information, we lose more and more sense of the real world and of each
other."
"We live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms whose only
criterion is how to maximise our attention for advertisers' products to generate greater
profits for the internet giants," writes Cook.
Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates
their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for
the way it creates
tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information
which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built
on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres
from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy.
Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've
discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively
seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and
there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting
the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate
with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent,
ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful.
You should not be afraid of your government being too nice to China. What you should worry
about is the US-centralized power alliance advancing a multifront new cold war conducted
simultaneously against two nuclear-armed nations for the first time ever in human history.
There are far, far too many small moving parts in such a cold war for things to happen in a
safely predictable manner, which means there are far, far too many
chances for something to go very, very wrong.
Whenever someone tells you that a US president is going to be "soft" on a nation the
US government has marked as an enemy, you are being played. Always, always, always, always.
It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get
out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop
letting the sociopaths manipulate you.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
USA-MA BIN LADEN / NOVEMBER 25, 2020
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
Deep down, Americans know that – and that is why they so readily engage in these
spittle-flecked campaigns.
Welcome to the Orwellian world of America where the same American Empire that bombs,
invades, sanctions, regime changes, encircles, or colonizes multiple nations around the world
whines like a triggered little snowflake that poor innocent war criminal America is being
"threatened"!
Truly pathetic.
CHRISTIAN J. CHUBA / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
There are many good websites (in addition to this one of course). I'd always tell someone,
just look to see what speaks to you my list some are 'out there' I'll summarize.
https://www.antiwar.com/ –
Kind of like a drudgereport for decent people on world events. They go through the effort of
summarizing AP and other official news outlet stories rather than mindlessly link to them.
Just hearing the same stories minus the slavish propaganda will deprogram many people.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/ – M.E., Yemen, if
your friend is very sensitive to anything that insinuates that Israel is not the celestial
city he might be offended.
https://southfront.org/ – Ah
.. on our State Dept list of Russian disinfo. Discuss military conflicts, sympathetic to the
countries at the receiving end of our attention.
http://thesaker.is/ – Saker was an
intel guy from the 'other side' during the Cold War, values decency, Orthodox Christian, only
site that regularly publishes speeches from Nasrallah, does military analysis, arrogant but I
always feel like I learned something.
http://www.moonofalabama.org
– anonymous analyst, German Intel guy, writes very well. I put him last because he has
been on a pro-Trump binge lately. I think they are secret lovers. Given what he normally
writes about I have no idea what he sees in him.
Vicky left fake democracy promotion was always about expanding and sustaining controlled
from Washinton global neoliberal empire. It is a part and parcel of Full Spectrum Dominance
doctrine implementation. So it will lean to further drop of the standard of living on the
majority of US people.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces are in retreat and determined to bring democracy building
home after their colonial expeditions extinguished it
You can't find better smarter neocons to pursue the Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine to the
total decimation of the standard of living of ordinary Americans ;-)
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
... During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President
Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction"
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
... In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
Joe Biden's national security adviser pick defended the anti-Trump dossier in 2018 as
"perfectly appropriate."
Many news outlets have declared Biden the president-elect. Newsmax has yet to project a
winner, citing legal challenges in several key battleground states.
Jake Sullivan, who worked for Biden when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration and as a senior foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton during her
presidential race in 2016,
made the comments on a podcast interview with David Axelrod, the chief strategist for
Obama's presidential campaigns.
"I mean, I believe that it is perfectly appropriate and responsible if we get wind, or if
people associated with the campaign get wind, that there may be real questions about the
connections between Donald Trump, his organization, his campaign and Russia that that be
explored fully," he said at the time, The Daily
Caller reported.
Sullivan worked for Clinton when a law firm representing her campaign hired an opposition
research firm to investigate Trump's possible ties to Russia. The firm hired Christopher
Steele, the author behind the dossier alleging a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation
between the Trump campaign and Russian government."
Special counsel Robert Mueller later found those claims to be unfounded during his probe
into Russian interference in the election, writing in his
report "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or
coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
ELECTION 2020: What President Biden Won't Touch November 24, 2020 Save
Considering the think-tank imperialists in the bunch Biden is naming to direct U.S. foreign
policy, Danny Sjursen expects little to change in the essence of the war-state.
Military aircraft streaming red, white and blue during the welcoming ceremony for President
Donald Trump, May 2017, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (White House,
Andrea Hanks)
I n this mystifying moment, the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up
either as "Ding dong! The witch is dead!" or "We got robbed!" Both are problematic, not because
the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent, but because
each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption: that President Donald Trump's demise would
provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster.
While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such
a belief -- race relations, climate change, and the courts
come to mind -- in others, it was distinctly (to use a dangerous phrase) overkill. Nowhere was
that more true than with America's expeditionary version of militarism, its forever wars of
this century, and the venal system that continues to feed it.
For nearly two years, We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would
mean everything, that Nov. 3 would be democracy's ultimate judgment day. What if, however, when
it comes to issues of war, peace, and empire, " Decision 2020 " proves barely
meaningful?
After all, in the election campaign just past, Donald Trump's sweeping war-peace rhetoric
and Joe Biden's hedging aside, neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered
to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America's uniquely intrusive global role.
Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America's posture and policy "over there,"
nor challenge the essence of the war-state, a sacred cow if ever there was one.
U.S. presidential debate, Sept. 29, 2020.
That blessed bovine has enshrined permanent policies that seem beyond challenge: Uncle Sam's
right and duty to forward deploy troops just about anywhere on the planet; garrison the globe; carry out aerial
assassinations; and unilaterally implement starvation
sanctions . Likewise the systemic structures that implement and incentivize such
rogue-state behavior are never questioned, especially the existence of a sprawling
military-industrial complex that has infiltrated
every aspect of public life, while stealing money that might have improved America's
infrastructure or wellbeing. It has engorged
itself at the taxpayer's expense, while peddling American blood money -- and blood -- on absurd
foreign adventures and autocratic allies, even as it corrupted nearly every prominent public
paymaster and policymaker.
This election season, neither Democrats nor Republicans challenged the cultural components
justifying the great game, which is evidence of one thing: empires come home, folks, even if
the troops never seem to.
The Company He Keeps
As the election neared, it became impolite to play the canary in American militarism's coal
mine or risk raising Biden's record -- or probable prospects -- on minor matters like war and
peace. After all, his opponent was a monster, so noting the holes in Biden's block of Swiss
cheese presumably amounted to useful idiocy -- if not sinister collusion -- when it came to
Trump's reelection. Doing so was a surefire way to jettison professional opportunities and find
yourself permanently uninvited to the
coolest Beltway cocktail parties or interviews on cable TV.
George Orwell warned of the dangers of such "intellectual cowardice" more than 70 years ago
in a
proposed preface to his classic novel Animal Farm . "At any given moment," he wrote,
"there is an orthodoxy that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not
exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it Anyone who
challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
And that's precisely what progressive paragon Cornel West warned against seven months ago
after his man, Sen. Bernie Sanders -- briefly, the Democratic frontrunner -- suddenly proved a
dead candidate walking. "Vote for Biden, but don't lie about who he really is," the stalwart
scholar suggested .
It seems just enough Americans did the former (phew!), but mainstream media makers and
consumers mostly forgot about the salient second part of his sentiment.
Cornel West speaking at a house party for Sen. Bernie Sanders in Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 15,
2020. (Gage Skidmore, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
With the electoral outcome now apparent -- if not
yet accepted in Trump World -- perhaps such politeness (and the policing that goes with it)
will fade away, ushering in a renaissance of Fourth Estate oppositional truth-telling. In that
way -- in my dreams at least -- persistently energized progressives might send President Joe
Biden down dovish alternative avenues, perhaps even landing some appointments in an executive
branch that now
drives foreign policy (though, if I'm honest, I'm hardly hopeful on either count).
One look at Uncle Joe's inbound nieces and nephews brings to mind Aesop's fabled moral: "You are judged by the company you
keep."
Think-Tank Imperialists
One thing is already far too clear: Biden's shadow national security team will be a
distinctly status-quo squad. To know where future policymakers might head, it always helps to
know where they came from. And when it comes to Biden's foreign policy crew ,
including a striking number of
women and a fair number of Obama administration and
Clinton 2016 campaign retreads -- they were
mostly in Trump-era holding patterns in the connected worlds of strategic consulting and
hawkish think tanking.
In fact, the national security bio of the archetypal Biden bro (or
sis ) would go something like this: she (he) sprang from an Ivy League school, became a
congressional staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security
council, consulted for WestExec
Advisors (an Obama alumni-founded outfit linking
tech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American Security
(CNAS), had some defense contractor ties , and
married someone
who's also
in the game .
It helps as well to follow the money. In other words, how did the Biden
bunch make it and who pays the outfits that have been paying them in the Trump years? None of
this is a secret: their two most common think-tank homes -- CNAS and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) -- are the second- and sixth-highest recipients, respectively,
of U.S. government and defense-contractor
funding . The top donors to CNAS are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and the Department of
Defense. Most CSIS largesse comes from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and
Raytheon.
How the inevitable conflicts of interest play out is hardly better concealed. To take just
one example, in 2016, Michèle Flournoy, CNAS co-founder, ex-Pentagon official, and "
odds-on favorite " to become Biden's secretary of defense,
exchanged emails with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ambassador in Washington. She pitched
a project whereby CNAS analysts would, well, analyze whether Washington should maintain
drone-sales restrictions in a non-binding multilateral " missile technology control "
agreement. The UAE's autocratic government then paid CNAS $250,000 to draft a report
that (you won't be surprised to learn) argued for amending the agreement to allow that country
to purchase American-manufactured drones.
Michèle Flournoy, at right, on front of WestExec Advisors homepage.
Which is just what Flournoy and company's supposed nemeses in the Trump administration then
did this very July past. Again, no surprise. American drones seem to have a way of ending
up in the hands of Gulf theocracies -- states with abhorrent
human rights records that use such planes to surveil and brutally bomb Yemeni civilians
.
If it's too much to claim that a future Defense Secretary Flournoy would be the UAE's
(wo)man in Washington, you at least have to wonder. Worse still, with those think-tank,
security-consulting, and defense-industry ties of hers, she's anything but alone among Biden's
top
prospects and nominees. Just consider a few other abridged resumes:
Tony Blinken, on left, with President Barack Obama, on WestExec Advisors homepage.
Tony Blinken , [named
secretary of state on Monday] a longtime foreign policy adviser, to serve as secretary of
State; frontrunner for national security adviser: CSIS; WestExec (which he co-founded with
Flournoy); and CNN analyst. Jake Sullivan , [named
national security adviser on Monday]: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
("peace," in this case, being
funded by 10 military agencies and defense contractors) and Macro Advisory Partners, a
strategic consultancy
run by former British spy chiefs. Avril Haines [named
director of national intelligence on Monday]: CNAS-the Brookings Institution; WestExec; and
Palantir
Technologies , a controversial, CIA-seeded, NSA-linked data-mining firm. Kathleen Hicks , probable deputy
secretary of defense: CSIS and the Aerospace Corporation , a
federally funded research and development center that lobbies on defense issues.
An extra note about Hicks: she's the
head of Biden's Department of Defense transition team and also a senior vice president at
CSIS. There, she hosts that think tank's "Defense 2020" podcast. In case anyone's still
wondering where CSIS's bread is buttered, here's how Hicks
opens each episode:
"This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, and the Thales Group."
In other words, given what we already know about Joe Biden's previous
gut-driven policies that pass for "middle of the road" in this anything but middling
country of ours, the experiences and affiliations of his "
A-Team " don't bode well for systemic-change seekers. Remember, this is a president-elect
who
assured rich donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he were elected. Should he
indeed stock his national security team with such a conflicts-of-interest-ridden crowd,
consider America's sacred cows of foreign policy all but saved.
Biden's outfit is headed for office, it seems, to right the Titanic, not rock the boat.
Off the Table: A Paradigm Shift
President Barack Obama meeting with his national security team, April 25, 2011.
Michèle Flournoy, as under secretary of defense for policy. is on the president's right,
seated against wall. (White House, Flickr, Pete Souza)
In this context, join me in thinking about what won't be on the next presidential menu when
it comes to the militarization of American foreign policy.
Don't expect major changes when it comes to:
One-sided support for Israel that enables
permanent Palestinian oppression and foments undying ire across the Greater Middle East. Tony
Blinken
put it this way: as president, Joe Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to
things like annexation [of all or large portions of the occupied West Bank] or other decisions
by the Israeli government with which we might disagree." Unapologetic support for various Gulf
State autocracies and theocracies that, as they cynically
collude with Israel, will only continue to heighten tensions with Iran and facilitate yet
more grim war crimes in Yemen. Beyond Michèle Flournoy's professional
connections with the UAE, Gulf kingdoms generously fund the very think tanks that so many
Biden prospects have populated. Saudi Arabia, for example, offers annual donations to
Brookings and the Rand Corporation; the UAE, $1 million for a new CSIS office building ; and Qatar,
$14.8 million to Brookings. America's historically unprecedented and provocative
expeditionary military posture globally, including at least
800 bases in 80 countries , seems likely to be altered only in marginal ways. As Jake
Sullivan put it in a June CSIS interview : "I'm
not arguing for getting out of every base in the Middle East. There is a military posture
dimension to this as a reduced footprint."
Above all, it's obvious that the Biden bunch has no desire to slow down, no less halt, the "
revolving door " that
connects national security work in the government and jobs or security consulting positions in
the defense industry. The same goes for the think tanks that the arms producers amply
fund to justify the whole circus.
In such a context, count on this: the militarization of American society and the
"thank-you-for-your-service" fetishization of American soldiers will continue to thrive,
exhibit A being the way Biden now closes almost any speech
with "May God protect our troops."
All of this makes for a rather discouraging portrait of an old man's coming administration.
Still, consider it a version of truth in advertising. Joe and company are likely to continue to
be who they've always been and who they continue to say they are. After all, transformational
presidencies and unexpected pivots are historically
rare phenomena. Expecting the moon from a man mostly offering MoonPies almost guarantees
disappointment.
Obama Encore or Worse?
Tony Blinken, at right, as deputy national security advisor, with President Barack Obama,
Sept. 19, 2014. (White House, Pete Souza)
Don't misunderstand me: a Biden presidency will certainly leave some maneuvering room at the
margins of national security strategy. Think nuclear
treaties with the Russians (which the Trump administration had been systematically tearing
up) and the possible thawing of at least some of the
tensions with Tehran.
Nor should even the most cynical among us underestimate the significance of having a
president who actually accepts the reality of climate change and the need to switch to
alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. Noam Chomsky's
bold assertion that the human species couldn't endure a second Trump term, thanks to the
environmental catastrophe, nuclear brinksmanship, and pandemic negligence he represents, was
anything but hyperbole. Yet recall that he was also crystal clear about the need
"for an organized public" to demand change and "impose pressures" on the new administration the
moment the new president is inaugurated.
Yet, in the coming Biden years, there is also a danger that empowered Democrats in an
imperial presidency (when it comes to foreign policy) will actually escalate a
two-front New Cold War with China and Russia. And there's always the worry that the ascension
of a more genteel
emperor could co-opt -- or at least quiet -- a growing movement of anti-Trumpers, including
the vets of this country's forever wars who are increasingly
dressing in antiwar clothing.
What seems certain is that, as ever, salvation won't spring from the top. Don't count on
Status-quo Joe to slaughter Washington's sacred cows of foreign policy or on his national
security team to topple the golden calves of American empire. In fact, the defense industry
seems bullish on Biden. As Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes recently put it ,
"Obviously, there is a concern that defense spending will go way down if there is a Biden
administration, but frankly I think that's ridiculous." Or consider retired Marine Corps major
general turned defense consultant Arnold Punaro who recently said
of Biden's coming tenure, "I think the industry will have, when it comes to national security,
a very positive view."
Given the evidence that business-as-usual will continue in the Biden years, perhaps it's
time to take that advice from Cornel West, absorb the truth
about Biden's future national security squad, and act accordingly. There's no top-down
salvation on the agenda -- not from Joe or his crew of consummate insiders. Pressure and change
will flow from the grassroots or it won't come at all.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor at antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times ,
The Nation , Huff Post , T he Hill , Salon , Truthdig ,
Tom Dispatch , among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance
units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders
of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His latest book is
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Follow him on Twitter
at @SkepticalVet . Check out his
professional website for contact info,
scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
The choices the incoming president Joe Biden has made so far are not great at all. The
people he so far selected are staunch interventionists who will want to continue the wars
they have started during their previous time in office.
Tony Blinken will become Secretary of State. (It was probably thought to be too hard to
get Senate confirmation for the similar bad
Susan Rice.) In 2013 the Washington Post
described his high flying pedigree :
Blinken is deputy national security adviser to President Obama, who has also invoked the
Holocaust as his administration wrestles, often painfully, with how to respond to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. One of the government's key
players in drafting Syria policy, the 51-year-old Blinken has Clinton administration
credentials and deep ties to Vice President Biden and the foreign policy and national
security establishment in Washington. He has drawn attention in Situation Room photos,
including the iconic one during the May 2011 raid of Osama bin Laden's compound, for his
stylishly wavy salt-and-pepper hair. But what sets him apart from the other intellectual
powerhouses in the inner sanctum is a life story that reads like a Jewish high-society
screenplay that the onetime aspiring film producer may have once dreamed of making. There's
his father, a giant in venture capital; his mother, the arts patron; and his stepfather,
who survived the Holocaust to become of one of the most influential lawyers on the global
stage. It is a bildungsroman for young Blinken -- playing in a Parisian jazz band, debating
politics with statesmen -- with a supporting cast of characters that includes, among
others, Leonard Bernstein, John Lennon, Mark Rothko, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Abel
Ferrara and Christo.
The man is a war mongering psycho:
Blinken surprised some in the Situation Room by breaking with Biden to support military
action in Libya, administration officials said, and he advocated for American action in
Syria after Obama's reelection. These sources said that Blinken was less enthusiastic than
Biden about Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a strike in Syria, but is
now -- perhaps out of necessity -- onboard and a backer of diplomatic negotiations with
Russia. While less of an ideologue than Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations (a job for which he was considered), he not surprisingly shares her belief that
global powers such as the United States have a "responsibility to protect" against
atrocities.
He has since shown
no remorse about those foreign policy failures:
Blinken maintains that the failure of U.S. policy in Syria was that our government did not
employ enough force. He stands by the false argument that Biden's vote to authorize the
invasion of Iraq was a "vote for tough diplomacy." He was reportedly in favor of the Libyan
intervention, which Biden opposed, and he was initially a defender and advocate for U.S.
support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. In short, Blinken has agreed with some of the
biggest foreign policy mistakes that Biden and Obama made, and he has tended to be more of
an interventionist than both of them.
If you can't quite place Jake Sullivan, he's was a long-serving aide to Hillary Clinton,
starting with her 2008 race against Barack Obama, then serving as her deputy chief of staff
and director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning when Clinton was Obama's
secretary of state. (...) In 2016, during her failed presidential campaign, Sullivan once
again teamed up with Clinton, and he was widely expected to have been named to serve as her
national security adviser or even secretary of state had she won.
Since 2016, and since the creation of NSA, Sullivan has emerged as a kind of foreign
policy scold, gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- criticizing those who reflexively
oppose American intervention abroad and who disparage the idea of American
"exceptionalism." Indeed, in an article in the January-February issue of The Atlantic,
"What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About America," Sullivan explicitly says that
he's intent on "rescuing the idea of American exceptionalism" and presents the "case for a
new American exceptionalism".
Sullivan
send classified documents to Hillary Clinton's private email server. He wrote to her that
Al Qaida is "on our side in Syria." He also hyped fake Trump-Russia collusion
allegations.
It is yet unknown who will become Secretary of Defense. Michèle Flournoy is the
most named option but there is
some opposition to her nomination :
[B]ackers of Michèle Flournoy, his likely pick for defense secretary, are trying to
head off a last-minute push by some left-leaning Democrats trying to derail her selection,
with many progressives seeing her nomination as a continuation of what critics refer to as
America's "forever wars."
I expect that the progressive will lose the fight and that either Flournoy or some other
hawkish figure will get that weapon lobbyist position.
Progressives also lost on the Treasury position. Biden's nomination for that is Janet
Yellen who is known to be an inflation hawk. She is unlikely to support large spending on
progressive priorities.
As usual with a Democratic election win the people who brought the decisive votes and
engagement, those who argue for more socialist and peaceful policies, will be cut off from
the levers of power.
In three years they will again be called upon to fall for another bait and switch.
Posted by b on November 24, 2020 at 16:32 UTC | Permalink
There are so many creatures that the swamp holds. Don't be surprised by what comes
next.
The entire project for Democrats in this election cycle was to get rid of Trump. There was
never any vision for the future or a presentation of policy to gain voters. It was all "Trump
is an existential threat and the only priority is to defeat him at the polls." Bernie Sanders
made this all quite clear as he again led his legion of lemmings off a cliff and into an
ocean of Neoliberal/neoconservative Forever Empire.
But hey, it's all worth it to get rid of The Man With The Golden Toilet.
Meanwhile, yeah, it's back to future with more of the same as far as the eye can see.
Which, with an economy in shambles, and a populace with a death wish, might not be as long as
one thinks.
At the very least "gravitas" will have been restored to its venerable and "sacred"
institution. And a good portion of the american population can heave a huge sigh of relief,
and go about their business of profound ritualistic conformity.
Gravitas restored by an aging old man, potentially on the verge of dementia, which is a
sad condition by any measure. A collection of Human beings about as bereft of solutions of
philosophy of spiritual comprehension as possible, at this point in human history. We all
have an enormous amount to look forward to!
It's a veritable who's who of the same criminals who instigated and executed the covert (and
sometimes overt) military and economic aggressions across several regions of the globe, to
include North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
"US multinationals aim to clear away a stumbling block, the Trump administration's
protectionism and anti-globalism, to push forward their international plans, in particular
their exploration of the Chinese market, experts said. They made the comments in response to
news that New York business leaders signed a letter urging the Trump administration to start
the power transition to the incoming Biden administration.
"They also predicted that many of the prejudicial and disruptive policies launched by the
Trump administration against China, like sanctions on Huawei and tariff hikes, will be
corrected once Biden becomes the new US president.
"More than 160 top US executives have signed a letter pressing the Trump administration to
acknowledge Joe Biden as the president-elect and begin the transition to the new
administration, according to a report by The New York Times. Most of the executives come from
US multinationals including Mastercard, Visa, Condé Nast, WeWork and American
International Group.
"Many top executives from US financial companies have signed the letter, including David
Solomon, chief executive of Goldman Sachs and Jon Gray, Blackstone's president."
Such an attitude might sway Biden away from a confrontation first policy with China since
the overall balance of power has changed greatly since he was Vice-President. Perhaps the
Neocons will finally learn Peace is more profitable than war.
@ karlof 73 Trump's draconian trade restrictions will soon be lifted
wiki: The trade war has negatively impacted the economies of both the United States and
China. In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial
difficulties for farmers. In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of
economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. Many American
companies have shifted supply chains to elsewhere in Asia, bringing fears that the trade war
would lead to a US-China economic 'decoupling'. In other countries the trade war has also
caused economic damage, though some countries have benefited from increased manufacturing to
fill the gaps. It has also led to stock market instability. Governments around the world have
taken steps to address some of the damage caused by the economic conflict.//
As on war, and many other issues, the corrupt US Congress has allowed "executive
privilege" to enact measures and programs that would never be allowed in a real "democratic"
country, governed by citizens with availability to a free press.
Edward Abbey: "Democracy--rule by the people--sounds like a fine thing; we should try it
sometime in America."
The incoming Biden administration's cabinet carries a strong whiff of deja vu, and that's no
accident – the uninspiring president-elect is staking everything on evoking a lost utopia
that never existed under ex-president Obama.
The Biden campaign's rule of thumb for his cabinet appointments seems to be to channel the
Obama administration – with an extra helping of wokeness where possible. This has seen
him float Pentagon veteran and dyed-in-the-wool megahawk Michele Flournoy as the first-ever
female Secretary of Defense and former DACA czar Alejandro Mayorkas as the first Latino-Jewish
head of the Department of Homeland Security.
There's also the rumor he's planning to pick Obama's former Fed chair
Janet Yellen as the first-ever female Treasury Secretary – but even if she's not the
lucky lady, fellow former Clinton adviser Lael Brainard could get the nod, or one of two black
candidates – one of whom happens to be gay. Whoever he picks, they'll be a "first"
– and, given their institutional history as reliable servants of the ruling class under
Obama, a dependable source of more-of-the-same fiscal policies.
Lest all this wokeness turn off the Republicans who defected to Biden out of distaste for
President Donald Trump's determination to upset the military-industrial applecart, the presumed
president has also brought back ex-Secretary of State John Kerry, who'll be returning to
Washington to serve as a 'climate czar' on the National Security Council. While Kerry would be
the first person to hold such a position, which will allow him to skip a Senate confirmation
that could be unfriendly given the chamber's Republican control, Kerry's time at the head of
the State Department saw the Obama administration continue digging the US deeper into its
portfolio of ill-advised wars. And Kerry was the man who signed the Paris Climate Accords on
behalf of Washington in 2016, a treaty President Donald Trump wasted no time removing the US
from. He should go down plenty smooth indeed.
Most of the Biden picks were second-stringers during the Obama years and thus haven't quite
become household names yet. This is likely to be a point in their favor – if the history
of would-be Secretary of State Antony Blinken is any indication, Biden has good reason for
picking relative unknowns. A report from the American Prospect revealed Blinken had spent the
post-Obama years getting rich quick at consulting firm WestExec – which coincidentally
(or not) was co-founded by
would-be Pentagon chief Flournoy after her most recent stint at the Pentagon. The firm focuses
on "helping new companies navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon
contracts" – suggesting a Biden presidency won't just deliver a fatter Pentagon
budget, but new wars to go with it.
It's no surprise, then, that Washington-watchers are sinking into deja vu. Biden was elected
as the "anti-Trump," a return to some vague fantasy of "normalcy" . Except the
nostalgia for the Obama era that helped shoehorn Biden into office earlier this month was based
on a wholly synthetic reimagining of the eight years in which the career politician served as
vice president.
Obama may have inherited George W. Bush's financial crisis in 2008, born of rapacious
investment banks that mistook people's life savings for free chips from a casino, but the "
recovery " he claimed as his own never bothered to lift up
most working- and
middle-class Americans . Many of these lost their homes, and if they didn't, their children
"failed to launch," in no position to strike out on their own. The younger generation
were either mired in student debt or merely unable to afford even the cheapest 'starter homes'
due to an absence of living-wage jobs open to young adults entering the
workplace.
Biden made it clear repeatedly in the run-up to this month's election that he had no
interest in feeling these people's pain. "I have no empathy for it – give me a
break," he said,
complaining that millennials had been given everything by his own generation, the Baby
Boomers. In reality, those "whiners" so loathed by the president-to-be made 20 percent
less than Biden's generation at the same age at best – assuming they were lucky enough to
have a job at all. Back when it was still considered acceptable to trash Biden, most
establishment outlets raked him over the coals for such tone-deaf comments. But such negativity
was memory-holed when the Democrats crowned Biden their pick to run against Trump –
speaking ill of the anointed one got progressives labeled Trump supporters or Nazis or
worse.
Those whose rose-colored glasses let them see Biden as the second coming of Obama forget
that "Bush in a black-man suit" turned two wars into seven, allowed Citibank – one
of the worst offenders of the 2008 financial crisis – to shape his cabinet, and passed a
mockery of "universal healthcare" that forced the lower-middle-class to purchase health
insurance they couldn't afford or shoulder a tax penalty they also couldn't afford. Biden has
promised to reignite the war in Syria, veto the actual universal healthcare policy that is
Medicare for All, and ensure nothing will fundamentally change for his fat-cat Wall Street
donors – and those
donors seem to be picking
his cabinet just like they did his boss' in 2008.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
82
Robin Olsen 13 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 10:23 PM
Restarting the war in Syria will take a major false flag that is bullet proof in order to get
Russia to withdraw...not one false flag chemical attack staged by Obama and Biden actually
worked in the past. Trump's failed too. The world is onto America's false flag strategy...To
get Americans behind another 20 years of forever wars is also gonna take significant false
flag. Americans will fall for it, they always do...but no one else will...not this time.
Without international support he cannot restart anything, the British are not enough to
counter Russian interference and I don't think Bojo will survive the next election anyways.
HypoxiaMasks 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:17 PM
With any luck he will bless us with Hillary, Comey, Brennan, the corpse of McCain and as an
added bonus Lil Bush and both Obamas
DukeLeo HypoxiaMasks 9 hours ago 24 Nov, 2020 02:50 AM
Biden has not officially been pronounced winner in the elections, and he already has picked a
neocon team. What a big surprise. Makes you wonder how many people who voted for him really
knew what they were doing.
Ibmekon 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:34 PM
When Trump got into power he soon overtook Obama record of 26171 bombs in 2016. Trump since
2015 has dropped over 133,000 bombs . Trump tried to get troops out - the MIC just sent them
back in. Joey Biden and new secretary of state are committed to keep the troops out occupying
countries around the world - which requires the bombs to keep falling, one every 12 mins.
Because nobody actually wants the USA military in their country (apart from a few well bribed
military/religious dictators) We have no number for those murdered - the USA refuses to keep
any count.
debt is only sustainable when its billionaire oligarchs demand bail outs. i don't have
that bad of a memory to recall how the fed reserve said they can print as much money as
needed for the 1% back in april. they gave the stock market a trillion just to sustain itself
for a day. its when regular people going homeless and starving do they have pay go's or just
hell no's
So what Biden is trying to achieve is to stem the collapse of neoliberalism and with
it the global US-controlled neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... IMO, all three of the turn-of-the-century free-market-neolibral model, the hypothetical Trump(ish) nationalist model, and the revised technocratic-neoliberal schemes, are fatally flawed. Despite the political rhetoric of US Republicans, there's no real prospect of an even mildly leftist (i.e. inclusive, egalitarian, and internationalist) alternative anytime soon in the US. I suspect the same is true in most neoliberal countries. ..."
Blinken surprised some in the Situation Room by breaking with Biden to support military
action in Libya, administration officials said, and he advocated for American action in
Syria after Obama's reelection. These sources said that Blinken was less enthusiastic than
Biden about Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a strike in Syria, but is
now -- perhaps out of necessity -- onboard and a backer of diplomatic negotiations with
Russia. While less of an ideologue than Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations (a job for which he was considered), he not surprisingly shares her belief that
global powers such as the United States have a "responsibility to protect" against
atrocities.
He has since shown
no remorse about those foreign policy failures:
Blinken maintains that the failure of U.S. policy in Syria was that our government did not
employ enough force. He stands by the false argument that Biden's vote to authorize the
invasion of Iraq was a "vote for tough diplomacy." He was reportedly in favor of the Libyan
intervention, which Biden opposed, and he was initially a defender and advocate for U.S.
support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. In short, Blinken has agreed with some of the
biggest foreign policy mistakes that Biden and Obama made, and he has tended to be more of
an interventionist than both of them.
If you can't quite place Jake Sullivan, he's was a long-serving aide to Hillary Clinton,
starting with her 2008 race against Barack Obama, then serving as her deputy chief of staff
and director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning when Clinton was Obama's
secretary of state. (...) In 2016, during her failed presidential campaign, Sullivan once
again teamed up with Clinton, and he was widely expected to have been named to serve as her
national security adviser or even secretary of state had she won.
Since 2016, and since the creation of NSA, Sullivan has emerged as a kind of foreign
policy scold, gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- criticizing those who reflexively
oppose American intervention abroad and who disparage the idea of American
"exceptionalism." Indeed, in an article in the January-February issue of The Atlantic,
"What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About America," Sullivan explicitly says that
he's intent on "rescuing the idea of American exceptionalism" and presents the "case for a
new American exceptionalism".
Sullivan
send classified documents to Hillary Clinton's private email server. He wrote to her that
Al Qaida is "on our side in Syria." He also hyped fake Trump-Russia collusion
allegations.
It is yet unknown who will become Secretary of Defense. Michèle Flournoy is the
most named option but there is
some opposition to her nomination :
[B]ackers of Michèle Flournoy, his likely pick for defense secretary, are trying to
head off a last-minute push by some left-leaning Democrats trying to derail her selection,
with many progressives seeing her nomination as a continuation of what critics refer to as
America's "forever wars."
I expect that the progressive will lose the fight and that either Flournoy or some other
hawkish figure will get that weapon lobbyist position.
Progressives also lost on the Treasury position. Biden's nomination for that is Janet
Yellen who is known to be an inflation hawk. She is unlikely to support large spending on
progressive priorities.
As usual with a Democratic election win the people who brought the decisive votes and
engagement, those who argue for more socialist and peaceful policies, will be cut off from
the levers of power.
In three years they will again be called upon to fall for another bait and switch.
As I said over at Ian Welsh's blog
"this is brought on by the "blue no matter who crowd" who can't understand that
guaranteeing their vote at the outset without extorting any firm quid pro quo a priori
guarantees that [working people] can be safely ignored. And yet, almost everybody here
[reminder, posted at Ian's] argued for just that and will the next time and the next.
Why will something like that happen
If the polls are to be believed, Biden is the most popular Democrat of all time and by a
large margin. If polls are to be believed, the DNC denying the Sanders wing was the smartest
thing the DNC has ever done. If polls are to be believed, Biden strode through battle
unscathed while lessor Democrats were squashed. The DNC was right, the Sanders people are
fools, if polls are to be believed. The immense Biden vote proves once and for all, that any
who diverge from DNC dictata should be ignored for all time.
That was the message sent in 2020"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biden is to the extreme right of Trump on the issue of the US's endless neocolonial wars.
And Biden is already laying the groundwork for the deconstruction of Social Security, work he
began as VP to Obama. That makes Biden to the extreme right of Trump on foreign &
domestic issues...all thanks to the "blue no matter who" crowd. Meanwhile, the election "make
'em scream" ploy Pelosi employed will toss millions off federal extensions of unemployment
midnight 31 Dec 2020 until congress reconvenes.
And for all those who claimed Trump to be evil incarnate, worse than Hitler...in a few
weeks, facts will show those people to be clownish frauds.
yep. sad. Yellen for Treasury is interesting, and a crucial position to watch. Mnuchin
basically ran the Trump administration's economic policy, as far as there was one.
One of the watchwords of the coming era is the "Great Reset", i.e. a limited shift in the
direction of a technocratic planned economy. In a way, this began after 2008 when the FED
intervened in stock and bond markets to such a degree that its interventions became the
dominant driving force. With that, "market forces" couldn't plausibly remain a reflection of
free competition as the theory postulated. The fact that this measure had to be taken (i.e.
markets had to be overtly "fixed"), is an implicit admission that the thesis of the
free-market purists, the dream of the Reagan-Clinton era, has been falsified.
The proposed solution, at least the version coming from the high business class (and
exaggerated further still by right-wing critics of Great Reset) seems like a recipe to worsen
the problem of "regulatory capture" above all else. I.e. the agents and beneficiaries of the
neoliberal era making an effort to adapt, without giving up the benefits of the prior
economic regime. Likelyhood of fixing inequalities is nil. The emphasis is on reinforcing the
stability of the system, holding on to power, perhaps competing with threatening alternatives
from the "outside", although that would seem to be a second priority.
Trump did put up a facade of a nationalist alternative, which had the effect of
acknowledging the inequalities and failures of the neoliberal system, but offering an equally
harmful solution. Besides that, if you look at who was making economic policy in the past 4
years (Treasury Dept), the nationalist facade was false, as far as domestic economic matters
were concerned.
IMO, all three of the turn-of-the-century free-market-neolibral model, the
hypothetical Trump(ish) nationalist model, and the revised technocratic-neoliberal schemes,
are fatally flawed. Despite the political rhetoric of US Republicans, there's no real
prospect of an even mildly leftist (i.e. inclusive, egalitarian, and internationalist)
alternative anytime soon in the US. I suspect the same is true in most neoliberal
countries.
So Biden comes into this moment, with a clear mandate -- from the sponsors -- to reinforce
the status quo. He brings Yellen into this moment in a the crucial position.
Of course Biden's foreign policy team and the policy itself will be shit. As it was for
the trump admin, the Obama admin, the Bush II admin, the Clinton admin, the Bush I admin, the
fucking Reagan admin, then there's carter and Nixon. Look, I can take this back all the way
to Washington. Biden's not special. It's always been an empire; trump did nothing to
dismantle it; but now it's a failing empire.
And don't try the "Trump's instincts were dashed by the deep state". Dude constantly
bragged about how much he spent on the DoD. If he could find a way to personally profit from
the empire he would have.
Here's an interview given by acclaimed Canadian International Law lawyer Christopher
Black who is rather pessimistic given the team members and its chief. While I disagree on a
few minor points, I agree with his overall assessment:
"The Americans proclaim they are all for competition but we know that means only when it
puts them in the superior position; and to maintain their position they are willing to
threaten and attack the world if necessary; and there are a myriad of domestic problems in
the USA which they have no way out of, since the two ruling parties have no solutions to
offer, except war."
I would disagree with war being a solution; rather, it exacerbates many already existing
problems. However, war would make revolution more likely. Since it's highly unlikely the
Empire could make the "Moderate Rebel" ploy work again, to escalate in Syraq as Biden's
nominee wants would require a direct assault by Imperial Stormtroopers, and that would be a
huge domestic error during the continuing pandemic.
Your buddy was born in Havana and grew up in Miami's Cuban hole. And he's Jewish. I'll eat
my hat if the family was not personal friends/business partners with Meyer Lansky and Myer
Schine. Wonderful, Homeland Security has been given to the Mafia.
It reminds me very much Khrushchev's government. He went in guns blazing, accusing Stalin
as outdated and promising a whole new paradigm (economic and geopolitical). He failed
miserably in both. He was toppled in 1964 and substituted by a figure of the "establishment",
Leonid Brezhnev, who basically restored what existed during Stalin and effectively gave up
making the USSR better. The first proletarian State would disintegrate soon.
Not saying Yellen-Biden will be the American Brezhnev - they are much lesser historical
figures than he was - but pay attention to the pattern.
Should come as no surprise that where it matters, Biden is Trump wearing a smiley face,
just like Pelosi is Trump in a wig. Actually, considering actual body count and misery
inflicted on vast populations, Biden's record is WORSE than Trump.
"... U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war, hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved. ..."
"... Medea Benjamin is ..."
"... of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection . Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
Congratulations to Joe Biden on his election as America's next president! People all over
this pandemic-infested, war-torn and poverty-stricken world were shocked by the brutality and
racism of the Trump administration, and are anxiously wondering whether Biden's presidency will
open the door to the kind of international cooperation that we need to confront the serious
problems facing humanity in this century.
For progressives everywhere, the knowledge that "another world is possible" has sustained us
through decades of greed, extreme inequality and war, as U.S.-led neoliberalism has repackaged and force-fed
19th century laissez-faire capitalism to the people of the 21st century. The Trump
experience has revealed, in stark relief, where these policies can lead.
Joe Biden has certainly paid his dues to and reaped rewards from the same corrupt political
and economic system as Trump, as the latter delightedly trumpeted in every stump speech. But
Biden must understand that the
young voters who turned out in unprecedented numbers to put him in the White House have
lived their whole lives under this neoliberal system, and did not vote for "more of the same."
Nor do they naively think that deeply-rooted problems of American society like racism,
militarism and corrupt corporate politics began with Trump.
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain
unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Background: Burns, a career diplomat who has served as ambassador to Russia and as
deputy secretary of state, gets particularly high marks for cognitive empathy -- understanding
the perspectives and motivations of international actors.
Few if any contenders for foreign policy positions in the Biden administration surpass Burns
when it comes to appreciating one tenet of progressive realism: military interventions have a
way of leading to bad things. In a ten-page memo Burns wrote to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, then his boss, during the runup to the Iraq War, he laid out a
cornucopia of possible unintended consequences, including some that became all too real. (Like:
Iran feels threatened and acts accordingly.)
Even highly surgical uses of violence, Burns recognizes, can have blowback. Last year he
wrote
that, during the Obama administration, as "drone strikes and special operations grew
exponentially," they were "often highly successful in narrow military terms" but at the cost of
"complicating political relationships and inadvertently causing civilian casualties and fueling
terrorist recruitment."
So it's not surprising that Burns has often pushed for non-military solutions to foreign
policy problems. Still, he has supported dubious interventions -- such as America's joining
allies in arming Syrian rebels, a policy hatched while Burns was deputy secretary of state in
the Obama administration.
In retrospect, it's not shocking that this policy only succeeded in amplifying the killing
and chaos, given the conflicting agendas of our allies and the divergent aims of the various
rebel groups -- not to mention the aforementioned inherent unpredictability of military action.
Yet, even with years of hindsight, Burns confined his criticism of this proxy intervention to
matters of timing and execution. In his 2019 book The Back Channel , he said we should
have given more aid to the rebels earlier. But Burns does, at least, get credit for considering
Obama's public demand for regime change ("Assad must go") unwise, and for having initially
hoped for more open-ended negotiations than that demand permitted.
Cognitive empathy (A)
Burns is adept at seeing the perspectives of international actors, as demonstrated in
particular by his views on Russia. He has a history of dealing effectively with the country,
and he takes Moscow's interests seriously. Unlike many in the foreign policy establishment,
Burns doubts the wisdom of NATO expansion -- including its early phases but especially its
later ones. When the US "pushed open the door for formal NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia," he has
said , "I think that fed Putin's narrative that the United States was out to keep Russia
down, to undermine Russia and what he saw to be its entitlement, its sphere of influence."
Burns believes that, though Putin
clearly sees the US as an adversary, he doesn't see the US-Russia relationship in purely
zero-sum terms; Putin is capable of seeing "those few areas where we might be able to work
together. He is capable of juggling apparent contradictions."
Burns is very aware -- as many US officials over the years have not been -- that hectoring
foreign countries about how they should behave can be counterproductive. "I've always felt we
get a lot further in the world with the power of our example than we do with the power of our
preaching," he
said in a New Yorker interview. "Americans can sometimes... be awfully patronizing
overseas."
Respect for international law (B)
Burns is generally a strong advocate of international law. And in the course of his career
he has often had occasion to invoke it -- as when, in 2014, he
said disputes over islands in the South China Sea should be resolved via adjudicatory
mechanisms outlined in the Law of the Sea Convention. (Had he not been speaking for the US
government, he might have added that, regrettably, America itself has not ratified that
convention.)
Unfortunately, Burns seems to have adopted the habit, widespread in the foreign policy
establishment, of being more fastidious in applying international law to adversaries than to
the US. In The Back Channel he offers some practical criticisms of America's 2011
intervention in Libya, but he doesn't note that when the mission shifted from defending
imperiled civilian populations to overthrowing the regime, it arguably
violated the letter of the authorizing UN resolution and certainly violated its spirit.
Similarly, his discussion in that book of Obama's arming of Syrian rebels evinces no concern
about the fact that this intervention, according to common
legal reckoning , violated the UN Charter.
Support for international governance (A)
Burns certainly supports international governance of a progressive sort -- agreements and
institutions that address climate change and arms control, for example, and the inclusion of
labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And he has been deeply involved in
multilateral problem solving, such as the Iran nuclear deal.
But what sets Burns apart from your typical progressive supporter of international
governance is his understanding of the need to expand it beyond these traditional areas. He
recognizes, for example, that if work in artificial intelligence and genetic engineering
proceeds without restraint in a context of intense international competition, bad things could
happen. So he wants to
"create workable international rules of the road" in these areas, and he wants the US State
Department to "take the lead -- just as it did during the nuclear age -- building legal and
normative frameworks."
Universal engagement (A-)
As a quintessential diplomat, Burns believes that the U.S. should be open to relations with
any country willing to talk. He is especially emphatic about the importance of maintaining
diplomatic and economic engagement with China; he
criticizes those who "assume too much about the feasibility of decoupling and containment
-- and about the inevitability of confrontation. Our tendency, as it was during the height of
the Cold War, is to overhype the threat, over-prove our hawkish bona fides, over-militarize our
approach, and reduce the political and diplomatic space required to manage great-power
competition." And Burns recognizes one of the biggest payoffs of engagement with China: to
"preserve space for cooperation on global challenges."
Burns eschews a Cold War not just with China but with authoritarian states more broadly. He
is refreshingly
skeptical of proposals -- fashionable in neoconservative and some liberal circles -- to
form a "league" or "concert" of democracies that would fight "techno-authoritarianism."
Burns doesn't seem to have expressed the degree of skepticism about America's promiscuous
use of economic sanctions that a progressive realist might like. But he gets points for at
least recognizing the inconsistency of their application. "We focus our criticism on Maduro, in
Venezuela, who richly deserves it, and then pull punches with Mohammed bin Salman, in Saudi
Arabia," he
said in a New Yorker interview.
Burns also recognizes that the foreign policy establishment's obsession with Iran is, well,
obsessive. Tehran has "an outsized hold on our imagination," he
says . Yes, he believes, Iran poses threats to American friends and interests, but those
threats are manageable, in part because, contrary to a common American view, Iran is "not 10
feet tall."
Miscellaneous
(1) After leaving the government, Burns became president of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. That's a highly and rightly respected position. But it should be noted --
since any good progressive realist wants to root out the influence of the military industrial
complex -- that Carnegie has taken money from Northrup Grumman
( as well as
from such foreign countries as Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates and from NATO).
(2) Burns deserves credit for seeing that the foreign policy establishment, confronted by
Trump's jarringly disruptive policies, is in danger of mindlessly retreating to pre-Trump
policies that in fact need sharp revision. Recounting (and embracing) the bipartisan opposition
to Trump's abrupt withdrawal of military support for Kurds in Syria, he
adds , "If all this episode engenders, however, is a bipartisan dip in the warm waters of
self-righteous criticism, it will be a tragedy We have to come to grips with the deeper and
more consequential betrayal of common sense -- the notion that the only antidote to Trump's
fumbling attempts to disentangle the United States from the region is a retreat to the magical
thinking that has animated so much of America's moment in the Middle East since the end of the
Cold War." This magical thinking, he continues, involves "the persistent tendency to assume too
much about our influence and too little about the obstacles in our path and the agency of other
actors."
Full spectrum dominance theorists are dusted off and put in key positions in new
administration. Instead of punishment and jail terms Russiagaters got promotion.
Biden signals US return to full-on globalism and foreign meddling by picking interventionist
Anthony Blinken as secretary of state
Joe Biden has named Anthony Blinken – an
advocate for isolating Russia, cozying up to China and intervening in Syria – as
secretary of state, cementing a foreign policy built on military forays and multi-national
motivations.
Biden, the nominal president-elect, announced his selection of
Blinken along with other members of his foreign-policy and national-security team, which is
filled with such veteran Washington insiders as John Kerry, the new climate czar and formerly
secretary of state in the Obama-Biden administration.
Blinken, a long-time adviser to Biden and deputy secretary of state under President Barack
Obama, has been hailed by fellow Democrats and globalists, such as retired General Barry
McCaffrey, as an experienced bureaucrat with "global contacts and respect." Enrico
Letta, dean of the Paris School of International Affairs, called Biden's choice the "right
step to relaunch transatlantic ties."
He was even praised for a 2016 appearance on the Sesame Street children's television
program, where he explained to the show's 'Grover' character the benefits of accepting
refugees.
While some critics focused on how Blinken " got rich working for corporate
clients " during President Donald Trump's term in office, the new foreign-affairs chief's
neoconservative policy recommendations might be cause for greater concern. He advocated for the
Iraq War and the bombings of such countries as Libya and Yemen.
Blinken is still arguing for a resurgence in Washington's
military intervention in Syria. He lamented in a May interview that the Obama-Biden
administration hadn't done enough to prevent a "horrific situation" in Syria, and he faulted
Trump for squandering what remaining leverage the US had on the Bashar Assad regime by pulling
troops out of the country.
"Our leverage is vastly even less than it was, but I think we do have points of leverage to
try to effectuate some more positive developments," Blinken said. For instance, US special
forces in northeast Syria are located near Syrian oil fields. "The Syrian government would
love to have dominion over those resources. We should not give that up for free."
Blinken also sees Biden strengthening NATO, isolating Russia politically and " confronting
Mr. [President Vladimir] Putin for his aggressions."
As for China, Blinken has said Washington needs to look for ways to cooperate with Beijing.
Reinvesting in international alliances that were weakened by Trump will help the Biden
administration deal with China "from a position of strength" as it pushes back against
the Chinese Communist Party's human-rights abuses, he said.
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign
policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's
brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American
Empire Great Again .
Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America
is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power
of our example."
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure,"
Biden has said.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton
administration.
During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the
president's National Security Advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY
This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines .
Support the independent journalism initiative here .
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush
is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction."
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the
world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using
it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms
manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big
banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the
public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new
concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a
drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called
for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare,
clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all
buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and
corporate news media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is
beginning to lose momentum."
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the
commitment may change over time."
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure
short of a political settlement being in place."
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it
doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without
outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we
going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is
something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may
change."
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are
being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."
MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan
dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."
So did CNN.
As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief
Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."
All of this was based on a report
from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming
extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the
intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending
in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars.
We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also
a more effective way."
Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq,
it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll
understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine.
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a
lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia
and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to
military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to
Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
But Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called
the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to
maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities,
development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones,
hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence
making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind.
All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley
giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation .
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for
the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater
advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their
backyard."
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we
maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and
electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir
Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border
and threaten us militarily."
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended
deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and
will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless
wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet,
small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In
ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush
stroke."
The end of forever wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public
doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
In Central America, Biden
has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments
and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses
fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
naughty.boy , 14 hours ago
deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.
Distant_Star , 14 hours ago
Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger.
They are too "important" to be at risk.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is reportedly set to announce this week that Tony Blinken,
who supported the idea of "Russia collusion," would be his Secretary of State.
President-elect Joe Biden intends to name his longtime adviser Antony Blinken as secretary
of State, according to three people familiar with the matter, setting out to assemble his
cabinet even before Donald Trump concedes defeat.
In addition, Jake Sullivan, formerly one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, is likely to
be named Biden's national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the matter.
An announcement is expected Tuesday, the people said.
Blinken, who served as deputy secretary of state and deputy national security advisor under
President Barack Obama, has also been a New York Times
opinion writer and a "global affairs analyst" for CNN. In that capacity, he supported the
"Russia collusion" hoax.
As Breitbart News reported in 2017, Blinken
told CNN: "The president's ongoing collusion with Russia's plans is really striking,
intentional or not." He said that Russia had sown doubt about American elections and
institutions.
(Subsequently, an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of any
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.)
Blinken also
apologized earlier this year to left-wing anti-Israel radical Linda Sarsour, regarded by
many critics (
even on the left) as an antisemite, after the Biden campaign tried to distance itself from
her views.
He is also married to Evan Ryan, a former aide to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. Ryan
worked for Clinton at a time when Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, acknowledged
accepting a campaign donation from entrepreneur Johnny Chien Chuen Chung.
Chung said that the donation was meant to help Clinton pay for Christmas receptions for the
Democratic National Committee at the White House, in exchange for "VIP treatment for a
delegation of visiting Chinese businessmen," according to the
Los Angeles Times .
Biden is expected to name several potential Cabinet nominees in the coming days.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart
News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7
p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The
Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump's Presidency . His recent
book,RED
NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a
conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship.
Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during
the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter 21 Nov, 2020 13:52 Joe
Biden thinks he can save America and the world from four years of Donald Trump. Instead, Biden
will find himself in a foreign policy trap where his tough guy rhetoric compels him to finish
what Trump started.
If one listens to Joe Biden and his closest national security advisors, all it will take to
undo four years of Trump-era foreign policy is a few dozen strokes of the pen. According to the
plan, the presumptive president-elect will sign off on a series of executive orders which
reverse the course charted by Trump, returning America back to the path of greatness derived
from undisputed global leadership that had been the trademark of the Obama years, when Biden
reigned as vice president and Barack's right-hand man.
Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear agreement and the World Health
Organization are all actions Biden can take as soon as he takes office. Reversing Trump's troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan and halting the redeployment of US forces from Germany are also
high on Biden's 'to do' list. However, simply reversing a decision made over the course of the
past four years does not reset the clock; for example, the world has moved on regarding climate
change, with nations like China taking the lead in promulgating plans for reaching a "carbon
zero" posture by 2060. Biden claims he can do this by 2050, but American domestic political
reality, shaped by an economy fine-tuned by Trump and inherently resistant to the kind of
economic change that would need to occur to make the Biden climate change plan viable, may have
something to say about that timetable.
The Iran deal
The Iran nuclear deal finds Biden trapped by his own hardline rhetoric, setting conditions
that are as unrealistic as they are unobtainable (for instance, requiring Iran to renegotiate
key aspects of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as a pre-condition for
the US rejoining that pact). Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, recognizing the bad
position Biden's mouth has placed its owner in, has wisely noted that Iran can return to its
JCPOA commitments simply by Biden signing an executive order cancelling the Trump sanctions.
This is one executive order Biden likely will not sign, because it requires him to certify the
JCPOA as being good as written, something he has already articulated against.
One of the first decisions Biden will be compelled to make upon assuming the presidency is
how to proceed on the issue of US troops in Afghanistan. If the Trump reductions are completed
as planned by January 15 (a big 'if', given the proclivity of the US military to
lie to Trump about actual troop deployments), Biden will be pressured by the Pentagon to
immediately redeploy up to 5,000 troops in order to create the force structure the Pentagon
believes necessary to ensure stability while Afghanistan transitions to peace. This, of course,
would kill the peace plan the US has in place with the Taliban, setting the stage for even more
'forever war'.
Regime change and more war
Other regional issues jump out – the ongoing effort to oust Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela, and the ongoing Saudi-led war in Yemen, to name two. Biden's anti-Maduro rhetoric is
every bit as strong as Trump's, meaning there is little chance of a policy re-direct on this
front. Likewise, if Trump fulfils threats to name the Houthi rebels in Yemen as a terrorist
organization, it will be difficult for Biden politically to reverse that decision, or else be
doing the bidding of Iran. Yemen will become another example of a 'forever war' living up to
its name.
Awkward in Europe
Another issue Biden will be called upon to deal with is the ongoing American redeployment of
troops out of Germany. Trump has committed to sending thousands of these redeployed troops to
Poland, a move Biden will have difficulty reversing. In the end, Biden will be pressured to not
only halt the withdrawal of US forces from Germany, but also find fresh troops to replace those
headed for Poland. But such a commitment must be measured in relation to the ongoing
controversy over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia with Europe. Trump has put in
place sanctions designed to halt the pipeline from being completed; Biden is likewise opposed
to the pipeline reaching fruition. Getting Germany to commit to taking in US troops while
blatantly interfering with German economic sovereignty is a balancing act Biden may not be up
to carrying out.
Arms control deadlock
Likewise, Biden has indicated that he would be inclined to sign an extension to the
soon-to-expire New START Treaty. Russia has long insisted that future arms control agreements
must consider missile defense issues. The Trump administration has just tested a missile
interceptor integral to the Aegis Ashore anti-missile system deployed in Romania and Poland in
an anti-intercontinental ballistic missile configuration. The likelihood of Russia agreeing to
any new arms control measures without a commitment on the part of a Biden administration to
reduce and/or eliminate European-based missile defense systems is zero. So, too, is are the
odds of a Biden administration doing away with missile defense in Europe. The result is an
expensive arms race at a time when the US can afford it least.
Finally, Biden inherits a policy posture toward both Russia and China which is as hostile a
relationship as has existed since the Cold War. Russia's force posture in Europe is such that
NATO would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to be in a realistic position to take
on the Russian military in any conventional ground war in Europe. Moreover, it is unlikely
Europe will agree to either the formal endorsement of such an objective, or the economic
commitment needed to underwrite it. Complicating matters further is that China and Russia have
reacted to the aggressive policies of the US, which pre-dated the Trump era, by considering the
possibility of a formal alliance against what they term "western hegemony." Such an alliance
would complicate any effort on the part of a Biden administration to back up the
president-elect's pusillanimous rhetoric with actual muscle, since any conflict in Europe would
automatically trigger a Pacific response, and vice versa.
China's dominance
Regardless of anything else, perhaps the biggest challenge facing a Biden administration
will be in dealing with the consequences of Trump's decision to withdraw from the Obama-era
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an abortive free trade agreement designed to keep China out
while promoting American economic leadership. China, together with 14 other Asia-Pacific
nations, recently signed what amounts to the world's largest free trade agreement. The
signatories to this agreement, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP),
include the 10 countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), along
with China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia, and together account for around 30
percent of global GDP. The RCEP cements China's status as the dominant economic power in the
Asia-Pacific regions, and represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the US, whose
precipitous withdrawal from the TPP in 2017 paved the way for China's stunning diplomatic
coup.
The collapse of the TPP, when combined with the economic crisis brought on by the Covid-19
pandemic, made the RCEP attractive to nations who looked to trade with China as the only viable
means of rebuilding their stricken economies. The RCEP helps solidify the regional geopolitical
objectives of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative by opening the economies of the Asia-Pacific
region to Chinese-funded development projects. The diplomatic victory of China in bringing the
RCEP to fruition represents a stunning defeat for the US, which had been seeking regional
support in its ongoing trade war with China. Moreover, given the linkage between economic and
security issues, the fact that major regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand
and Australia have so decisively joined their economies to China's undermines ongoing US
efforts to build a regional coalition designed to contain and eventually roll-back China's
presence in the South China Sea. While President-elect Joe Biden has reached out to Japan and
South Korea in an effort to reassure them of his administration's commitment to their security,
a future Biden administration is ill-positioned to counter the economic influence China has
locked itself into through the RCEP. From an economic perspective, the US 'pivot to Asia' has
been effectively halted, with the Asia-Pacific nations now firmly in China's court.
From Europe, to South America, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and on to the Pacific,
President Joe Biden will be inheriting a world transformed by four years of Trump policies.
While Biden has indicated that he is inclined to reverse many, if not all, of the Trump foreign
policy "disasters" as soon as practical after assuming office, the reality is that he
will find his hands tied by the combined impact of his own aggressive rhetoric, which in many
instances paralleled the policies undertaken by Trump, or the fact that the geopolitical
situation that exists today does not permit a return to the foreign policy of yore.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
An eye-popping array of corporate consultants, war profiteers, and national security hawks
have been appointed by President-elect Joe Biden to agency review teams that will set the
agenda for his administration. A substantial percentage of them worked in the United States
government when Barack Obama was president.
The appointments should
provide a rude awakening to anyone who believed a Biden administration could be pressured to
move in a progressive direction, especially on foreign policy.
If the agency teams are any indication, Biden will be firmly insulated from any pressure to
depart from the neoliberal status quo, which the former vice president has pledged to restore.
Instead, he is likely to be pushed in an opposite direction, towards an interventionist foreign
policy dictated by elite Beltway interests and consumed by Cold War fever.
Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary for the Obama administration, paused for a
moment and said "I don't know" in an interview Sunday when asked if he thinks former VP Joe
Biden would be a good president.
CBS's "Face The Nation" host Margaret Brennan asked Gates if he stood by a statement from
his memoir that Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national
security issue over the past four decades." Recommended
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was rereading your memoir before we sat down to talk and you said in your
memoir, Joe Biden is impossible not to like.
Quote: "He's a man of integrity, incapable of hiding what he really thinks, and one of
those rare people you know you could turn to for help in a personal crisis. Still, I think
he's been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the
past four decades."
Would he be an effective commander-in-chief?
ROBERT GATES: I-- I don't know. I don't know. I-- I think I stand by that statement. He
and I agreed on some key issues in the Obama administration. We disagreed significantly on
Afghanistan and some other issues. I think that the vice president had some issues with the
military. So how he would get along with the senior military, and what that relationship
would be, I just-- I think, it-- it would depend on the personalities at the time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He's a peer of yours. Does that mean you're older?
ROBERT GATES: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think he's right for this moment?
ROBERT GATES: I think I'm pretty busy and pretty active but I think-- I think having a
President who is somebody our age or older, in the case of Senator Sanders, is- I think it's
problematic. I think that you don't have the kind of energy that I think is required to be
President. I think-- I'm not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in
your sixties. So, I mean it's just a personal view. For me, the thought of taking on those
responsibilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting.
American libs are just as fundamentally imperialist as the right, and their obsession with
IdenPol garbage is just a smokescreen to pretend that they aren't.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote about
the banality of evil , and there's never been a more banal bunch than the foreign policy
and security state crew Barak Obama surrounded himself with for eight years beside the possible
exception of
Bush's own Neocons .
Now after three years screaming about
"Russian collusion" it appears the Evil Empire is about to regain its lost ground,
championing new wars and more interventionist expansionism with a much greater role for the US
military in the world.
Let's name names.
Pentagon
For the defense chief post, the Washington Post has portrayed the banal face of Michele
Flournoy as the pick to
'restore stability' to the Pentagon , an entirely false assertion. Recall that Fluornoy
promotes unilateral global US military intervention, and advocated the destruction of Libya in
2011. By the
military-industrial revolving door , Flournoy enabled many Corporate weaponry contracts
amounting to tens of millions. Likewise Fluornoy is on the Booz-Hamilton board, where the swamp
cannot get any deeper. As if this wretched example of an agent-provocateur for war and
destruction were not bad enough, Biden is reportedly considering Lockheed-Martin banal kingpin
Jeh Johnson for the DoD position, too.
Lockheed director Johnson was employed by Rob Reiner and Atlantic editor arch-Neocon
David Frum to run
the Committee to Investigate
Russia which mysteriously blew up as soon as the Mueller Report was released. Jeh Johnson
has continued to warn of "Russian interference" in the US presidential election until now.
Biden's anointing as president-elect has ended that. As Homeland Security head, Johnson
authorized cages for holding immigrant children. He also supported the assassination of General
Suleimani, and has voiced support for US wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
State
From Libya to Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and beyond, the banality of evil is perhaps best
personified by Susan Rice – apparently Biden's premiere pick for Secretary. Rice was an
abject failure at the United Nations, but all seems forgiven, probably at the behest of Biden's
donors. After her failure at the UN, Obama kicked Rice upstairs to be his National Security
Advisor, a position that does not require Senate approval.
An obvious war hawk in the mold of the Democrat's donor class, a Rice appointment could
reinforce the liberal mantra that women can be just as good at interventionism as men, and
ensure full re-establishment of the Neoliberal agenda in Washington. John Kerry has been
flagged as a potential for State (again) too, but at age 77 and subsequent to the failure
of the
JCPOA Kerry is an unlikely pick.
Another potential pick among the banal Daughters of Darkness is Victoria Kagan-Nuland ,
architect of the 2014 debacle in Ukraine (among other things). Outed at State in an
embarrassing act of what she called impressive statecraft and other
embarrassing incidents, Nuland seems an unlikely choice. But Kagan-Nuland is as banal as banal
can be, and Biden may somehow wish to reinforce his solidarity with the JTF and his donor class, on
Israel.
National Security Advisor
Banality is certainly the mark of the beast here, in the form of Tony Blinken. Well in with
Michele Flournoy (above) Blinken typifies
the type of banality the Deep State engages in to promote its evil, with Blinken as successful
as any other Deep State actor. A major hawk on Russia and war hawk in general, Blinken is an
apologist for Israel . Blinken is a war hawk on Afghanistan and Syria too, and Blinken was
directly
involved in CIA operation Timber Sycamore . Oh, the banality.
Another model of banality is Leon CIA Panetta who so far claims that cruising the Monterey
peninsula is more fun that being in Washington. But we know that's false and Panetta would be a
logical pick. Besides being a hawk on everything, and laughing about the fact he has no idea
how many wars Obama's America was fighting – because he lost count – Panetta is
simply another sycophant for evil like Hannah Arendt portrayed in her study of Adolf
Eichmann.
CIA
Banal of the banal is of course Mike Morell. This incredibly vacuous excuse for a human
being has been hate-mongering for years. Beside his
blatant pandering support for another banal and brutal warmonger – Hillary Clinton
– Mike Morell is one Neoliberal who still maintains that Saddam Hussein actively
aided and abetted al Qaeda with regard to the 911 attacks. But Morell simply and ultimately
represents the banality of evil, just as Arendt depicted Adolf Eichmann, but in Morell's case
succinctly summarized here by
Ray McGovern .
United Nations
Outing the banality of the banal would be incomplete without mentioning Jen Psaki . Although a potential pick for
White House Communications Director, why not promote an accomplished liar to a venue where
accomplished lying really matters?
Conclusion
There is no indication that the United States as an entrenched warfare state will ever
change its course until forced to. Mr Trump was incapable of enforcing that change. Sidelined
by
Russiagate psychosis , as a Beltway Neophyte and his own worst enemy at times, that sank
Trump's agenda. The actions of Mr Trump now – to end the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Yemen -- should have been undertaken in earnest and without compromise years ago. Point
being that Mr Trump's new appointments to the Pentagon – and let's hope CIA – will
hopefully blunt the efficacy of Biden's bad actors going forward.
Regardless, characters the same or similar to the ones listed above will definitely infest
Washington's infernal Beltway cesspool once again via Joe
Biden make no mistake. And they will be meaner and nastier than ever before!
Guaranteed.
Creative_Destruct , 2 hours ago
And the same old swamp slime (Morell, et al) waits eagerly to burst back in through the
doors of power. New boss, same as the old(er) boss(es). Uuuuuuggh.
EndofTimes , 5 hours ago
Obama's 3rd Term. Swamp will grow like a tumor. These demons are shaking with excitement
to get into office and fulfill the desires of the founders of the UN. Kill off America and
establish a global government
truth or go home , 4 hours ago
Biden is 100% deep state puppet. He will say and do whatever they tell him to.
Dominion = Scytl = CIA = Deep State = Swamp
CIA threw the election. Trump team caught them.
Trump has already cut the CIA off at the knees. Getting ready to fill up Guantanamo
again...
Giant war going on inside the gov right now - Biden enjoying the limelight before he is
retired to his rocking chair.
CatInTheHat , 5 hours ago
NICE JOB Biden voters!!
You MORONS electing Obama 2.0 on STEROIDS is WHY we got a Trump in the first place
To Hell In A Handbasket , 4 hours ago
The USSA electorate are idiots, and divided idiots at that. You got Trump because the
electorate was desperate, and you got Biden because the other half was desperate. That adds
up to a desperate population. Your enemy is not voters from the other side of the Uniparty.
Please get off the GOP vs DEMOCRAT horse$h1t.
Bay of Pigs , 3 hours ago
Quite an impressive list of Neoliberal globalist ****bags.
SabOObas , 3 hours ago
The establishment demonizes Trump for 4 years.
The sheeple voted to put the guy with 40 years of corruption under his belt in office,
because the establishment said its good for you.
Jgault , 2 hours ago
It is always the small man, the inept man, the insecure man who has a need to demonstrate
to the world his bravado with reckless and senseless gestures.
Biden and his brothel of advisors he surrounds himself with have perhaps the worst track
record of international policy since Jimmy Carter, absolute proven failures and disasters in
Ukraine, Syria, Lybia, and Egypt. This is the group that laid the intellectual groundwork for
what would become the largest refugee crisis and humanitarian disaster in nearly 50
years.
Laughably, now the MSM is doing a complete 180 in their editorial view of troops in
Afghanistan and Syria...what a shock!
Lacking foresight, insecure, lacking ethical standards and being given the ability to
order troops, how could this possibly go wrong?
Trump was the first President in 30 years not to provoke any new millitary interventions,
yet the world criticized him for his style. Let's see how long it takes for the world to
start looking back to a more stable past.
ReadyForHillary , 3 hours ago
The Democrat party is the WAR party.
RumbleGuts , 4 hours ago
Another article that doesn't realize red and blue are the same team. Make no mistake, big
baby bonespurs is in deep with the deep state. Think epstein. ;-)
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Mike Morell, the most evil man to ever draw a breath, as CIA Director?
A Biden Presidency can never be allowed to happen.
flawse , 2 hours ago
There will not be a Biden presidency. There is obviously some other plan.
DebbieDowner , 3 hours ago
This author's last paragraph fails to acknowledge that the CIA and FBI has not obeyed
Trump's (or any President's) orders in quite some time. Now is the time for someone to
finally make a change and it took such a massive plan to expose them all to drain the
swamp.
Was Trump an isolationist? Not really, though it's easy to see how he got this reputation,
at first glance of his foreign policy.
He had an aggressive posture
against Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, with his illegal sanctions policy against these countries.
He demonstrated total fealty to the Israeli project to
annihilate Palestine. His "trade war" against China is sold as a way to rebuild the U.S.
economy, but it is also about maintaining U.S. power; for what other purpose could instruments
such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and América Crece be used when they have
been
designed to advantage U.S. companies around the world?
Trump certainly attacked the Western military alliance system, trying to force NATO members
to spend more on their military. But at the same time, Trump developed other military
alliances: one of these, first developed by George W. Bush in 2007, is the Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue, or Quad, which draws Australia, India, and Japan into a military alliance
against China. At the same time, Trump drove an agenda in Latin America -- through the
Lima Group (established in 2017) -- to create an alliance against Venezuela.
Why Biden Is Not a Multilateralist
The liberal media portrays Biden as a multilateralist -- but the evidence for this
speculation on the president-elect's foreign policy is problematic, to say the least.
Biden wants to rebuild the Western military alliance system that Trump has eroded. An
indication of Biden's enthusiasm was an early phone
call to French President Emmanuel Macron, to suggest that the United States is back as a
player in Europe. This is not an advance toward a multilateral world order, but rather a return
to the old alliance system where the United States (with its Canadian and European allies)
attempts to dominate the world system by the use of its military, diplomatic, and economic
power.
Further evidence offered for Biden's multilateralism is his commitment to return the United
States to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or the Iran deal) and the 2016 Paris
Agreement.
Why does Biden wish to return the United States to its commitments toward Iran? Obama
entered this deal because the Europeans were desperate for a source of energy after the United
States and France destroyed access to Libyan oil in NATO's 2011 war and hurt access to
Russian natural gas because of the Ukraine conflict in
2014. Obama agreed to the Iran deal because the Europeans were desperate, not to line up with
the demands of international law; Biden will give the Europeans this gift, welcomed by the
Iranian people, in order to cement the Western alliance system. Meanwhile, Biden continues to
talk
about suffocating the Iranian people.
On climate, during the negotiations that resulted in the Paris deal during Obama's
presidency, the United States
watered down the text of the agreement, preventing a truly multilateral deal that would
have accepted Western responsibility for a century of fossil fuel use. Again, there is no major
commitment to save the planet in Biden's pledge to return to the Paris Agreement; the main
agenda is to strengthen and subordinate the European countries to the U.S.-led alliance
system.
Primacy Remains the U.S. Goal
The U.S. State Department's Policy Planning Staff wrote in the early years of the
Cold War, "To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power
must be the object of U.S. policy." This desire for primacy remains the explicit U.S. policy.
Trump, in his four years as president, did not depart from this policy. Nor has Biden in his
five decades in public office. They might differ in their tone or in their strategy, but not in
the pursuit of this goal. Biden's adviser Charles Kupchan has written a new book called
Isolationism , which offers a clichéd view of U.S. foreign policy, and then
concludes, "[T]he United States must reclaim its exceptionalist mantle"; this means that the
United States must continue to seek primacy.
This goal of primacy has made it difficult for the U.S. elites to come to terms with the
fact of the slow attrition of U.S. power since the illegal war on Iraq (2003) and the credit
crisis (2007). Failure to acknowledge that the world will no longer tolerate one single
superpower has led the United States to impose a warlike situation against China. This
begins with Obama's "pivot" to Asia in 2015, and intensifies with Trump's "trade war."
Cold War on China Looms
Since 2015, not one U.S. Silicon Valley CEO has made a robust statement for comity between
the United States and China. Apple's Tim Cook held a
meeting with Trump in August 2019 merely to allow Apple to better compete with Samsung,
which was not hit by the U.S. tariffs. There was no broad statement about Trump's "trade war,"
with which Cook seemed quite pleased.
Silicon Valley firms know that on certain technological developments -- such as 5G,
robotics, GPS, and soon microchips -- Chinese firms have clearly produced next-generation
technologies, and in many cases have leapfrogged over their U.S. counterparts. Silicon Valley
companies are quite happy for the U.S. government to put the entire weight of the state against
Chinese firms. This includes using the security apparatus to accuse Huawei of being involved in
Chinese government espionage. It is a curiosity that none of the Silicon Valley firms worry
about privacy per se, because -- according to the Edward Snowden revelations -- the
National Security Agency uses the PRISM program to collect data freely from Silicon Valley
internet firms; but the U.S. uses the privacy and espionage arguments to try to hurt Chinese
tech firms and protect the intellectual property and market advantages of Silicon Valley. Since
this is the real cause of the trade war, there is every likelihood -- and Biden has said so --
that a Biden administration would continue to prosecute the trade war.
In 2013, the Chinese government set up the One Belt, One Road (now Belt and Road Initiative,
or BRI) to extend its commercial links across the world. The Obama administration responded in
2015 with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a platform to break China's commercial ties
along the Pacific Rim. Trump jettisoned the TPP and went for a more direct trade war. To
counter the trillions of dollars that China will mobilize for the BRI, the United States used
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (set up in 2004) and América Crece (2019) to funnel
billions of dollars to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. All of this is a desperate
attempt to undermine China and maintain U.S. primacy.
The United States is not yet prepared to acknowledge the changed world situation. This will
take time. Short of that, it is important for people to speak up against an escalation of hostilities.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
Vijay Prashad's most recent book is No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (New
Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2015).
The US military establishment will breathe a sigh of relief at Joe Biden's victory in the
presidential election. Nearly 800 former high-ranking military and security
officials penned an open letter in support of the Democratic candidate during the campaign.
A who's who of former generals, ambassadors, admirals and senior national security advisers --
from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to four-star admiral and Bush-era Deputy
Homeland Security Advisor Steve Abbot -- backed Biden as the best bet to revive US power. A
month earlier, 70 national security officials who served in Republican administrations threw
their weight behind Biden (the list soon grew to 130), arguing that, on foreign policy, Trump
"has
failed our country" .
Why was Biden the war criminals' candidate of choice? The foreign policy chaos and
controversy of the Trump years were a symptom of a global superpower in relative decline, with
no real strategy out of the quagmire.
The US empire is at a turning point. It is the world's undisputed superpower; its reach is
global, both militarily and economically . The US has been the world's largest economy since
1871, and its military has close to 800 installations in 80 countries around the world. But
today, it is facing a growing economic rival in China, and several lesser powers challenging
its ability to call the shots in every corner of the globe, most notably Iran and Russia.
The War on Terror, launched by the administration of George W. Bush , resulted in the
invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It killed more than a million people and
cost upwards of US$2.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For the people
of the Middle East, it was a massacre. For US empire, it was a disaster. The destabilisation of
Iraq led to the expansion of Iranian influence across the region, rather than the regime change
in Tehran the Pentagon dreamed of. The intervention in Iraq was meant to secure US dominance.
It instead exposed the weaknesses and limits of US power right at the moment when China's
dramatic economic expansion was beginning.
Tensions between the US and China have been increasing for years. Since its accession to the
World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built its economic power, its diplomatic power and
its military power, while the US became bogged down in endless wars and suffered economic
crisis and depression with the 2008 financial crisis.
Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia", with its plan to increase US naval forces in the
Asia-Pacific, was a signal that the US ruling class wanted to contain and encircle China.
Obama's then classified Air-Sea Battle doctrine was an effort to create an operational plan for
a possible military confrontation. Leaked cables made public by WikiLeaks reveal that Australia
was in lockstep with US imperial strategy. In conversation with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd confirmed Australia's willingness to "deploy force
if everything goes wrong". But Obama's strategy was too little too late for containment. China
became more aggressive in pressing claims in the South China Sea while beginning to close the
enormous gap in military capabilities with the United States, engaging in the most rapid
peacetime arms build-up in history.
Under Trump, these tensions further increased. Trump's confrontational rhetoric and trade
war were a sharp break from the decades-long US strategy of integrating China into the
international liberal order. Since the Republican administration of Richard Nixon -- who in
1972 became the first US president to visit Beijing -- the US ruling class thought it could
ensure global supremacy by incorporating China into the world system. For a while, it appeared
to work. China became the world's sweatshop and a key site of investment for US companies such
as Apple and General Motors. But the strategy could be mutually enriching for only so long.
Today, China is leveraging its meteoric growth to challenge the United States' leadership in
the Asia-Pacific.
Obama's signature containment strategy was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP
would have been the largest free trade deal in history, lowering tariffs and other non-tariff
barriers to trade between eleven Pacific countries and the US. Its goal was to lock out China
and further integrate Pacific countries with the US economy. Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter said that the TPP was "as important as another aircraft carrier".
But just a few years later, Donald Trump tore up the TPP. The move was at odds with the
consensus among the US economic and military elite, but the new president had his own ideas
about how to contain China. Trump railed against the US trade deficit, accused Beijing of
currency manipulation and, as Obama did, of stealing technology from US companies. In the 2019
State of the Union address he said, "We are now making it clear to China that after years of
targeting our industries and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and
wealth has come to an end".
By August this year, Trump had slapped tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese goods, with a
targeted campaign against tech giant Huawei, which had been tipped to overtake Apple in global
phone sales. While Republican and Democratic politicians have backed a hardline approach to
China, Trump's erratic protectionist approach to trade has alienated large sections of the
capitalist class otherwise happy with domestic tax cuts and deregulation. A Bloomberg Economics
report, released before the pandemic gripped the country, estimated that the escalating tariffs
on China would cost the US economy $316 billion by the end of this year.
More worryingly for the US establishment, Trump adopted a dismissive attitude towards US
allies, particularly the European Union. Trump prided himself on his ability to cut deals with
other nations that favoured the US. He signalled that the multilateral approach to trade was
over when he tore up the TPP, and followed that by applying tariffs on German cars, Canadian
steel and French luxury goods. For much of the US elite, these moves have simply created a void
that Beijing is attempting to fill with its own free trade deals and the $1 trillion Belt and
Road initiative, which aims to incorporate more than 138 countries into trade routes and
production chains centred on China.
The International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the UN and other
international institutions project US dominance by drawing allied nations behind US leadership.
Trump's presidency delegitimised or sidelined those institutions as he focused on an "America
first" posture. The military establishment believes that this has threatened, rather than
strengthened, US power -- although there is now an acknowledgement that those institutions
failed to keep China in check, something a Biden presidency will also grapple with.
The war criminals hope that Biden will restore political legitimacy to the office by
rehabilitating the liberal ideology that manufactures consent for American imperialism,
pitching US aggression as necessary to "make the world safe for democracy" and defending the
"rules-based liberal world order". Above all, the US establishment hopes that Biden will
restore relationships with US allies and construct a coalition of nations to confront China,
after a disastrous four years that called into question US global leadership. As the National
Security Leaders for Biden open letter bemoaned: "Our allies no longer trust or respect us, and
our enemies no longer fear us".
Biden has a proven record as a hawkish proponent of US empire. For decades, he served on the
Senate foreign relations committee. He was an early proponent of the expansion of NATO to
project US influence into the former eastern bloc after the fall of the USSR. He backed US
intervention in the Balkan war, supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, voted for the
war on Iraq in 2003 and, as vice president, backed the US intervention in Libya.
There is consensus within the US ruling class over the need to "get tough" with China. The
military establishment expects Biden to turn the screws. On the campaign trail, he accused
Trump of "getting played" by Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he called a "thug". This is
consistent with Democratic Party practice in the Congress, which is to criticise Trump for not
being tough enough. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, for example, accused Trump of
"selling out" by cutting a trade deal with China. Schumer also spearheaded legislation to
implement bans on Huawei when Trump appeared to back down.
Since his first days in Congress, Biden has also made a name for himself as a staunch
supporter of the apartheid state of Israel. According to Israeli publication Haaretz ,
Biden is said to have a "real friendship" with Israel's far-right president, Benjamin
Netanyahu. He was vice president when the US signed a $38 billion military aid deal with
Netanyahu, which the State Department called the "single largest pledge of bilateral military
assistance in US history". So while Trump pushed pro-Israeli rhetoric far to the right,
abandoning any pretence of support for Palestinian statehood, Biden put his money where his
mouth is when it came to propping up Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
On Afghanistan, Biden may prove to be to the right of Trump. As vice president, he supported
an enduring US military presence in the country. Trump, by contrast, shocked the US military
when he announced on Twitter that he wants all troops out by Christmas. In contrast, Biden in
an interview with Stars and Stripes , a military newspaper, said he would maintain a
troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Anti-imperialists need to judge Biden by his blood-soaked record in Congress and by the
company he keeps. The bulk of the US military establishment has backed Biden precisely because
they think his multilateral approach will restore credibility to US interventions. It's for
this reason that Forbes magazine senior contributor Loren Thompson predicted last month:
"A Biden presidency would be more likely to use US military forces overseas than President
Trump has been".
Global capitalism is facing a profound crisis that is reshaping international relations and
putting pressure on the fault lines of existing conflicts. Open imperialist rivalry will be a
feature of the coming period, along with wars over regional disputes. There is no length to
which the US ruling class won't go to safeguard its position as global superpower. And Joe
Biden is the commander-in-chief. He is now the most dangerous man in the world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
While probably "less aggressively nasty" than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is still a
"conventional politician," but it won't be easy for him to dismiss his party's progressive
wing, Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground.
Brother to US Senator Bernie Sanders and the Green Party Spokesperson on Health and Social
Care (England & Wales), Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi that
while Biden was not his "choice" for president, he prefers him over the current
incumbent, President Donald Trump.
... ... ...
As a fixture of the establishment, Biden will follow the interests of corporate money and
the military-industrial complex rather than anybody else's, Sanders noted.
"Biden is a conventional politician, he is beholden to big money, he is beholden to
defense industries,
joe_go 13 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 07:03 AM
If no one in America went to vote the country would still look the way it looks today. The
big money and military industry would run the country the way it runs it when people vote and
think it matters.
Spirgily_Klump 20 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 12:46 AM
Do you know after Biden was out of the VP office the Chinese communist party had donated $70
million to one of his foundations at the University of Pennsylvania from which Joe drew a
salary of over $900,000 per year? With his benefiting from the hundreds of millions his
family took in from foreign powers and persons how can he gain the security clearance
necessary for the presidency? The president needs the highest clearance. Even an applicant to
the CIA get polygraphed.
shadow1369 Spirgily_Klump 9 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 11:00 AM
Just one of many skeletons jangling in Bidet's closet, they will be used by his controllers
to keep him on track.
Iwanasay 19 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 01:22 AM
It doesn't matter who is in power, America's destiny has been chosen by other behind the
scene faces
RedDragon 15 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 05:27 AM
All USA presidents are beholden to big money entities, inclusive incoming Biden presidency.
Trump is beholden to the Jewish money powers etc..
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz It
looks like a safe bet that Joe Biden will be sworn in on January 20th after successfully
campaigning on returning the murderous and oppressive Orwellian US empire back to its pre-Trump
"normal".
The problem with this, apart from the obvious fact that it was an embarrassingly close
victory only made possible by the Covid outbreak, is that returning to the pre-Trump "normal"
is returning to the exact positions which created Trump. It's like using a time machine to
prevent a train wreck, but only going back to one millisecond before the train wreck
occurred.
It is clear that Trump's election was the
result of the easily exploited dissatisfaction caused by years of neoliberal austerity at
home and neoconservative bloodshed abroad which Obama forcefully expanded and facilitated
throughout two terms as president. Trump voters famously
defended opting for the reality TV star over the anointed establishment favorite Hillary
Clinton as a middle finger to the Beltway orthodoxy which did nothing but enrich the "swamp"
Trump
pretended to oppose on the campaign trail while ordinary Americans suffered.
And from all appearances it looks like Biden is going to be worse.
Unlike Obama, Biden did not campaign on hope and change, he campaigned on opposing
the socialist inclinations of Sanders progressives and an
aggressive foreign policy of planetary domination
. He assured rich donors that nothing will fundamentally
change under his presidency and his transition team is full of corporate sociopaths ,
war pigs and
propagandists . Biden has been a corporatist
warmongering authoritarian throughout his entire career, and as his
mental capacity continues to deteriorate he will function as nothing more than an empty
vessel for his establishment handlers to advance their most pernicious agendas through. The
empire has not gotten less desperate since Obama was in office, it has gotten more
desperate .
If I prove right about this, the Biden administration will generate backlash just
like that which arose in response to the Obama administration, and that backlash will be
more severe than its previous iteration. This is absolutely guaranteed. You can only oppress,
neglect and enrage a population so much before the discontent begins to grow.
There is absolutely nothing American leftists can do to prevent this backlash from coming.
They will have absolutely no say in this administration's policies or behavior; BidenCorp has
no reason to listen to them, has made no pretense of having any interest in listening to them,
and is even
freezing Sanders and Warren out of cabinet roles already.
All US leftists will have any control over is whether this backlash will break to the left,
or if it will break to the far right.
Contrary to what many mainstream liberals seem to have been imagining, American racism and
far right extremism did not begin with Trump, and will not end with Trump. The white
supremacists, xenophobes, ethnonationalists, QAnon cultists and right wing militias are not
going anywhere after Biden takes office, and the backlash against his administration and its
worst impulses will be inflamed and co-opted by mainstream Republican narrative managers. This
will set the stage for something a lot uglier than Trump down the road if it's successful.
What the left can do is get ahead of the game. Take control of the anti-Biden,
anti-establishment pushback by leading the charge–sooner, more aggressively, and more
compellingly than the far right does. Use the awfulness of the Biden administration to ignite a
true leftward zeitgeist in mainstream America that is so strong it eclipses the inevitable
rightist backlash in energy and appeal.
We already know the American left has the ability to pull this off. The grassroots, populist
support for Bernie Sanders during his two primary campaigns has been one of the most energized
and inspired political forces I've ever witnessed, consistently forcing aggressive
responses from the establishment narrative managers to contradict the damage it did to
their preferred candidates.
The problem with Bernie Twitter and the rest of his powerful support base is that it only
exists for a few months at a time, fizzling out when it becomes clear that their candidate has
had the door shut to him and then reluctantly diverted into support for the establishment
candidate under the guidance of Sanders himself.
But imagine if that did not happen. Imagine if the US left realized how extremely urgent it
is to control the unavoidable backlash against the Biden/Harris administration so that the
right does not and built momentum in a healthy direction instead, not for a few months but for
years on end. Seizing every disgusting, ridiculous and hilarious thing this government does and
attacking it, lampooning it, mocking it, creating funny and interesting content absolutely
wrecking it, and taking control of the dominant
narrative.
An actual, energized counterculture could be created which could reshape US culture as a
whole. The Breitbart crowd
recognizes that politics is downstream from culture while the left has generally failed to
make this connection, which is arguably why their guy is in the White House right now and the
left's guy isn't. A Biden administration will provide ample fodder for attacks against status
quo politics, and this can be used to galvanize America's hidden progressive impulses into a
movement vastly greater than any one candidate.
But the ball needs to start rolling on this now . Not after the Georgia runoffs, not
after Biden takes office, not after the midterms: now . The longer US leftists wait to start
pushing this thing forward, the less of a head start you'll have on the rightists while they're
fixated on Trump's recounts and legal challenges. You'll only be able to lead the backlash if
you get in early and hit the ground running as fast as you can.
If we know anything for certain, it's that US power structures find it infinitely preferable
to deal with a right-populist movement that can be appeased by some obnoxious tweets and an
8chan psyop than with real leftist populism. They're more than happy to throw the far right a
tax cut and some immigration restrictions, but real revolution can only come from the left.
There is an opportunity to create an opening for that to occur, but it needs to happen before
this thing can be steered rightward.
I know I'm regarded as a bit of a crackpot in some leftist circles; I'm the girl a lot of
lefties read in private but don't share in public. But this is a really important idea that
needs to get out there, and I'm hoping it reaches the eyes of some leftist thought leaders who
can advance it in their own words in their own way. This is very urgent and the more people
understand this the better shot we'll all have at creating a healthy world for everyone. Please
get thinking about this, everyone.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
SoTexGuy 13 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 08:53 AM
CJ is smart and articulate.. yet about her views on Bernie Sanders? I have to disagree wit
her. It's quite clear that his main role in both of his campaigns was to drain off the energy
and money from real Progressives and then exit stage right (literally). Embracing the people
and policies he publicly opposed in the Primaries. His candidacy has been disastrous for the
Left of the Democratic Party especially placing himself in between any real Progressive
Democrat and the Nomination.
elmagnosr1000 13 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 08:52 AM
As Byron said, "I want a hero." As in we need one. The American left is chimerical at this
moment. I had all but forgotten the "lumpenproletariat" until I ventured to Twitter. Lack of
intelligence or lack of will or lack of leaders, take your choice. There is right now no
American left worth mentioning.
perikleous 13 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 08:53 AM
This crazily enough is the ONLY good thing to come from BIDEN taking office, for US
population! This simple transition, that many left wingers "short attention spanned" forgot
about the pre Trump leaders! Trump may be a bad option, but the others are far worse! This
transition will complete the connection that most overlook. The far left and far right have a
very similar disgust, they just have differing ways of correcting it. The Right wants their
country/jobs/industry to return and decouple from the global reliance, basically knocking the
income inequality back to reality so the elite do not take everything and leave us crumbs!
The far left thinks this issue is because Trump is discriminatory and his objectives do not
releive the pressure from garbage jobs and zero forward progress... When you view both sides
their goals are similar, they despise the elite who stole their country and at some point
these groups that have more in common with each other (work hard,raise family, put roof
overhead, feed family) than they do with the elite who do not have these "little people"
issues/concerns, we do not live with them and our only sightings are newsworthy because they
are living in a different country within our country! These groups will unite over a common
enemy and the transition to Biden will expose it!
Jeremy Horne 8 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 01:50 PM
While the article expresses excellent sentiment, it still is a straw-person argument, as it
takes little effort to expose the shallowness of US politics. Missing is a focus on social
philosophy, more explicitly, ethos - core values. 1) "Socialism" is defined by advocating the
social ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of goods and
services. Warren, Sanders, Ocasio - Cortez, and the rest have not formally come
out in favor of this, hence not socialists. "Left" to the most extreme in the US mainstream
political discourse has been only social democracy, not adequate to stem income
stratification and predation, as Europe plainly demonstrates. 2) Any successful opposition to
the prevailing regime of the Big Business Party (Wall Street, banksters, MIC, etc.)
necessarily must promote a complete programme of socialism with no compromises. Hence, there
is no substantial anti-establishment opposition as long as they accept capitalism as the
predominant system. 3) Any successful and meaningful opposition must address alienation, the
major non-economic reason for social unrest. People must feel a part of a movement with a
higher reason that material acquisition. That is, a higher ethos (as in the search for truth)
is required. 4) A successful and meaningful opposition must have a real social philosophy,
not the Enlightenment-inspired hedonism of liberal democracy used by demagogues of the Big
Business Party. See: The National Reformation Party.
JOHNCHUCKMAN 9 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 12:27 PM
Well, yes, but Americans have no say in any administration's policies. Vote for Bush or
Clinton or Obama or Trump or anyone else from either of the two official state parties, and
you get the Pentagon, the CIA, and the plutocracy they support with its empire. You get wars
and coups and intrusion into the affairs of others no matter whom you cast your ballot for.
Presidential elections cause a big stir in America every time, but it is "sound and fury
signifying nothing." You could almost view them as big sporting events, like the World Series
or the Super Bowl. They offer entertainment and maintain a sense that change is possible and
that there is some kind of democracy in America.
EarthBotV2 13 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 08:33 AM
The "Left"? What is that? -- a Democrat Party front group. What does this "Left" stand for?
-- absolutely nothing. What does it do? -- grovel. Why should we care? -- We don't. The
"backlash" is here already: 71 million disenfranchised censored Americans who reject the
Biden coup, see "American Democracy" as a grotesque sham, and believe that the country is now
under occupation by an evil criminal regime. How much more backlash do we need?!
cannon_ball80 5 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 04:07 PM
Grassroots leftists have a snowball's chance in hell against the Democrats who are experts at
rigging their own internal elections as well as national elections. And now with Biden in,
they'll rig the electoral system so they remain in power permanently. Plus with Soros funded
Anitfa and BLM parading as grassroots leftists, the left will never appeal to the wider
population. Dream on Caitlin!
1TangoBravo 6 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 03:41 PM
Yes, the joys of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Haven't we learned anything from
history? Last time there was such a joyful uprising of the lefty lefts was February 1917
Russia. As I recall, it didn't bode so well for the Romanovs. Now, Nicholas II probably had
it coming so I won't shed any tears. But his wife and five children and their servants being
bayoneted to death??? Now, that there, there is the sure sign of superiority of the leftist
ideology. Mr Lenin's Bolsheviks continued with a program of mass cleaning of the country to
reduce it's whiteness. This project had started in farms and factories and was eventually
extended to churches. Before they were done, tens of millions of White , Christian men, women
and children who themselves had suffered under the Romanovs rule were put to death. Please
pardon me if I don't sign up.
T. Agee Kaye 4 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 05:00 PM
It is clear that Biden will be the worst president in American history, and intentionally
so. Crowned with a halo of MSM propaganda that will one day be his wreath. He is a puppet
elected by puppets controlled by the MSM and Silicon Valley oligarchs. A few people actually
voted for him.
Cornwhole 9 hours ago 17 Nov, 2020 12:31 PM
Hope the neolibs are happy with their new found war mongering senile saviour who can barely
bathe without falling in a tub..
Beware savvy, sophisticate liberals bearing gifts of evasive and ethically empty prose.
Having, for my sins, spent a few weeks reading just about everything on offer from what
unrepentant neocon zealot – and born-again Washington Post columnist – Max
Boot
dubbed Joe Biden's foreign policy "A-Team," I can vouch for the new transition team's
vapidity and verisimilitude. Put another way, Boot's favored Biden Posse – the Iran
nuke channeling , P4
(Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Jake Sullivan, and Nicholas Burns) +1 (Michèle Flournoy)
– have a rare gift for typing tons but saying little.
Worse still, what they do let slip drips with subtext of status quo-hawkishness
– Biden's shadow team of five ground hogs spotting their shadows and predicting four
more years of warfare winter. Moreover, these aren't just any Washington lowland creatures
– they're being groomed
, respectively, for national security adviser, director of national intelligence, a
senior
diplomatic role,
possible secretary of state, and probable secretary of defense.
Only you're not supposed to look under the lid of Biden's national security transition
team, because, well uh, Trump was worse, and there's, like, lots of ladies in the lineup. No
really, "serious" people are saying that . With straight faces. And clear consciences.
With no consequences. What a world!
This column's immediate genesis, though, was Glenn Greenwald 's vicious and vital
responsive -evisceration of
MSNBC contributor – and self-described "thriver on chaos"
– Mieke Eoyang's recent nonsense Newspeak tweet . Here's her attempt
to silence through shaming – and signaling by buzzword:
If the Chinese decide to really mess with the Biden administration, I'd imagine they would
do something like build a road or even a pipeline in Afghanistan, even though it is
completely unnecessary, simply to force the US to stay longer. Doesn't seem like their style,
though.
In regards to Russia, same as most of the last 100 years, really. If anything big happens
at all, it would be Putin retiring. In that case, CNN will have wild fantasies about Boris
Yeltsin 2.0, while in reality Russian oligarchs may have some kind of trial moment to figure
out whether his successor can continue to enforce a balance or not, which is a big question.
Team Biden brings nothing to the table in that situation other than talking sh#t and creating
confusion. The EU on the other hand could, but it's looking less and less likely. Especially
as they will likely be immersed in a post covid political crisis and renewed challenge from
right wing parties.
Last but not least, look for Biden to be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize before lunch on
his first day in.
here will be much pressure from the liberal hawks to finish the war they had launched
against Syria by again intensifying it. Trump had ended the CIA's Jihadi supply program.
The Biden team may well reintroduce such a scheme.
Susan Rice has criticized Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban. Under a Biden
administration U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are therefore likely to again increase.
One possible change may come in the U.S. support for the Saudi war on Yemen. The
Democrats dislike Mohammad bin Salman and may try to use the Yemen issue to push him out of
his Crown Prince position.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
After four years of Russiagate nonsense, which Susan Rice had helped to launch, it is
impossible to again 'reset' the relations with Russia. Biden could immediately agree to
renew the New START treaty which limits strategic nuclear weapons but it is more likely
that he will want to add, like with Iran's nuclear deal, certain 'amendments' which will be
hard to negotiate. Under Biden the Ukraine may be pushed into another war against its
eastern citizens. Belarus will remain on the 'regime change' target list.
China would heave a big sigh of relief if Biden picks Rice as his secretary of state.
Beijing knows her well, as she had a hands-on role in remoulding the relationship from
engagement to selective competition, which could well be the post-Trump China policies.
For the Indian audience, which is obsessive about Biden's China policy, I would
recommend the following YouTube on Rice's oral history where she narrates her experience
as NSA on how the US and China could effectively coordinate despite their strategic
rivalry and how China actually helped America battle Ebola.
Interestingly, the recording was made in April this year amidst the "Wuhan virus"
pandemic in the US and Trump's trade and tech war with China. Simply put, Rice
highlighted a productive relationship with Beijing while probably sharing the more
Sino-skeptic sentiment of many of America's foreign policy experts and lawmakers.
All together the Biden/Harris regime will be a continuation of the Obama regime. It's
foreign policies will have awful consequences for a lot of people on this planet.
Domestically Biden/Harris will revive all the bad feelings that led to the election of
Donald Trump. The demographics of the election
show no sign of a permanent majority for Democrats.
It is therefore highly probable that Trump, or a more competent and thereby more
dangerous populist republican, will again win in
2024 .
Obama-Biden 3.0 as Pepe Escobar put it with an added twist
I do not agree with the assumption that the new administration (either Biden or Trump)
will start more wars, as you call them. I posit that Trump would have had his war if it
were possible but we are in a MAD phase of a civilization war and Biden will be just as
neutered as Trump.
We are not going back to Obama 3.0. That ship sank when Russia stymied Obama empire in
Syria. We are in a brave new world that is unfolding before our eyes....the future is all
around us but just not evenly distributed.
The Atlantic council this morning ("The way forward for transatlantic sanctions") is
already discussing new sanctions the Biden Administration will bring in against Russia over
the failed revolution in Belarus and the Navalny fraud. I'm amazed at how
self-congratulating these fools are, they truly are blind both to the problems the US is
facing and how the US is creating new international crisis that will destroy the
nation.
I can not understand why you insist here that Trump ended jihadist´s support in
Syria, when it was these past days that we knew by US envoy there, Jeffries, that the
troops not only were not decreased, by augmented.
Anyway, I guess we can conclude that if not directly, jihadists support continues
through Turkey, as we have witnessed in the past conflict in the Caucasus.
An article in Foreign Policy from a Bush era neo-con tells you what to expect:
Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of
the West, Russia's neighbors, and his own people. Biden seems to understand that, not least
because he has been the target of Russian interference in the 2020 election, including a
disinformation campaign tied to Russia that was designed to smear him and his son Hunter.
Earlier this year, Biden wrote, "To counter Russian aggression, we must keep [NATO's]
military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to take on nontraditional
threats, such as weaponized corruption, disinformation, and cybertheft." He continued: "We
must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with
Russian civil society, which has bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir
Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system." In an interview with CBS News' 60 Minutes
before the election, Biden said he considered Russia "the biggest threat to America right
now in terms of breaking up our security and our alliances."
These instincts are sound, and Biden likely will appoint officials who think the same
way he does when it comes to Putin's Russia.
The more articles and postings that I see that bemoan the Deep State restoration (horror!)
and return of business-as-usual (horror!), the more I think that we are being set up for an
eventual Trump win.
Recent history tells us that Republican Presidents do BIG WARS (invoking Republican's
claim to patriotism and a strong military) and Democratic Presidents do small, covert
wars.
Why else would Trump fight an EMPIRE-FIRST establishment that he largely agrees with (as
demonstrated by his actions while President)?
Mr Wabbit - as I've written before (here and elsewhere): there is NO really existing
difference between the which colored face(s) hang out in the WH (or in Congress) because they
all belong to the same political stratum and, essentially, hold exactly the same positions,
worldviews, attitudes, perspectives. All (aside from a tiny handful on occasion) support the
MICIMATT, are intrinsically part and parcel of it. All get to fatten their bank accounts, get
to revolve twixt this post and that in the MIC/TT/MA. At base most if not all (Blue/Red, it
matters not at all) work for/along with/are part of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist
plutocratic ruling elite.
Thus the warmaking will NOT stop without serious and continuous effort on the part of a
large part of this country's population - and that isn't likely to happen: lots of folks earn
their nice livelihoods in the MICIMATT industry; and most - overwhelmingly most - of the US
population do not give a fuck what this country does to any other around the world, so long
as a) doesn't affect them; b) their pension plans benefit; c) they can go back to sleep. How
many even know where Syria, Libya, Iran, Ukraine ARE????
And they do not care - except when there is the occasional blowback - which is viewed as
(what else?) terrorism, not simply retaliation. The real terrorism being projected, inflicted
by guess which nations?
Kevin Gosztole on Grayzone; Patrick Lawrence on Consortium News; Danny Sjursen on Anti-war
- all pieces give one despair, sheer and utter despair at the so-called electoral "choices"
we had and the reality of the continuation of the imperial war machine, run by the utterly,
completely grotesque, barbaric usuals (whatever their bloody sex, skin hue).
While lecturing the world over "international norms", the deliberate obliviousness over
the astonishing rolling humanitarian disasters initiated by the USA is beyond disturbing.
Watch out for Eliot A Cohen and what Phil Geraldi coined as "Kaganate of Nulandia" ilks in
that FP Team. In Obama's first year we had Dennis Ross at the WH and Jeffrey Feltman at
Turtle Bay whilst the R2P women were at Foggy Bottom : we got the Arab Spring followed by the
demise of Ghaddafi and the havoc in Syria.
Who will Susan Rice put in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to give the middle finger to
Abu Mazen?
While The Dem party is strongly anti-Russia, connected at it is to the Atlantic Council
and NATO, the probable next SecDef Flourney is throwing down the gauntlet on China.
...from TaiwanNews:
Flourney assessed that China is starting to believe it can achieve a quick strike that
would disable all U.S. defenses in the region, paving the way for an invasion of Taiwan.
"China's theory of victory increasingly relies on 'system destruction warfare' -- crippling
an adversary at the outset of conflict, by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare,
counterspace, and cyber-capabilities," wrote Flourney.
To boost deterrence capabilities, Flourney asserts that the U.S. must modernize and
strengthen its forces in the region to raise the cost of "Beijing's calculus." Such is the
buildup that Flourney is advocating, that it would enable the U.S. military to "credibly
threaten to sink all of China's military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the
South China Sea within 72 hours" . . here
This is quite a change from the current administration, which has followed the Taiwan
Relations Act in stressing that the break-away province is responsible for its own defense,
with no mention of US support. In fact the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with this
Chinese province. Normally these treaties only include countries of course, and while Taiwan
claims to be a country of course it isn't.
On the question of war, it's no secret that Biden is likely to prove more hawkish than
Trump, though Biden himself is a diplomatic man. However the world has changed since the days
of Obama. The Middle East has ground to a stalemate, and there are no objectives to achieve
by putting in more troops or air-strikes. Trump just tried and failed to bomb Iran. The
military advice to Biden won't be different.
With regard to the "pivot to Asia", I doubt that the Chinese are much afraid of a US
attack.
...Abstracting the factor of a new party naturally being inclined to reinitialize all the
wars abandoned or paralyzed by the previous party at a first glance...
1) Venezuela: I would bet Biden should have learned from Trump's mistake, but fact on the
field is the Southern Caribbean nation is a too appetizing target for him to to revisit it
and do a real invasion with Colombia through the land as an auxiliary;
2) South China Sea/Taiwan: Susan Rice's little story is touching, but the Western-backed
Asian MSM (SCMP, Asia Times etc.) is already preparing the psychological/ideological field
for a hot war between China and the USA there, which means they were already briefed by
Biden's team it will happen;
3) Afghanistan: at the heart of Central Asia (Heartland) + CIA opium = a matchstick will
rule over the Cocytus before the USA abandon its occupation of that country;
4) Yemen: the war pays for itself as the Saudis are recycling USDs into American weapons,
so I think inertia will prevail. When the Saudis say it's over, it's over;
5) Syria: game's over for the Americans there. The Russians imposed a no-fly zone to
NATO/USA. Most they can do is to prop up Turkey (which they don't like right now) to fund
terrorists in Idlib to try to drain the Russian coffers a little bit more but the Kremlin can
push the nuclear button anytime if it really comes to that point (if ever);
6) Belarus: it was more a German affair than an American affair. Doesn't apply;
7) Ukraine: unfinished business will probably lead to another ramping up over the Dnieper,
but the Donbassians have the geographical advantage and will never lose their territory as
long as they have full-fledged support from Russia;
8) Russia: the problem here is the USA is in a position it has to choose - Russia or the
European Peninsula? Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has already stated Germany's unconditional
loyalty to the USA is directly linked to the continuation of NATO. If NATO's gone, then the
European Peninsula may become a second Southeast Asia.
If ... Tom Cotton is the Republican nominee, a Dem Presidential victory in 2024 will make
Biden's 2020 landslide look like the small mound of sand sliding into the bottom half of an
hourglass.
Citibank's foreign policy Team would be much more accurate wouldn't it ?
That's like saying Obomber or Bush had their own foreign and economic policy.
The only reason DC puts on this shit show is to protect the owners from
accountability.
No matter who the "president" is there will be more war, sanctions, and coup attempts
because that's what the money/power cult needs to obtain more power and control.
These assholes successfully perpetrated a coup of the US government, why would they worry
about which flunky gets (s)elected ??
"Hillary Clinton at the UN? Whether or not Biden appoints her, things are getting very
brazen and very bitter, very fast."
Lawrence opines:
"Let us now send this conscienceless liar to the UN to make sure the world knows we're all
for international cooperation so long as all others submit to our dictates and don't get in
our way when we invade other countries, foment coups or otherwise breach international
law.
"I confess to longstanding animosity toward the odious Clinton. In truth she is merely the
apotheosis of what we've known for some time about the incoming regime's character.
"Biden's army of foreign-policy transition advisers -- 2,000 in number -- is chock-a-block
with warmongers, Russophobes, Sinophobes, Iranophobes, exceptionalists, puppets of apartheid
Israel, humanitarian interventionists, and others promising nothing but trouble. We've known
this for some time."
Lawrence did some great digging to complement the work done by other investigators. The
following is excellent:
"The Democratic 2020 platform published on the eve of Biden's nomination last summer,
intended to bring Bernie Sanders' supporters on board, included these commitments on the
foreign-policy side:
•"Bringing our forever wars to a responsible end."
•"Rationalizing the defense budget."
•Ending covert "regime change" operations in favor of "more effective and less costly
diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement tools."
•"Right-sizing our counterterrorism footprint."
•Scaling back U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in favor of "a durable and inclusive
political settlement" with a residual role for special operations forces.
"Didn't President Donald Trump attempt to achieve various of these objectives? Didn't
hawks in his administration and at the Pentagon vigorously and illegally subvert these
attempts? Didn't the mainstream press cheer on these subversions while lambasting Trump daily
for jeopardizing "national security" as he tried (however inconsistently) to bring troops
home, settle up in Afghanistan, negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and other
such things?...
"Those who expected the Biden regime to give Americans a thoughtful, informed,
post-exceptionalist foreign policy -- and I am not among these people -- are in for too many
disappointments to list over the next four years. Let us consider a few of the more
consequential."
Lawrence goes on to detail why there'll be no peace in Eurasia and no reduction in the
Imperial Budget. I agree 100% with his summation:
"One principle will guide the Biden regime's foreign policies. Biden is a man of empire
and those around him empire's lieutenants. This will determine all of what is to come."
Realistically that means the Outlaw US Empire will continue to drown as it spins around
and slowly descends down the toilet bowl. Nowhere in anyone's analysis of this issue is there
any mention of the fact that great domestic strength and vitality are a prerequisite for any
attempt at Imperial Dominance, and nowhere in Bidenland is there any policy proposal to
rehabilitate that fact. Sure, all sorts of hawks will populate the Pentagon and continue at
the State Dept, but they might as well be doves since the Empire's industrial base can no
longer support an aggressive Imperial Policy. Then there's the Human Capital that's in just
as dire a condition as the Industrial Plant. Biden in many respects faces the same set of
problems Trump was confronted with and allowed to fester/worsen. Plus, half the nation is
dead-set against him and his regime, perhaps even more so than with Trump since there'll be
no constant BigLie Media smearing.
The gap between the Outlaw US Empire and those nations it's chosen to demonize as
competitors and worse continues to grow daily. The RCEP is only one manifestation. A second
is the continuance of BRICS, which just held a Summit. If Biden launches an attack against
Iran, he'll suffer a massive defeat for the same reasons as Trump. Same with North Korea.
Same as with the South China Sea. Same as with Taiwan. Same as with Syria. And I'd say the
last bullet within the Color Revolution gun available for use in Eurasia was recently fired
to no effect. Latin America is rebounding again. In almost every respect, the Outlaw US
Empire is weaker now than in 2017 when Trump took over. IMO, Biden's #1, most important and
difficult job will be domestic since his donors will insist they be allowed to continue to
eat away at the vitals that are the fundamental basis of support for the Empire--Following in
the footsteps of Rome.
Russia will be the main target of the new US regime, expect to see the russian underbelly
in flames in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and of course in Ukraine and Syria.
The russian regimen change project will be at full speed, economically, politically,
domestic and external insurgencies, all in order to bleed to death the Bear that they see as
a cultural, military, industrial and natural resources rival that has to be fully destroyed
and reduced to smithereens, divided in corrupt satrapies much smaller and easy dominate
"à la ukrainien" or georgian, to extract, on the cheap, all their natural resources
with nice fees for the Biden family or many others american plutocrats. Win-win
situation.
One of the pieces to "bleed the beast" project was the Pashinyan sororite hiper-corrupt
regime, who sell large amounts of weapons to the jihadis in Syria to kill russians and
syrians soldiers, this was the last straw for the russkies with them:
So the DoD just announced that Trump is drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to
2500 for each by January 15th 2020, and there are about 5,000 private military contractors in
each which will probably increase to compensate. Easy call for Trump.
Yes, I saw McConnel plead to be able to stay and "finish" Afghanistan. Such a tired show
now. The same ol' tune, spoken a thousand times on that senate floor.
But to your point, not all Republicans are non-interventionists. There are many, many
RINOs amongst them who actually loathed the idea of Trump as POTUS in 2015, so much so that
it took the groundswell of support for DJT that these RINOs relented and hopped aboard the
Trump-train.
Now that he has lost, they want to revert back to their prior and favored position as
controlled opposition to the Dem establishment. It will at first be subtle, with feigned
support for outgoing POTUS, but gradually, they will cease mentioning him at all.
It remains to be seen whether the constituents in these RINOs' districts will not see
through the subterfuge.
As I have mentioned before, I think they will come for the RINOs if they disembark the
Trump-train. They are sowing wind.
As we move forward resistance to American hegemony becomes stronger, more broad and a more
viable counterbalance to the western hegemony on world affairs. This is while US and her
allies have and are becoming weaker and therefore more unbalanced. Political and economic
unbalance as seen during the pandemic is much more difficult and costly for developed
nations as would be for the third world.
As has been seen in past few years this shifting power balance will naturally make the losing
power, more reactionary and more violent to preserve and restore her power, both domestically
and externally.
As this giant corpse start decaying her parasites start chowing more and demanding more to
save themselves, which makes this dying giant even more unpredictable, and perhaps more
reactionary and violent regardless who's the president and in power, Trump or Biden has not
and will not make any change difference for the Deep state policies.
Fortunately this is, and has been, the trajectory we are on for some time now, and IMO this
is unstoppable, no matter who and how much propaganda is leveled inside and outside of
west.
Biden has said that he will re-instate the nuclear agreement with Iran but with
'amendments'.
Wishful thinking by Biden and his faction, if he get into white house at all. The greatest
obstacle for any US president to get back to JCPOA is the general disqualification of US
governments to be part of any international agreement.
Obama signed, Trump teared in pieces, Biden signing again (are we in a Kindergarten?), who is
going to guarantee that the next republican president (in 4 years?) doesn't tear it in pieces
again or even the to-be president Kemala Harris (in 2 years?) doesn't trigger the snap back
as a friendly pay back gesture to the Zionist Apartheid regime for getting the job as
president?
Although Rouhani government has sent strong signals that they are ready for a new round of
negotiation, with less then 9 months to the next elections in Iran, almost no chance that the
next winner come from technocrat camp, theocracy not ready to support technocratic efforts
for new negotiations and finally wide popular resistance to continue the JCPOA even in the
current format. It would be more then a wounder to encounter JCPOA 2.0
What occupies the fantasies of the populace does matter to the oligarchs who run the show.
If it didn't matter to the elites they would not spend so much time and energy trying to
shape those fantasies...
The elites are going to support the politicians that are most accomplished and adept at
bolstering the fantasy of the two party system and American democrazy. There is no doubt that
Donald Trump is the salesman of the year for the smoke the elites are blowing up your ass.
There is no other politician that could get 150 million americans sucked into the
fantasy.
And what that means is they will do whatever they can to make sure trump gets another four
more years.
Can't say I disagree with much of this when taken at face value, but I'd appreciate some
backing to this assertion, for which it's quite uncharacteristic of b not to provide right up
front.....if true.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
I should note, and most MoA readers will agree, that it's nearly impossible to find any
Western media organization - including erstwhile progressive outlets - who don't agree with
the alleged status quo that Maduro is a "dictator" and "has to go."
So what WOULD a Biden administration do differently? All's I can find of substance is that
they'd use sanctions in a more precise manner, not the blunt force instrument that Trump has
applied - and - that they would grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans wishing to
flee (I'd bet there's a good mix of the Mestizo and Moreno poor, as well as the trust fund
descendants of the colonial elite) to the United States whereas Trump refused or dragged his
feet to the point that it didn't matter.
I think, then, that the decisions made will be less to do with Biden being a bad man
(which, like Trump, he is), but instead all grounded in the accepted "reality" that "Maduro
must go" and there must be a "peaceful democratic transition" (back to right-wing colonialist
descendants from whom (some of) their stolen land and oil leases were stolen back under
Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. This falsehood has been cemented as truth and reality
across both sides of the U.S. political spectrum as well as that of the UK, Canada and
France: Maduro = Commie Dictator and Brutal Humanitarian Abuser. There is absolutely ZERO way
that Joe Biden would go against it in any meaningful way. He'll just do it a little less
roughly and mean spiritedly as Trump and Bush before him had done (no coups and fewer
sanctions under Obama).
This is a good article on the
intricacies of the politics of food (and resources - a good history lesson all the way
around and recommended - written in June of 2018 and looking back not only on the Chavez
years, but the colonial history that preceded him. I think it's required reading for anyone
who wants to get into a debate or discussion (here or elsewhere) about Chavez and Maduro.
Trump is war monger lite compared to Biden that is war monger/criminal heavy. Greater
chaos is coming inside and outside the US while liberals go back to sleep comfortable that
another Obama like admin is in charge.
My prediction: in the next four years it will be near impossible to paper over the
objective collapse of the US Empire of Insanity.
Biden's campaign said he "was among the first Democratic foreign policy voices to
recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader and to call for Maduro to
resign."
Even socialist Sanders, who refused to call Maduro a "dictator", is anti-Maduro:
Sanders called Maduro a "vicicious tyrant" and said there should be "international and
regional cooperation for free elections in Venezuela so that the people of that country can
make -- can create their own future."
there's plenty of countries in the world where the US will continue and/or try to regime
change legitimate governments.
some of these were already started by Mr. Hope and Change, and will continue or be ramped
up by Mr. Sleepy/Rice/Flournoy - like Ukraine, a perfect pretext to irritate Russia with. And
poor Venezuela, which both current and past administrations have attempted to strangle to
death
Some of these came to fruition under Pompeo/Haspel/Trump like Armenia (2018); and some
like Belarus have survived, so far.
some where successfully changed under Trump, like Brazil.
some were temporarily regime changed, like Bolivia (2019), but are now back in the hands
of the real Socialists and indigenous peoples.
some were successfully carried out under Obama, like in Honduras and Paraguay.
The chinese finally learned and took action in Hong Kong which is now essentially out of
the regime change column. Iran will never be regime changed either, nor Syria.
And some like Lebanon are still in play.
I expect economic sanctions/warfare to be increasingly used by this incoming democratic
administration as much as the outgoing republican.
The way for all this nefarious and despicable activity by the US and the West to end
is....??
Trump just didn't have the same amount of low hanging fruit that Obama did . . .like
Ukraine and Syria
low hanging fruit: a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little
effort.
Let's be clear that Obama's "fruit" turned out to be rotten apples (losses in Ukraine*
& Syria**), plus Mr Hope & Change foolishly sent 70,000 more troops to Afghanistan,
destroyed one of the leading countries in Africa (Libya) for no reason, threatened Iran every
fortnight with his "all options on the table" BS then did an 'agreement' with Iran that was
easily overturned,. .the list goes on.
*NATO wanted Russia's only warm-water port in Crimea, and didn't get it.
**Russia stepped in to prevent US-supported regime change
All of the linear and conventional predictions about the next administration's foreign
policy will be proven wrong, because they neglect the near-fatal deterioration of the US
economy and its social fabric in the last 4 years. In short, any return to the pre-Trump
status quo is simply impossible. That ship sailed forever.
What is pretty much guaranteed, however, is significant and irreversible ratcheting up of
economic tension between America and the rest of the world. The approach may undergo some
finessing, but substance will not only remain but acquire additional urgency. The US is in
desperate need of reducing its current account deficit, and that can't be accomplished
without more threats, more brinkmanship, and more unilateral impositions. You can say goodbye
to any prospect of international harmony, it won't happen. Sure, Democrats may attempt
softening of rhetoric at first, but it will be proven counterproductive and abandoned rather
quickly.
The only reason the Deep State brought Biden back to political life, is because he is one of
the few remaining old Cold Warriors capable of achieving normalization of relations with
Russia. It's of overarching importance at this point, as without it nothing really works for
America and all possible geopolitical equations simply fall apart right away. It's also
pretty clear that because Biden's mental and physical condition is in rapid decline, such
normalization will be proceeding at breakneck speed. Expect Biden-Putin summit in first 6
months of the inauguration, ostensibly to sign new Start Treaty or prolong the old one. After
that, "the dialogue" will kick into overdrive.
All in all, modeling next 4 years of US foreign policy based on op-ed articles in American
MSM is just silly. These are written not to enlighten but to obfuscate. Expect secret
entreaties to Moscow literally within hours of January 20, 2021.
There may be some small cookies thrown Russia's way, but that country as a serious threat
must remain. The 500,000 person US ground force, modernly equipped, depends upon it. There is
no other justification, only a "dangerous" Russia.
Look at Zionist-imperialist bitch Susan Rice berating the UN General Assembly for its
overwhelming vote in 2012 on according Palestine non-member observer status:
Just as the US must have enemies, because there's so much money in it, it must also (for
the same reason) continue to have Israel calling the signals in the Middle East.
By "low hanging fruit" (or poisoned apples), what I meant was from the PR angle.
Situations in those places - by the CIA's making or not - were being reported in the West in
such a manner so that they were more easily than usual sold as "humanitarian interventions"
to "help democracy flourish" and the like. Whereas Bush had his 9/11 and fake WMD threats
from Saddam, Obama had the "organic" "grassroots" uprisings in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Tunisia
and other places which would be used as excuses to go in and steal gold, wreck nations who
were a threat to the Franco or American post-colonial control structures, and otherwise
instill chaos, which is one major goal of EVERY U.S. intervention - especially in the ME.
But yeah, what was done to Libya, Syria and the Ukraine is unforgiveable. I'm just saying
that TPTB when Trump was in office didn't have the easy, made-for-humanitarian intervention
news stories to excuse the next round of destruction. That's one reason they had to try so
hard with Iran - going as far as designating their military and its leaders as terrorists and
all that shit so they could bomb Soleimani while he was on a diplomatic mission. Can't have
an outbreak of peace, now, can we? That is, unless it's a carefully scripted PR version of
"peace" such as what we saw recently with the gulf monarchies and Israel.
Gonna have to say target numero uno has got to be Syria. Finishing off Syria, and chasing
the Russians home will be the lynchpin to the rest of Biden's Middle East Policy. Once Syria
is collapsed into chaos and ethnic cleansing, Lebanon/Hezbollah become much easier to deal
with. Iran becomes further isolated and it's ability to project power seriously reduced. The
whole point of JCPOA IMO was a delaying tactic, keeping Iran on the back burner while Iranian
Proxies and Regional Influence are mopped up.
I expect the Mighty Media Wurlitzer of Pro-War Propaganda will soon begin spinning up and
focusing on the brutality inflicted on the moderate head-choppers by the Assad
Regime...another chemical weapons attack anyone?
The Russian presence in Syria is actually quite precarious, despite their military gains
they don't project power very efficiently beyond their borders. The Biden Regime will
therefore turn up the heat, possibly with a No-Fly Zone over both Idlib and Southern Syria/Al
Tanf in conjunction with a well armed proxy offensive backed by air-support. DNC Dems/Deep
State/NeoCon believe Russia to be bluffing and will either back down or be rolled over in
short order.
Strange IMO.
Most everyone here is talking like it will be business as usual on foreign policy.
I am not so sure. I think that Covid19 has pricked the phony bubble created after the 08/09
collapse. I know the stock market is right back and everything looks fine but I think there
is deep rot beneath.
Couple that with a lot of draws in their latest endeavours and I doubt that the machine can
keep operating with such confidence/arrogance.
Do you also remember how the 2000 presidential campaign played out? Gore was characterized
by the MSM, straight up, as an "interventionist" while Bush - eager to distance his own
foreign policy from the Balkan wars and Clinton/Gore tried to walk a fine line between
isolationism (of which he was accused) and non-interventionism.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush announced that he would pursue a
"distinctly American internationalism" in foreign policy (Bush i999a), largely in contrast
to the liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration. He initially sought to have
a foreign policy that placed greater emphasis on American national interests than on global
interests.
(look up George W. Bush and "classical realism")
So what do Trump and Bush II have in common? How about Trump and Obama? I'll tell you: The
preceding administration of the opposite political party had a history of military
interventions that were quite unpopular with the public, which was looking for a change. And
guess what Obama said when he first stepped into office. That's right - he'd pursue a
retrenchment based foreign policy dedicated to fighting existing terror threats in places and
places near where the previous administration had already placed American troops - AND to
wrap up the already existing wars. From the Atlantic's retrospective:
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Although Obama never presented himself as a pacifist
candidate, his 2007-2008 presidential campaign was predicated in part on the promise to end
the war in Iraq and properly prosecute the war in Afghanistan. In March 2008, he declared
of Iraq, "When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this
war." Later that year, he listed his first two priorities for making America safer as
"ending the war in Iraq responsibly" and "finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the
Taliban." The president also promised a foreign policy that relied more on diplomacy and
less on military might in his first inaugural address, telling his audience that "our power
grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the
force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Well before the
tumult of the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Obama famously offered to extend a hand to
those willing to unclench their fist. (there are links embedded there)
Here's what Brookings has to say:
I do not mean to overstate. Obama's presidency will not go down as a hugely positive
watershed period in American foreign policy. He ran for election in 2007 and 2008 promising
to mend the West's breach with the Islamic world, repair the nation's image abroad, reset
relations with Russia, move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, avoid "stupid wars"
while winning the "right war," combat climate change, and do all of this with a
post-partisan style of leadership that brought Americans themselves together in the
process.[1] He ran for reelection in 2012 with the additional pledges of ending the
nation's wars and completing the decimation of al Qaeda. Six years into his presidency,
almost none of these lofty aspirations has been achieved.[2] There has not been, and likely
will not be, any durable Obama doctrine of particular positive note. The recent progress
toward a nuclear deal with Iran, while preferable to any alternative if it actually
happens, is probably too limited in duration and overall effect to count as a historic
breakthrough (even if Obama shares a second Nobel Prize as a result).
And before you start to think that Trump said much different, here's a blurb from your own
article:
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we
shouldn't be involved with," Trump said. "Instead, our focus must be on defeating terrorism
and destroying ISIS, and we will."
Hence, there hasn't been a President for the last 50 years that has campaigned on, or
entered office with a PUBLIC plan to engage in foreign regime change activities. But nearly
every one of them, especially since Ronald Reagan, have had "excuses" crop up for
"humanitarian interventions" and that includes Bush II and Obama. The so-called Arab Spring
began in earnest in mid- to late 2010 and Syria and Libya were in mid to late 2011 during
their peak, at which point the U.S. and France got involved under the auspices of
"humanitarian intervention."
So more than 3 years into his first term, Obama still hadn't "started any new wars." Three
years is an incredibly short period of time when looking at history, even the history of the
United States. Trump's only been in office for about 3 years and 9 months. Nothing like the
Arab Spring has happened so far while he's been there. That is indisputable. What is also
indisputable is that Trump DID try to spark a war by assassinating General Soleimani. Whether
there was any plan AT THE TIME to end up invading Iran (a total fool's errand as you know
well), I doubt, but the goal of that assassination was to prevent an organic, non-U.S.
brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which at the very least was a threat to Trump's
precious arms sales, but also very much in line with his Zionist friendly Israel policy. At
worst, who knows, but you can't make an unchallenged assumption that Trump and his advisors
had fully thought through all possible Iranian retaliation options and concluded that there
was no way the assassination would cause Iran to do something so bad that a new war was
justified regardless of the cost. Sorry, but you just can't.
Yeah, yeah, Trump hasn't started any "new wars" but his rhetoric and public facing stated
foreign policy goals were virtually the same as Obama's. Trump just didn't get any 9/11s,
Eastern European or Middle East uprisings that would have been sufficient for him or ANY
previous president to attempt to justify "humanitarian interventions" abroad. As I've said
for a while, if he had a second term, there would have been a new war - even if it was the
"deep state" and CIA who created the astroturf casus belli.
...Trump has also unleashed a mass proto fascist movement, which is based amongst the
lowest scum of the working class, various billionaire factions, and the white suburban middle
class and small business owners.
These genies will not go back into their bottles. Neoliberal hegemony is shattered.
All of this is the result of the 1% sucking the blood of the working class for the past
four decades. 2008 was the spark. Covid was the explosion.
I see this every damn day in the US, even in a wealthy liberal city. The social fabric has
largely fallen apart. Living in the US is daily suffering, dashed hopes, sadness, and rage.
It is awful.
Biden won't have any room for major wars abroad. He might try to rebuild liberal alliances
but he won't have any capacity to overthrow Asad or Maduro or to reverse the objective trends
of global capitalism. How can he reboot US primacy if China and Asia account for 90 percent
of world economic growth?
Covid has revealed the US as a paper tiger with little institutional capacity to manage
itself or the world. It is in fact a threat to the world.
Biden and his neoliberal coterie will act like arrogant pricks. They are arrogant pricks.
But we can laugh at them. They have a limited shelf life.
Well of course it will be awful. There has never been an administration in American
history that hasn't been awful on foreign policy. We've always been an empire.
Biden will find a world different than the one he remembers from four years ago. The
blustering incompetence of the Trump administration was the world's cue to move on. And the
empire now has a lot of issues in the home territory that need immediate and drastic
attention.
Few empires survive long after being forced to turn inward after a long period of
expansion. We're beyond things that can papered better with a glorious little war.
Biden likely takes power with a collapsed health care sector and a real economy of misery
for most. He'll have a federal government riddled wholly unqualified ideologues in a country
that went ahead and delegitimized it's own elections for one man's vanity. Where half the
country doesn't believe in the virus that crushed the health care system and wrecked the
economy. It will all be terrible because the US has reached the historical point where
terrible describes all the options.
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises
some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power
in America is for real and it is something that some Jews
are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it
functions. If you're an American (
or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and
nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election
when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on.
If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your
understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the
interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S.
Congress or White House.
And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you
must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You
behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully,
if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.
It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted
and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul
Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and
voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia
Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to
stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights
and a critic of Israeli brutality.
He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the
military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared
to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is
opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the
movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel
and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues
being promoted by the Zionist lobby.
There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior
Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor
famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their
support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just
how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating
insider tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the
Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside
the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will
no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate
and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a
recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is
entitled
The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to
limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example,
how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for
Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it
impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."
Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by
Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several
occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama
just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for
Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of
the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly
confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist
to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing
views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the
Obama presidency."
And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running
full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it
operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions
to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported
the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way
for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."
Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of
the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming
Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be
possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign
country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States
does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called
"special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any
other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include
funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening
Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Threat inflation is like Apple pie among Washington swamp national security parasites
Notable quotes:
"... The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist. ..."
"... Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of "threat-size" . . . ..."
Applying any logic to the "threats" against the US "national security" AKA world hegemony
becomes much simpler with recognizing two simple facts:
1. The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no
diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist.
2. Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of
"threat-size" . . .
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, & African
"terrorists" -- did I miss anyone?
The amount of BS propaganda levels against the American by MSM is incredible and
unprecedented ever since I have lived here for over 48 years. Do everybody notice how all
dark clouds have gone and bad news have vanished, and rosy peacefully sunny days are ahead of
us based on daily coming good news, ever since Biden was elected by all the dead voters.
We found out two very viable working vaccines, more people wearing mask and social
distance. Financial crises are over. We sent our own rocket to space station. We successfully
intercepted ICBMs, etc.etc. So we should learn, everything now is going good , we should put
our differences away, come together in a peaceful way and all help to transfer power
peacefully to Biden like good citizens our funding fathers (fogers) wanted us to be.
US president-elect Joe Biden's approach to diplomacy is diametrically opposed to that of the outgoing Donald Trump, known as he
was to levy undiplomatic salvos at foreign leaders via social media. But one shouldn't expect a wholesale revamp in substance
when the veteran Democrat takes office in January. FRANCE 24 takes a closer look at Biden's foreign policy agenda.
ADVERTISING
The former
US
vice
president brings a wealth of foreign policy experience, expertise and, not insignificantly, genuine interest in global affairs
to the White House. The Democrat served as chair of the
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
, readily making
trips
to Iraq and Afghanistan
to gather the facts on the ground, prior to spending eight years as President
Barack
Obama
's right-hand man from 2009 to early 2017.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday reflected fondly on her regular meetings with VP
Biden
under
Obama. "He knows Germany and Europe well. I remember good encounters and conversations with him," Merkel said as she
underlined Biden's "decades of experience in foreign policy" and "very warmly" congratulated him on his election win.
The transatlantic conversation is indeed likely to mellow amid a promised early flurry of multilateral moves on Biden's part
that dovetail with key European priorities and reverse the sorts of
Trump
manoeuvres
that boggled European capitals.
Biden
has
said
his foreign agenda would "place the United States back at the head of the table, in a position to work with its
allies and partners to mobilise collective action on global threats". The operative word there may be "table" -- Biden recognises
there should be one. After four years of "America First", with the erratic Trump toppling proverbial roundtables with an
iconoclastic flourish, Biden will be conspicuous about putting the pieces back together.
"For 70 years, the United States, under Democratic and Republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules,
forging the agreements, and animating the institutions that guide relations among nations and advance collective security and
prosperity -- until Trump," Biden wrote in a Foreign Affairs piece last spring that
reads
like a foreign policy manifesto
. "If we continue his abdication of that responsibility, then one of two things will
happen: either someone else will take the United States' place, but not in a way that advances our interests and values, or no
one will, and chaos will ensue. Either way, that's not good for America."
Biden says he will rejoin the
Paris
Climate Agreement
"on day one" and, "in his first 100 days in office", he will convene a global summit on climate to press
the world's top carbon-emitters to join the US in making national pledges more ambitious than the ones they made in the French
capital back in 2015.
On the campaign trail, the president-elect also pledged to rejoin the
World
Health Organization
on his first day in office -- after Trump eschewed and quit the Geneva-based institution in the midst of
the
Covid-19
global
public health crisis. "Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health," Biden reasons.
During his first year in office, the president-elect has also pledged to host "a global Summit for Democracy to renew the
spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the Free World". The gathering's stated aim is to obtain commitments toward
fighting corruption, countering authoritarianism, notably through election security, and advancing human rights globally.
Biden has also pledged to rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council.
As a presidential candidate, Biden stumped for renewing America's support
NATO
,
calling his country's commitment to the 70-year-old political and military alliance "sacred, not transactional", in contrast
to his predecessor's vision of the body as a protection club with dues.
"NATO is at the very heart of the United States' national security, and it is the bulwark of the liberal democratic ideal -- an
alliance of values, which makes it far more durable, reliable, and powerful than partnerships built by coercion or cash," the
lifelong transatlanticist wrote. Cue the sigh of relief in Baltic capitals.
Countering 'Russian aggression'
Naturally, part of Biden's argument for bolstering NATO is the message it will send
Moscow
.
"To counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliance's military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to
take on nontraditional threats, such as weaponised corruption, disinformation, and cyber-theft," Biden explained in Foreign
Affairs.
He was vice president in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, sinking ties between Moscow and Washington to a
post-Cold War low.
Observers note that Washington has not been complacent with Moscow in the intervening years, imposing sanctions on Russia
during Trump's term in office even as the man behind the desk in the Oval Office seemed keen to look the other way. But under
Biden, the mixed message of friendliness to Vladimir Putin conveyed by Trump -- who declined to address such affronts as the
bounties Moscow allegedly put on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan -- will likely be a thing of the past.
"We must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with Russian civil society, which has
bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system," Biden has pledged.
Despite his wariness of Moscow, Biden has promised to pursue an extension of the New START Treaty, which his campaign called
"an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia" and use that nuclear arms reduction agreement as a
foundation for future arms control arrangements.
Coalescing allies to confront China
Biden sees
China
,
meanwhile, as the most pertinent threat to US interests long-term, a stance that enjoys rare relative bipartisan agreement in
Washington, meaning the shift on relations with Beijing will primarily be one of tone and method.
Biden has slammed China for stealing US firms' technology and intellectual property and for giving its state-owned firms an
unfair advantage with subsidies.
Instead of addressing US concerns unilaterally as Trump has, Biden has proposed building a coalition of allies to confront
China where the nations disagree (unfair commercial practices, human rights abuses) and to engage in cooperation where it is
needed (climate issues, global public health, nonproliferation, not least vis-à-vis North Korea).
"On its own, the United States represents about a quarter of global GDP. When we join together with fellow democracies, our
strength more than doubles. China can't afford to ignore more than half the global economy," wrote Biden in Foreign Affairs.
"That gives us substantial leverage to shape the rules of the road on everything from the environment to labour, trade,
technology, and transparency, so they continue to reflect democratic interests and values," he reasoned.
The Delaware Democrat has blasted Trump's propensity for designating imports from the European Union and Canada, America's
"closest allies", as national security threats, damaging long-entrenched relationships with "reckless tariffs".
"By cutting us off from the economic clout of our partners, Trump has kneecapped our country's capacity to take on the real
economic threat," he wrote, pointing to China.
No more 'forever wars' in the Middle East
Biden has pledged to "re-enter" the Iran nuclear deal, "negotiated by the Obama-Biden administration alongside our allies and
other world powers" -- namely France, Germany, the UK, the EU, China and Russia. He credits the accord with having blocked
Iran
from
obtaining a nuclear weapon and blames Trump's decision to cast it aside for prompting Iran to rekindle its nuclear ambitions
and adopt a more provocative stance. Biden has pledged to rejoin the agreement "if Tehran returns to compliance" and use
"hard-nosed diplomacy and support from our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against
Iran's other destabilising activities".
Meanwhile, the former vice-president has also said he would "end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen".
Although he has said Trump's unilateral approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made the two-state solution for
Israel that Biden backs more difficult, he has said he
would
keep the embassy
Trump moved to Jerusalem in 2018 where it is. Biden has welcomed the normalising of relations the Trump
administration helped negotiate
between
Israel and Gulf states
in recent months.
The Democrat has pledged to sustain "an ironclad commitment to Israel's security". He has also cautioned the country over its
treatment of the Palestinian territories,
saying
earlier this year
, "Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off
any hope of peace."
In terms of US military commitments in the region, Biden has advocated bringing home the vast majority of American troops in
the Middle East and Afghanistan, in favour of narrowing the focus to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State group. He wants to end the
"forever wars" the US has waged in the region.
Daily newsletter
Receive essential international news every morning
"We must maintain our focus on counter-terrorism, around the world and at home, but staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts
drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention, and it prevents us from rebuilding the other
instruments of American power," he wrote in Foreign Affairs.
No hard-border Brexit
It would be a misnomer to count
Brexit
as
among Biden's hot-button policy issues. Indeed, while Trump ally Boris Johnson and his Conservative leadership in London once
looked forward to negotiating an "ambitious" post-Brexit trade deal with the US, neither Biden's campaign website's outline of
his foreign policy priorities nor the former vice president's quasi-manifesto in Foreign Affairs makes any mention of the
United Kingdom per se or its divorce proceedings from the EU. What is clear is that Biden is not poised to cater to the
so-called "Special Relationship" at any cost.
"We can't allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit," the
president-elect, a noted Irish-American,
tweeted
in September
. "Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the
return of a hard border. Period."
Not quite Twitter diplomacy as Trump might conduct it, but the president-elect's sentiment won't have escaped Downing Street's
attention as it turns the page on Europe.
Independent commentator Caitlin Johnstone is raining on the parade of Liberals and
Progressives who are hailing "barriers being broken" merely because Joe Biden is expected to
pick a woman for the top Pentagon post in a historic first, blasting
the spectacle as "Imperialism in Pumps" given presumed top choice Michele Flournoy hails
from deep within the heart of the hawkish military-industrial complex .
"President-elect Joe Biden is expected to take a historic step and select a woman to head
the Pentagon for the first time, shattering one of the few remaining barriers to women in the
department and the presidential Cabinet," the
Associated Press reported gushingly this weekend.
Seen as a steady hand who favors strong military cooperation abroad , Flournoy, 59, has
served multiple times in the Pentagon, starting in the 1990s and most recently as the
undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012. She serves on the board of Booz Allen
Hamilton , a defense contractor...
This word "moderate" which the AP news agency keeps bleating is of course complete
nonsense. Standing in the middle ground between two corporatist warmongering parties does not
make you a moderate, it makes you a corporatist warmonger. Flournoy is no more "moderate"
than the "moderate rebels" in Syria which mass media outlets like AP praised for years until
it became undeniable that they were largely Al Qaeda affiliates ; the
only reason such a position can be portrayed as mainstream and moderate is because vast
fortunes have been poured into making it that way.
She highlights the nauseating spectacle of MSNBC and others attempting to frame it as a
great achievement for feminism:
"White progressives training their fire on women and women of color who are under
consideration to lead the nat sec departments makes me deeply uncomfortable about their
allyship for those communities," tweeted MSNBC contributor
Mieke Eoyang. "Especially when the nat sec community is dominated by white men."
It's only going to get dumber from here, folks.
Let's clear this up before the girl power parade starts: the first woman to head the US
war machine will not be a groundbreaking pioneer of feminist achievement. She will be a mass
murderer who wears Spanx. Her appointment will not be an advancement for women, it will be
imperialism in pumps.
Glenn Greenwald also pointed out the obvious in terms of what's really going on here,
deriding "the neoliberal scam of exploiting identity politics" .
Greenwald came under attack for so much as daring to question Flournoy's potential
appointment on the mere basis that one supposedly can't possibly question the choice when
"barriers are being broken" (and nevermind that a woman, Gina Haspel, currently runs the most
powerful spy agency in the world).
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Greenwald wrote of this tactic: "It belongs as a Hall of Fame exhibit showing why Democratic
Party neoliberals and militarists are indescribably deceitful and repulsive."
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all of Obama's more aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors
to profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop artificial intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New
American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec Advisors.
Nicholas Burns
was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2008, he
has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director and
Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
Samantha Power
served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National Security Council.
She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S.'s "crippling sanctions" on Iran and
North Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, the climate crisis, mass extinction, and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5 percent of their budget), trying to
clean up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism, and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the No. 2 position at the State
Department, and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As
Under Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a
prescient and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the No. 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome, and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea, and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs (or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine, or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats).
But this will be a long two years if we let Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on
critical appointments, policies, and legislation. Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be
an early test of whether Biden will be the consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight
for real solutions to our country's most serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas.
If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still
believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign
policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be
undermined by four more years of war, hostility, and international tensions -- and our most
serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School
of Law, and is author of the recently-released No More
War: How the West Violates International Law by Using "Humanitarian" Intervention to Advance
Economic and Strategic Interests. You might have noticed something curious following
Biden's apparent election win – liberal politicians and media are sounding the alarm that
Trump may use his remaining months in office to draw down our troops from Afghanistan.
For example, the New York Times ran a piece on
November 12 claiming that " both in Kabul and Washington, officials with knowledge of
security briefings said there was fear that President Trump might try to accelerate an all-out
troop withdrawal in his final days in office " before the more "responsible" Biden can take
over and try to stop or at least slow this. It is clear now that it is the liberal
establishment, and the Democratic Party, which is more wedded to war than their counterparts
across the aisle, and that should be disturbing to people hoping for progressive change with
the incoming Administration.
First of all, we must start with this discussion with the undisputed fact that our leaders
do not know, and have not known for some time, what the US' goals and strategy in Afghanistan
even are. One would be forgiven for not knowing, or for forgetting this fact because the
incontrovertible evidence of it – the so-called "
Afghanistan Papers " – received scant and only momentary attention when they were
exposed last year by the Washington Post.
As these documents, consisting of interviews with hundreds of insiders responsible for
prosecuting the war show, the American public was intentionally lied to about the alleged "
progress " of this war, even as our leaders were unsure what " progress "
meant.
As the Washington Post noted, the US government never even decided who it was really
fighting there: " Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an
adversary? What about Islamic State and the bewildering array of foreign jihadists, let alone
the warlords on the CIA's payroll? According to the documents, the US government never settled
on an answer ." Almost to a person, everyone involved in this morass agreed that the
billions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, have been in vain. It has all been a
colossal waste.
Now, however, we are being told to panic that Trump may end this disastrous conflict. For
example, the quite liberal and almost blatantly pro-Biden news outlet, National Public Radio
(NPR) ran segments all last week about
female soccer teams in Afghanistan. The message of these segments was clear – these
soccer teams are (allegedly) proof of women's advances in Afghanistan as a result of the US'
intervention since 2001, and these advances are in jeopardy if Trump ends this
intervention.
Such manipulative stories of course obscure the real fact that the US has been undermining
women's rights in Afghanistan since it began intervening there in 1979, and Afghanistan
still
ranks at the very bottom of all countries for women's rights. But there is no doubt that
such stories will warm the hearts of many Biden supporters to continue war there.
Meanwhile, it is not only Afghanistan which is the focus of the liberal enthusiasm for war.
Thus, as the Grayzone
has reported , Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressionally-appointed Syria
Study Group, recently outlined the plans for even deeper US intervention in Syria – an
intervention which Trump has at least paid lip service to ending.
Specifically, Stroul emphasized that " one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US
military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces, " that this territory
happened to be the richest in Syria in terms of oil and agriculture, and that the US would
intensify its intervention in and against Syria to keep its control of this territory and its
resources. Of course, taking over other nations' resources is a violation of international law,
including the Geneva Conventions prohibition against "plunder," but that seems to be of no
concern.
The liberal media is also elated by the prospect of a Biden White House being more
aggressive in its foreign policy towards both Russia and China.
As CNBC explains
, " Now there is likely to be a change in the air when it comes to U.S.-Russia relations. At
the very least, analysts told CNBC before the result that they expected a Biden win to increase
tensions between Washington and Moscow, and to raise the probability of new sanctions on
Russia...Experts from risk consultancy Teneo Intelligence said they expected more cooperation
between Biden and Europe on global issues such as 'countering China, Russia' ."
While one might think that increased tensions with two major nuclear powers would not be a
welcome development, years of the false Russiagate narrative have groomed liberals for such
tensions.
Incredibly, Trump has been portrayed as being soft on Russia, even as he backed out of a
major
anti-proliferation treaty (The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) which had been
signed with the Kremlin back in 1987, and even as he
sent the largest contingent of US troops (20,000) in a quarter of a century to train with
European soldiers on the Russian border. I must note here that the converse – Russia's
sending tens of thousands of troops to the border with the US – is simply inconceivable
and would indeed be seen in Washington as an occasion for war. I, for one, am quite alarmed to
think of what a Biden policy of "getting tougher" with Russia would look like, and what kind of
catastrophe it could bring about.
Regretfully, I now live in a country in which liberals outflanking conservatives in terms of
their tolerance and even eagerness for aggression and war, especially when that aggression and
war is being led by officials who, as I'm sure we will see in the new Biden Administration,
happen to be women or people of color. For the first time recently, I have seen the concept of
"intersectional imperialism" being used to describe this situation, and I believe this to be a
very real phenomenon; to be but another means of making war that much easier to swallow for
broad swaths of the American public.
The irony, of course, is that the bombs dropped by the US in war, no matter who happens to
be in charge of the US government at the time, disproportionately fall upon women and children
of a darker skin hue, and they maim and kill just as much as those dropped by old white male
Republicans. Sadly, few seem to understand or care about this.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
benalls 31 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:27 AM
It's not the "left" or "right", republicans or democrats, but a new American movement,,,,
CBM,,, wich usually means 'silent but deadly' but in this case it stands for "CEO's Bonus
Matters" . The movement congressional members from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing vowed to
support. Its time for us to grab our shields, helmets, and frozen water bottles and travel to
a new neighborhood to loot and burn. Israel has given Harris and JOJO their instructions.
razzims 49 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:10 AM
same ol empire of chaos and their eternal war. no matter which party wins election
HypoxiaMasks 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 09:42 AM
Other than the Bush and lil Bush, every war from the beginning of the 20th century was
started with a Democrat president. Tell me again how the Republicans are the party of war
MarkG1964 5 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:54 AM
The democrats and republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Worth the Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War is a documentary short
reviewing the role of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in leading the United States into the most
devastating foreign policy blunder of the last twenty years.
Produced and directed by Mark
Weisbrot and narrated by Danny
Glover , the film features archival footage, as well as policy experts who provide insight
and testimony with regard to Joe Biden's role as the Chair of the United States Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations in 2002.
Lawrence Wilkerson
, Former Chief of Staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell; Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary;
U.S. Army Colonel, Retired
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vhcuei8_UJM
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The possibility of eased sanctions with Iran, while extremely important, is not guaranteed
and will be offset by Biden's own commitment to imperialist plunder in the region. One cannot
forget that Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars
from two to seven. In eight years, Biden assisted in the
coup of Honduras , the overthrow of Libya , and
the ongoing proxy
war in Syria . Biden's commitment to the WHO should not negate his firm opposition to any
single-payer model of healthcare and the large sums of
money he receives from the very healthcare industry which has ensured the U.S. is without a
public health system all together.
"Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars from two to seven."
Biden and the Democratic Party are joint partners with the GOP in the facilitation of the
ongoing Race to the Bottom for the working class. Wall Street
donated heavily to Biden with full knowledge that his administration will continue to
support the right of corporations to drive down wages, increase productivity (exploitation),
and concentrate capital in fewer and fewer hands. Boeing's CEO stated clearly clear that his
business prospects would be served
regardless of who won the election . Prison stocks rose after Biden announced Kamala Harris
as his
vice president . On November 4th, Reuters announced that the lords of capital were
quite pleased that
no major policy changes were likely under the new political regime elected to Congress and
the Oval Office.
Biden will inevitably rule as a rightwing neoconservative in all areas of policy. His big
tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as large as Hillary
Clinton's in 2016. Over 100 former GOP war hawks of the national security state endorsed
Biden in the closing weeks of the election. Larry Summers, a chief architect of the
2007-2008 economic crisis,
advised his campaign . Susan Rice and Michele Flournoy are likely to join Biden's
foreign policy team -- a key indication that trillions will continue to be spent on
murderous wars abroad.
The question remains whether Biden can effectively govern like prior Democratic Party
administrations. American exceptionalism is the Democratic Party's ideological base, but this
ideology is entangled in the general crisis of legitimacy afflicting the U.S. state. Biden's
ability to forward a project of "decency" that restores the "soul of the nation" is hampered by
his attitude that "nothing will fundamentally change" for the rich. Biden also lacks charisma
and talent. While millions were ready to vote for anyone and anything not named Donald Trump,
four years of austerity and war under a president with obvious signs of cognitive decline is
guaranteed to sharpen the contradictions of the rule of the rich and open the potential for
further unrest on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.
"Biden's big tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as
large as Hillary Clinton's in 2016."
To maintain social peace, Biden will use the Oval Office to consolidate its corporate forces
to suffocate left wing forces inside and outside of the Democratic Party. The graveyard of
social movements will expand to occupy the largest plot of political territory as possible. A
"moderate" revolution will be declared for the forces of progress in the ruling class. Perhaps
the best that can be summoned from a Biden administration is the advancement of consciousness
that the Democratic Party is just as opposed to social democracy and the interests of the
working classes as Republicans. Plenty of opportunities exist to challenge the intransigence of
the Democrats but just as many obstacles will be thrown in the way of any true exercise of
people's power.
The 2020 election is yet another reminder that social movements must become the focus of
politics, not the electoral process. This is where an internationalist vision of politics is
especially important. Social movements in Bolivia returned their socialist party to power after
a year living under a U.S.-backed coup. Massive grassroots mobilizations in Cuba, Vietnam, and
China contained the COVID-19 pandemic in a matter of months. Ethiopia and Eritrea have agreed
to forge peace rather than wage war. The winds of progress have been blowing toward the Global
South for more than a century. The most progressive changes that have ever occurred in the U.S.
have been a combined product of the mass organization of the U.S.' so-called internal colonies
such as Black America and the external pressures placed on the U.S. empire by movements for
self-determination abroad.
The 2020 election has come and gone. What we know is that Biden is a repudiation of
revolutionary change. Humanity will suffer many losses even if more of the oppressed and
working masses become aware of Biden and the DNC's hostile class interests. Trump was rejected
by a corporate-owned electoral process just as Clinton was rejected in 2016. Politics in the
U.S. remain confined to the narrow ideological possibilities offered by neoliberalism and
imperial decay. Oppressed people must create and embrace a politics that take aim at the forces
of reaction currently pushing humanity to the brink of total destruction. The only way this can
happen is if Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party become the primary target of the
people's fight for a new world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Danny Haiphong is co-coordinator of the Black Alliance for Peace Supporter Network and
organizer with No Cold War. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American
Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News–From the
Revolutionary War to the War on Terror (Skyhorse Publishing). His articles are re-published
widely as well as on Patreon at patreon.com/dannyhaiphong. He is also the co-host with BAR
Editor Margaret Kimberley of the Youtube show BAR Presents: The Left Lens and can be reached on
Twitter @spiritofho, and email at [email protected].
Elephants in the Room: Why Do America and Britain Commit War Crimes? Neoliberalism and
Predatory CapitalismPart II By Rod Driver Global Research, November 15,
2020 Region: Europe ,
USA Theme: History ,
US NATO War
Agenda
"I spent 33 years being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American Sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."(1) (Major-General Smedley D. Butler,
1931 , US Marine Corps)
Once people understand the extent of the crimes of the US and British governments, the next
question they ask themselves is 'Why?'
The quote above shows clearly that US war and economic exploitation are two sides of the
same coin. Military aggression by rich nations often supports the economic interests of a small
number of the world's wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations. Decisions about
wars and decisions about how the world's trading system is structured are each made by a small
number of powerful people.
This includes not only politicians, but also senior executives in industry, particularly
banking, oil, mining, food and weapons. Most of these people live in the world's advanced
nations, particularly the US. I shall use the phrase 'Western elites' to refer to these people.
Some of these elites have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to make sure that their position
of power and wealth in the world is maintained. In 1948 the US had only 6% of the world's
population but 50% of the world's wealth. A US official stated at the time that their aim was
"to maintain this position of disparity"(2). As will become clear throughout these posts, the
views of US planners have changed little in the last 70 years.
Control of Resources and Trade
What is important in the minds of Western elites can be summed up by the phrase 'control of
resources and trade'. This is a shorthand way of summarising a number of connected ideas.
Resources include things like land, oil, minerals, crops and human labor. Rich countries want
poor countries to allow global corporations to extract and process these resources, and to take
them overseas, without too much interference from national governments, whatever the downsides
for local people. Rich countries also want poor countries to have economic systems that will
allow global corporations to dominate trade, buying and selling in order to make substantial
profits, without being too restricted by local laws. Again, this applies even where there are
downsides for local people.
Western elites therefore want leaders in other countries who will implement the 'right'
economic system. This means a particularly exploitative version of capitalism, sometimes called
neoliberalism or predatory capitalism, including widespread privatisation, weaker regulations
for big companies, and decreases in government expenditure, known as austerity. (These economic
policies will be discussed in more detail in later posts). The global financial and trade
system is manipulated deliberately and systematically to create this outcome. This might sound
like a conspiracy, but it does not really work that way. Provided everyone just plays their
part (corporate executives and bankers pursue profit, politicians make laws that favor
corporations, and trade negotiators from rich countries try to create trading agreements that
benefit their corporations), the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Blocking Independent Development
If leaders in other countries want to determine their own economic systems, this is known as
independent development. This does not mean that a country cuts itself off from the rest of the
world, or does not engage in trade. It simply means that the leaders of a country refuse to
implement neoliberal economic policies that allow corporations from rich countries to dominate
their economies, to plunder their resources, or to exploit their people. Western elites have
tried very hard to block independent development, because it limits their control. Leaders who
object to being exploited by rich nations can be overthrown and replaced, often causing
devastating consequences for their people, particularly the poor. The new leaders are often
referred to as US clients. They usually cooperate with the US because this helps them gain
power and wealth in their own country. Getting these rulers into power can be quite tricky.
Techniques range from manipulating elections right up to full-scale military invasion.
US Dominance
The US in particular has two other key goals. It wants to maintain a global financial system
based around the US dollar, and it would like to ensure that no other country becomes strong
enough, either militarily or economically, to be a rival. In 2018 the US announced that its
main focus was no longer on the 'war on terror', but would focus on "inter-state strategic
competition"(3), meaning Russia and China.
Whenever the reasons for a war are discussed in the mainstream, there is a tendency to look
for a single explanatory factor. In practice there tend to be a cluster of factors, often
connected to each other, that all push in the same direction. As well as the reasons discussed
above, there are plenty of big corporations that frequently benefit from war. This includes the
weapons industry, financial companies, private military contractors (mercenaries), oil and
minerals companies, and more recently many companies that win contracts to participate in the
reconstruction process in war zones.(4)
The Importance of Oil
Oil in the Middle East has been described as
"a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the great material prizes in world
history."(5)
Without oil, most advanced economies would grind to a halt. Of all the resources that
American leaders want to control, by far the most important is oil. Their control of oil is not
so much about wanting it all for themselves. It is more about being able to deny it to
others.(6) Anything that a country cannot produce for itself, but needs badly, can be used as a
means of control. A shortage of oil for a country such as China would make life very difficult
for them. This is the main reason that the major wars of the 21 st century have been
in oil rich regions. Specific motives relating to recent wars will be discussed in later
posts.
How Do We Know The Real Reasons For British and US Wars
Until 2006 it was difficult to know what politicians and government decision-makers were
really saying to each other about their reasons for wars and other activities. The government
kept many files secret in order to hide their crimes. In the UK we had to wait for 30 years
(this has now been reduced to 20 years) until some of these files became declassified. During
that period, we had to rely on the word of politicians and journalists for information. The
declassified files show that politicians often lie, particularly about their reasons for war,
and that mainstream media are not sufficiently questioning.(7) Time and again, the mainstream
media would show clips of Prime Ministers and Presidents saying 'We want peace', while those
same individuals were responsible for major wars. The files also show that Politicians use
concepts like 'national security' or 'official secrets' to cover up their crimes.
In 2006 a man named Julian Assange set up a new organisation called Wikileaks. This enabled
whistleblowers (people who witness criminal or unethical activity, usually by their employers)
to make information available to the public without their identity becoming known. Millions of
documents were given to Wikileaks exposing widespread war crimes by the British and US
governments, and widespread criminal activity by other governments and big companies. All of
these documents are available online and can be examined by anyone.(8)
Key Points
US and British wars are about control of trade and resources in other countries.
Of all the resources that the US wants to control, oil is the most important.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking
modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the second in a series entitled Elephants In The
Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what's really going on in
relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream
media.
A pair of progressive House Democrats is urging President-elect Joe Biden not to nominate a Pentagon chief who has
previously worked for a defense contractor.
"Respectfully, and in full agreement with your past statements, we write to request that the
next secretary of Defense have no prior employment history with a defense contractor," Reps.
Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
wrote in a letter to Biden released Thursday.
Pocan is the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Lee is the caucus's
chairwoman emeritus.
Flournoy's career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the
Pentagon and consulting firms that help businesses procure Pentagon contracts. In 2018, she
joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, an IT company that played an important role in Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman's 2015 drive to consolidate power. Booz Allen employs dozens of
retired American military personnel to train the Saudi Navy and provide logistics for the
Saudi Army. They deny helping the Saudi war in Yemen, and if you believe that
It's true – we probably won't like anyone appointed to Secretary of Defense.
But we must firmly oppose the fundamental conflict of interest that occurs when the official
selected to oversee the Defense Department is beholden to the same companies that stand to
gain enormous profit under their tenure. We oppose Michele Flournoy and any candidate for
Secretary of Defense with ties to revolving doors of the Pentagon because when the military
contractors calls the shots, we get:
The sale of even more weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, further fueling those
repressive regimes and their war on Yemen
More money wasted on the Pentagon – despite the country being in dire need of
resources to combat the pandemic, stop climate change, and guarantee universal
healthcare
An escalation of the US's reckless cold war with China – which could turn into a
hot war, endangering millions of people around the globe
More drones, more money for weapons contractors, more violence and more death, at home
and abroad.
With this new administration and new progressive voices in Congress – Cori Bush and
Jamaal Bowman, for example – we have a real chance to prioritize peace over war. We
already have efforts in the works to finally end U.S. support for the war on Yemen, slash the
Pentagon budget, de-escalate the growing conflict with China, and advocate for a New Good
Neighbor Policy in Latin America. But these campaigns for peace, especially the work to end
the war in Yemen, could be in serious trouble if Michele Flournoy, or anyone who shuffles
between the revolving doors of the Pentagon and military contractors, is appointed to lead
the Department of Defense. Tell
Congress: Americans don't want someone who has supported the war in Yemen running the US
military! Don't support Michele Flournoy or any candidate with ties to military companies as
Secretary of Defense!
We knew we'd have to hit the ground running with a Biden presidency, and it looks like our
first urgent call to action is here. Contact your
Senators now!
There are two different things here. Trump betrayal of his voters is one thing, but election
fraud is another and is unacceptable no matter what is your opinion about Trump. We should not
mix those two topics.
All our political forms are exhausted and practically nonexistent. Our parliamentary
system and electoral system and our political parties are just as futile as dictatorships are
intolerable. Nothing is left. And this nothing is increasingly aggressive, totalitarian and
omnipresent.
Jacques Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity (1991)
Look at them! Look at them, will you? Behold our politicians' horrible languid maws!; the
courtier-like faces of department managers. They are indeed salesmen, for the very power of
nations is measure in relation to their own mercantile activity.
Jean Cau, Le meutre d'un enfant (1965)
"What's going to happen now?" I was asked earlier today. "Nothing and everything," I
replied. Immigration, largely unchallenged and unscathed (excepting the incidental impact of
COVID-19 on population movement) from four years of Trumpism, will now continue to
accelerate unabated . Zionism will continue to enjoy the expansion of American
institutional and military support, this time with the blood interest of Jared Kushner replaced
with the Jewish
spouses of all three of Biden's children. And the momentary Obama-era delusion of a
post-racial America will continue to dissolve in the reality of the increasing
awareness and importance of race throughout the West, not solely as a result of mass
migration but also of the increasing ubiquity of the ideologies of racial grievance and
revenge. There will, of course, be a dramatic change for the worse in tone and spirit, and some
smaller legislative victories like the
banning of federal anti-racism training will likely soon be reversed. The defeat of Donald
Trump is also hugely demoralizing to many decent American people, and emboldening to their
bitterest enemies. This is to be sorely regretted. But it is in the shared qualities of Trump
and Biden, rather than the election and sham ballots, that the real nature of our political
systems and their future can be perceived. And it is in these shared qualities that our true
problems lie.
Parliamentary electoral democracy is merely a representation of the general system in which
it operates. Slavoj Zizek comments:
At the empirical level, of course, multi-party liberal democracy "represents" -- mirrors,
registers, measures -- the quantitative dispersal of different opinions of the people, what
they think about the proposed programs of the parties and about their candidates, etc.
However, prior to this empirical level and in a much more radical sense, the very form of
multi-party liberal democracy "represents" -- instantiates -- a certain vision of society,
politics, and the role of the individuals in it: politics is organized in parties that
compete through elections to exert control over the state legislative and executive
apparatus, etc. One should always be aware that this frame is never neutral, insofar as it
privileges certain values and practices.
The truth of the system, in terms of its non-negotiable aspects, is thus revealed in the
"values and practices" privileged and ring-fenced under both Trump and Biden. What are these
non-negotiables? Zionism, GloboHomo ideological capitalism and its "woke" leftist correlates,
and the neoliberal promotion of GDP as the benchmark of human success and happiness.
Zionism
Jews have little to fear from a Biden presidency, which is presumably why Haaretz
is
claiming that the "American Jewish vote clinched Biden's victory and Trump's ouster.
American Jews decided the outcome of the U.S. elections." Donald Trump might have been
hailed as the "most pro-Israel President in U.S. history," but Jews are notoriously
unreliable in their partnerships with non-Jewish elites. Fate, it must be said, has not been
kind to those gentile elites that have exhausted their usefulness to Jews. And Trump is
surely exhausted, having spent a busy four years fighting for Jews in Israel and in the United
States. He reversed long-standing US policies on several critical security, diplomatic and
political issues to Israel's favour, including the Iran nuclear accord, the treatment of Israel
at the UN, and the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In December 2019, he announced
his Executive
Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism , promising to fight "the rise of anti-Semitism and
anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world." One wonders what else he
could possibly have done for these people -- apart from a war with Iran -- a question that
appears to have been answered by Jews with a resounding "Nothing." One can only imagine Trump's
facial expression on seeing Benjamin Netanyahu's
emphatic congratulations to Joe Biden, punctuated with the loving refrain: "I have a
personal, long and warm connection with Joe Biden for nearly 40 years, and I know him to be a
great friend of the State of Israel."
Biden and Harris, replete with their immediate familial ties to Jews, are viewed in Zionist
circles as being at least as reliable as Trump, although not as exuberant and bullish. Biden
has been known as a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his 36 years in the Senate, often
cites his 1973 encounter with then-Prime Minister Golda Meir as "one of the most consequential
meetings" of his life, and has on more than one occasion regaled audiences with a tale about
his father telling him that "You don't need to be a Jew to be a Zionist." While some
modifications are likely in the American approach to Iran, few reversals are expected on
Trump's four years of pro-Israel activism. Biden, for example, has weakly criticized moving the
embassy to Jerusalem but said he would not pull it back to Tel Aviv. Michael Herzog at
Haaretz
describes both Biden and Harris as "traditional Democrats, with a fundamental commitment to
Israel whose roots are in part emotional in nature (in contrast to Obama)."
The change in relationship between America and Israel will be, in meaningful terms,
restricted to the personal. Netanyahu, for all his fawning, is likely to undergo a personal
demotion of sorts, with David Halbfinger of the New York Timespointing out
that we can expect a Biden presidency to diminish Netanyahu's "stature on the global stage and
undercut his argument to restive Israeli voters that he remains their indispensable leader."
Palestinian leaders, probably the best-positioned to offer a perspective on the potential for
an improvement in their condition under the new presidency, have been sombre to say the least.
Hanan Ashrawi, a senior PLO official, responded
to the question if she expected United States policy to continue tilting heavily in Israel's
favor: "I don't think we're so naïve as to see Biden as our savior." Contrast this with
the cheerfulness and confidence of Israel settlers who have grown accustomed to the perennial
nature of American support for Zionism. David Elhayani, head of the Yesha Council, an umbrella
for Jewish settlements in the West Bank,
said the party of the U.S. president ultimately doesn't matter so long as the baseline
commitment to support Israel persists: "Under Obama, we built more [settlement] houses than we
have under Trump I think Biden is a friend of Israel."
The fact that the grassroots of the Democratic Party are
drifting away from Zionism is no more consequential than the fact the grassroots of the
Republican Party wanted major action on immigration reform. The former, like the latter, have
been equally ignored by the real power brokers and influencers. Regardless of the radical
appearance of Democrat-affiliated movements like Black Lives Matter, the fact remains that all
of the leftist aggression and rhetoric of the summer of 2020 has resulted in the putative
election of an establishment Zionist and political pragmatist who is sure to execute a more or
less formulaic neoliberal scheme for government. In one sense, the bland, forgetful, and
familiar Biden, who lacks any hint of genuine or novel ideology and was elected purely as a
symbol of "not Trump," is the fitting response to Trump, who was equally devoid of ideological
sincerity or complexity beyond the symbolism of "not Establishment." And so, while the media
proclaims, as Heraclitus, that "all is in flux," from a different perspective we could argue,
like Parmenides, the opposite -- "there is no motion at all."
GloboHomo
If I retain one abiding, surreal, memory of the Trump presidency in the years ahead it will
be the Don dancing to the Village People in the wake of his numerous drives to legalize
homosexuality in various African backwaters. That the Red State Christians comprising so much
of his base could maintain their self-adopted blind spot on this issue is a remarkable
testament to the power of personality, because no world leader in history has done more in
recent history than Donald Trump to export what E. Michael Jones has so aptly termed "the Gay
Disco" -- the double-barrelled shotgun of unbridled finance capitalism and the superficial
freedom of sexual "liberty." As the pastors and preachers of South Carolina and Texas urged
their huddled congregations to pray for the President, Trump was busy dispatching new
missionaries, like U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, to the corners of the earth in
search of converts to the Church of GloboHomo.
In February 2019, the U.S. embassy indulged in some nostalgia for Weimar when it
flew LGBT activists from across Europe to Berlin for a strategy dinner to plan to push for
decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality -- mostly concentrated in the
Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean. For my part, I can think of many social problems in
these parts of the world, but it really takes a special kind of mind to arrive at the opinion
that one of the most pressing is that they need to become more gay. Grenell, however,
horrified that Iran has the audacity to execute its own convicted homosexual pederasts, was
not to be deterred, and was instrumental in the blackmail of lesser nations, promising they
would be denied
access to terrorism intelligence if they don't legalise homosexuality. All of which has
left the far corners of the American cultural-military empire questioning whether they could
better live with suicide bombers or sodomy.
Against such manoeuvres, Biden's apparent claim to be one half of the "most pro-equality
ticket in history" seems a little overstated. That being said, there's no question that Biden
is going to step up the domestic nature of GloboHomo significantly as soon as he assumes
office. Biden has pledged to sign the Equality Act, thus far opposed by the Trump
administration, within his first 100 days in office, a piece of legislation that will amend
"the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding,
credit, and the jury system." Biden has pledged to appoint significant numbers of homosexuals
and transsexuals to positions of influence, and has promised to allow transsexuals to join the
military. Experienced in advancing global LGBT+ dogma as part of the Obama-Biden
administration, Biden will also once again take up the global mantle,
expressing his "hopes to reverse Trump's efforts and expand queer rights internationally by
making equality a centrepiece of US diplomacy," and condemning
Poland's "LGBT-free zones." Stunning and brave indeed.
There is a certain sense in the cases of both Trump and Biden that, for all the flamboyance
of their efforts in this area, there is a performative aspect to this politics. I don't get the
impression that either has been especially personally committed to these ideas or actions, but
that, as pragmatic-symbolic politicians, they have been made aware that this is the direction
the broader System is moving in and they should comply and support it. The longevity and
gradual acceleration of these trends, beginning in earnest with the presidency of Bill Clinton,
would suggest a systemic movement underlying, and entirely untethered to, specific political
parties or figures. Throughout the West, and much as with Zionism, GloboHomo, or hedonistic
credit-based capitalism and its sexual correlates more generally, is to be accepted and
promoted as an essential part of the role of neoliberal government. In the context of declining
basic freedoms at home, for example the obvious decline in free speech and the creeping
criminalisation of meaningful dissent against the status quo, the international promotion of
homosexuality and transsexual identities offers a cost-free and PR-friendly method for
increasingly authoritarian neoliberal regimes to posture as crusaders for freedom. The trucker
in Ohio is, logical flaws notwithstanding, and whether he wants it or not, thus assured of his
place in the Land of the Free via his government's emancipation of the gays and transvestites
of Uganda. Engaged politically only at the most superficial level, the masses play along with
this ruse, often in blunt denial, possessing only fragmentary realisations of the fact their
countries are changing around them while the petty "rewards" of Americanism are meagre and
peculiar, if not insulting.
GDP!
Along with frequent reassurances that he was "giving serious consideration" to doing
something, Trump's presidency was marked by regular updates on the performance of American GDP.
Unfortunately the GDP, like the Jewish vote, appears to have stabbed him in the back, with
around 70% of
American GDP represented in counties that (putatively!) voted Democrat. Trump's tragicomic
belief in GDP performance as a form of politics in its own right is perhaps the quintessential
example of the mentality of homo economicus and the tendency of neoliberals to view
countries as mere zones, or economic areas, where everything is based on rationalism and
materialism, and national success is purely a calculation of economic self-interest. Writing
pessimistically of Trump's expected nomination
in 2015 , I issued a stark warning about the influence of Jared Kushner, but also
added:
For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its
materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a
potential "man of the people." But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian
and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience
and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the "distilled Jewish
spirit."
I don't think I've seen anything over the last four years that has made me question or
revise that assessment. Trump's dedicated tweeting on GDP in fact had the opposite effect.
The disturbing reality, of course, is that GDP is only one side of a national economy.
Another crucial aspect is government borrowing, and current projections suggest that the United
States is " condemned to
eternal debt ." According to The Budget Office of the United States Congress (CBO), "the US
economy would enter the first half of this century with a public debt equivalent to 195 percent
of its GDP. In the next 30 years the debt of the most powerful economy on the planet would more
than double." The first significant jump occurred in the wake of the subprime crisis, in which
Jewish mortgage lenders were especially prominent. The subprime crisis forced public debt to 37
percent of GDP, which then rose steadily to 79 percent between 2008 and the outbreak of
COVID-19. It now stands at 98 percent, and is accelerating. Although the United States has
reached comparable levels of debt in the past, there has almost always been an accompanying
war, or wars, which acted as a financial pressure valve -- a fact that does not bode well for
isolationists but may be encouraging news for Zionist hawks.
Joe Biden has claimed recently that "a
Biden-Harris Administration will not be measured just by the stock market or GDP growth, but by
the extent to which growth is raising the pay, dignity, and economic security of our working
families" -- while at the same time welcoming millions of new immigrants and legalizing the
~20M+ illegals into the workforce .The American economy is in fact extremely unlikely to change
direction, with Biden
reassuring his billionaire donors gathered at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan in June 2019
that "no one's standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change." I believe
him. Biden was part of an administration that
looked on as 10 million working Americans lost their homes. Matt Stoller at the
Washington Post has described Obama-era Democrat economic policies as "in effect, a
wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of
concentrated financial power." Biden was part of a team that outright rejected prosecuting
major bankers for fraud and money laundering, and that represented one of the most
monopoly-friendly administrations in history:
2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In
nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to
airlines, power was concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush's before it,
did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead
[under Obama] the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and
ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a
parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest
of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.
Biden is the product of funding from
forty-four billionaires , including six hedge fund speculators, seven real estate barons,
and five in the tech sector. Of the top 22 donors, at least 18 are Jews (Jim Simons, Len
Blavatnik, Stewart Resnick, Eli Broad, Neil Bluhm, David Bonderman, Herb Simon, Daniel Och, Liz
Lefkovsky, Steve Mandel, Bruce Karsh, Howard Marks, S. Daniel Abraham, Marc Lasry, Jonathan
Tisch, Daniel Lubetsky, Laurie Tisch, and Robert Toll). The Jewish consortium behind Biden is
almost identical in its financial composition to that behind Trump which, as I've explained
previously , was notable for its embodiment of "usury and vulture capitalism, bloated
consumerism, and the sordid commercial exploitation of vice." Biden's transition team ,
meanwhile, is comprised of "executives from Lyft, Airbnb, Amazon, Capital One, Booz Allen,
Uber, Visa, and JPMorgan." In short, expectations that Biden is going to break up Big Tech, or
any monopoly for that matter, are the fantasies of the deluded, the ignorant, and the
duped.
Conclusion
While the drama and recrimination surrounding the election are unquestionably fascinating, I
hope you'll forgive for being less agitated than most. My reasons for lethargy are simple: I
knew that regardless of outcome we'd get four more years -- four more years of Zionism,
GloboHomo, and the standardized, rationalized machinery of economic escalation that now
provides the apologetic engine for mass migration. Behind the abortion debates, Supreme Court
picks, culture wars, and media theater, these are the non-negotiables of the System. You don't
hear about them, and you can't talk about them, because you can't vote on them. And this is the
biggest electoral fraud of all.
I feel particular sorrow for ordinary decent Americans, in what today should be the land
of plenty for all, who are having to witness this horrible implosion of their country and
values. Other than divine intervention there is no hope. The media, money markets and
political classes are either directly run by the same children of a devil or by loathsome
gentiles who have taken the Judas coin or who are cowards in fear of their miserable
life's.
What is life if it means cowering down in the face of evil? An ancient voice trying to
tell this strange world that you are controlled by an evil power and that your eternal fate
is determined by how you respond to it i.e. join the freak show or stand up like a true man
or woman and tell them no.
The writer of this essay is a man of culture, with wide interests. There are not many
left. Compare him to the moronic voices of today with their narrow perverted interests and
weep for what faces you.
I feel particular sorrow for ordinary decent Americans, in what today should be the land
of plenty for all, who are having to witness this horrible implosion of their country and
values. Other than divine intervention there is no hope. The media, money markets and
political classes are either directly run by the same children of a devil or by loathsome
gentiles who have taken the Judas coin or who are cowards in fear of their miserable
life's.
Particular particular sorrow for the young. As for divine intervention, we used to have a
saying about God helping those who help themselves. Surely there must be some action we can
take.
While the drama and recrimination surrounding the election are unquestionably
fascinating, I hope you'll forgive for being less agitated than most. My reasons for
lethargy are simple: I knew that regardless of outcome we'd get four more years -- four
more years of Zionism, GloboHomo, and the standardized, rationalized machinery of economic
escalation that now provides the apologetic engine for mass migration. Behind the abortion
debates, Supreme Court picks, culture wars, and media theater, these are the
non-negotiables of the System. You don't hear about them, and you can't talk about them,
because you can't vote on them. And this is the biggest electoral fraud of all.
Exactly correct. As early as mid April 2017 I could see that Trump had no intention of
keeping his promises to middle Americans I wrote a comment to this blog saying as much.
Trump is a minion of the Deep State.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two
parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of
fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
Trump and the Deep State do not care what the American people want. They know that most
American people are inane fools and will believe anything. Most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent, Dancing With The Stars or The Masked Singer than be informed about
important issues.
The only discernible values espoused in this rambling crypfic article is dog-whistling to
bigots of yore.
There is no study of history, no analysis, no insight and no meaning beyond blathers about
jews and homos.
The tone is hatred and despair with the judgement that others are to blame and there is
nothing to work towards.
The Zizek quote offered a word-salad refrain that everybody comes to power under some
bias, to themselves, if nothing else. But Zizek's actual point has be de-contextualized. Here
is what Zizek was saying:
//Let's remember that [Hannah] Arendt said this in her polemic against Mao, who himself
believed that "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" – Arendt qualifies this like
an "entirely non-Marxist" conviction and claims that, for Marx, violent outbursts are like
"the labor pangs that precede, but of course do not cause, the event of organic birth."
Basically, I agree with her, but I would add that there never will be a fully peaceful
"democratic" transfer of power without the "birth pangs" of violence: there will always be
moments of tension when the rules of democratic dialogue and changes are suspended.
Today, however, the agent of this tension is the Right, which is why, paradoxically, the
task of the Left is now, as the US politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pointed out, to
save our "bourgeois" democracy when the liberal center is too weak and indecisive to do it.
Is this in contradiction with the fact that the Left today should move beyond parliamentary
democracy?
No: as Trump demonstrates, the contradiction is in this democratic form itself, so that
the only way to save what is worth saving in liberal democracy is to move beyond it –
and vice versa, when rightist violence is on the rise, the only way to move beyond liberal
democracy is to be more faithful to it than the liberal democrats themselves. This is what
the successful democratic return to power of the Morales's party in Bolivia, one of the few
bright spots in our devastated landscape, clearly signals.//
In other words we must be conservatives who are willing to progress!
And hey, crypto-fascists: Zizek is not on board with you just because RT runs him on their
version of Fox News.
The world is never going back to the old-timey dayz of white settlement of an eden
America. So move forward or croak of old age or both.
As to the idea that "decent Americans" are in any way demoralized by Trump's loss:
BULLSHIT!
If you are demoralized by Trump's loss, you have been ejected from decency. But Luckily
for you, it so happens USA is a happy-enough home for all stripes of perverts.
@Verymuchalive the
Occidental Observer writers in prison, you have zero reason to think Trump won't crack down
on free speech in 2020.
Another 4 years of Trumpstien means a very large % of the right will continue to sleep,
something Biden could not get us to do. Biden could never get the right to support vaccines
or martial law.
No Trump apologist besides Alex Jonestien gives an excuse why Trump is backing a unsafe,
hastily made vaccine for a disease with a 99% survival rate. No Trump cultist will provide a
credible one. (Wally will not be the first)
And what happened? She was raped and kicked in the butt by him. He always does that to
everybody. He did it to his dad, he did it to his brothers and sister, he did it to his
family ..and now he has raped America.
Trump's only ability is to find out what others fear or desire, then overpromise on
everything and deliver nothing or even the opposite after u have given him your support or
money. That's how he operates in business, and that's how he has conducted his fake
presidency.
I am surprised that so many seemingly intelligent people have been taken in by this
well-known conman.
Great article. What I find strange is a businessman from New York second only to Israel in
population of Jews could be so easily duped by them. Loyal only to themselves. In the words
of Harry Truman "Jesus couldn't do anything with them, what am I suppose to do with
them?".
I think it needs to be emphasised that the "homo" in globohomo stands for
"homogeneity" and not "homosexuality":
Globohomo
(adj) A word used to describe a globalized and homogenized culture pushed
for by large companies, politicians, and Neocon/Leftist pawns. This culture includes
metropolitan ideals such as diversity, homosexuality, sexual degeneracy, colorblindness in
regard to race, egalitarianism, money worship, and the erasure of different individual
cultures, among other things.
My reasons for lethargy are simple: I knew that regardless of outcome we'd get four more
years -- four more years of Zionism, GloboHomo, and the standardized, rationalized
machinery of economic escalation that now provides the apologetic engine for mass
migration. Behind the abortion debates, Supreme Court picks, culture wars, and media
theater, these are the non-negotiables of the System. You don't hear about them, and you
can't talk about them, because you can't vote on them.
This may be great for The US' Jewish plutocracy, but the United States is still in
economic competition with countries that don't give 2 cents for ZioGlob world (for example
China – which has just signed the RCEP – Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership, covering 15 Asian countries, after 8 years of negotiation and covering 2.2
billion people).
So the rest of the world looks on with interest, same as it did in 1923, when the German
Weimar Republic collapsed in an orgy of sleaze, corruption, debt and worthless money.
990. Jews are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ whites just as whites are
the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ non-whites. Let me explain how that
works.
Why do we observe Jews at the forefront of many cutting-edge industries? (for example the
media/arts and financial industries are indeed rife with them). The low-IQ answer is, of
course, a simplistic conspiracy theory: Jews form an evil cabal that created all these
industries from scratch to "destroy culture" (or at least what low-IQ people think is
culture, i.e. some previous, obsolete state of culture, i.e. older, lower culture, i.e.
non-culture). And, to be sure, there is a lot of decadence in these industries. But, in an
advanced civilization, there is a lot of decadence everywhere anyway! It's an essential
prerequisite even! So it makes perfect sense that the most capable people in such a
civilization will also be the most decadent! The stereotype of the degenerate
cocaine-sniffing whoremonging or homosexual Hollywood or Wall Street operative belongs here.
Well, buddy, if YOU were subjected to the stresses and temptations of the Hollywood or Wall
Street lifestyles, maybe you'd be a "degenerate" too! But you lack the IQ for that, so of
course you'll reduce the whole enterprise to a simplistic resentful fairy tale that seems
laughable even to children: a bunch of old bearded Jews gathered round a large table planning
the destruction of civilization! Well I say enough with this childish nonsense! The Jews are
simply some of the smartest and most industrious people around, ergo it makes sense that
they'll be encountered at or near all the peaks of the dominant culture, being
overrepresented everywhere in it, including therefore in its failings and excesses! This is
what it means to be the best! It doesn't mean that you are faultless little angels who can do
no wrong, you brainless corn-fed nitwits! There's a moving passage somewhere in Nietzsche
where he relates that Europe owes the Jews for the highest sage (Spinoza), and the highest
saint (Jesus), and he'd never even heard of Freud or Einstein! In view of all the
immeasurable gifts the Jewish spirit has lavished on humanity, anti-semitism in the coming
world order will be a capital offense, if I have anything to say on the matter. The slightest
word against the Jews, and you're a marked man: I would have not only you, but your entire
extended family wiped out, just to be sure. You think you know what the Devil is, but he's
just the lackey taking my orders. Entire cities razed to the ground (including the entire
Middle East), simply because one person there said something bad about "the Jews", that's how
I would have the future! Enough with this stupid meme! To hell with all of you brainless
subhumans! You've wasted enough of our nervous energy on this stupid shit! And the same goes
to low-IQ non-whites who blame all their troubles on whites! And it's all true: Jews and
whites upped the stakes for everybody by bringing into the world a whole torrent of new
possibilities which your IQ is too low to handle! So whatcha gonna do about it? Are you all
bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any of you fucking
pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!
Blah, blah, blah. Cat circling the hot plate. Trump was galacticly stupid. He should have
told the Jews that I will give you Jerusalem and Golan heights in my second term. He would
have a second term.
The only point is here is this:
Jews see Iran as a mortal threat. Jews want Iran to be destroyed. For Biden the first point
on the agenda is destruction of Iran. Biden did promise Jews that he will destroy Iran.
That is why Biden did win.
Trump hesitated with his promise to destroy Iran that is why he lost.
So here is the conclusion question:
Was Biden serious when he promised to Jews destroy Iran, or he was only making fools from
them Jews.
That is the only outstanding question
From my understanding, the term "Globohomo" was originally meant as a shorthand for
"globalised homogenisation", wherein all national cultures would be eliminated in favour of a
universal culture, promotion of homosexuality is just one of the components of GloboHomo,
with things like rampant consumerism, substance use and liberalism being some of the other
things.
If you go to the newly built sections of Europeans cities, you will notice how they are
all the same (homogenous) with the same American fast food outlets and the same architectural
style.
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it "the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might just
benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
Many of the president-elect's potential picks for foreign policy positions -- including
Susan Rice and Michele Flourney -- have onlookers worried. "With a Biden administration, we can
expect a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria.
Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen, but judging by his potential cabinet picks,
that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists
in Washington," Dave
DeCamp , assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress . "His administration will
likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire, with a more diplomatic and
coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China."
Rice, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under
Obama, has amassed a fortune of around $40
million . After leaving office, she was given a spot on the board of Netflix, being paid
$366,666 as a base salary. On top of that, she was given $2.3 million worth of the company's
stock. However, it is her husband, former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron
(whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist), who is the prime source of her wealth. She
was a key driver in U.S. action in Libya, and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher
sanctions on North Korea and Iran.
Flournoy, meanwhile, was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the
Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. After "serving the
country," she received lucrative consulting contracts, joined corporate boards, and began her
own security think tank, WestExec Advisors. By 2017, she was making a reported $452,000
annually.
"Certainly the possible selection of Michele Flournoy and other WestExec advisors people is
concerning," Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told
MintPress .
This isn't just because of their corporate/financial ties, though of course that's
alarming -- can we be sure that people whose private sector career involved leveraging their
government experience and contacts to help multinationals secure favorable business
conditions will have their intentions calibrated toward good policy and not to their private
sector career?"
"Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict, but again, words are only so much. It's
highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the
voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia (during the Yemen
conflict), under certain conditions, as they have a right to protect themselves. This speaks
volumes," said Mariamne
Everett of the Institute for Public
Accuracy . Rice and Flournoy, she added, were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq
War, which does not bode well for those concerned with peace.
Marcetic agreed, noting that, while in office, Flourney was "a major liberal
interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world, but has also
publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global
dominance," something which would be a "disaster for containing climate
catastrophe."
The recycling of old faces (many of them considerably richer than before) into the new
administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy, and more in the
way of continuation. Biden himself has largely acknowledged this, tweeting , "When I'm speaking to
foreign leaders, I'm telling them: America is going to be back. We're going to be back in the
game." To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs, these words will
likely not comfort them . DeCamp suggested that there will be no great difference in policy
between Trump and Biden administrations:
Despite Trump being painted as an 'isolationist,' his administration has actually
expanded NATO, shored up the support of some Asian countries to counter China, and
significantly increased Washington's military footprint in the Pacific. Biden will continue
this as he made clear in recent phone calls with Asian leaders and his tough talk on China's
claims to the South China Sea during the last presidential debate."
Flournoy meets with Afghan Army personnel during a tour of the Kabul Military Training
Center Aug. 7, 2010. Photo | DVIDS
Everett offered a similar analysis, suggesting that, with pro-Israel zealots like Rice
advising him, the Biden administration would "expand" on what Trump had done in Palestine as
well. Meanwhile, for Latin America, his foreign policy team intends
to revive the so-called "anti-corruption drives" of the Obama era, which ultimately overthrew
an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair
Bolsonaro.
Marcetic suggested that Biden would attempt to rejoin many of the international treaties and
organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of, including NATO and
the Paris Climate Agreement.
I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," continuing genocidal sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela,
ongoing treatment of Latin America as an American fiefdom, and militarism and conflict
continuing to be the dominant organising principle of U.S. foreign policy, rather than, say,
co-operation and stopping climate change," he added.
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden
will have "the most diverse, intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled." If
representation is important, it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life
will have a seat at the negotiating table. However, judging by Biden's wealthy picks, it
appears that yet again, no one will be representing the great majority of working-class
Americans.
The
New
York Post
confirmed Saturday what Breitbart News and others had reported earlier this year: that the Biden Cancer
Initiative, founded by former Vice President Joe Biden, spent millions on staff salaries but did little about cancer research.
A cancer charity started by Joe Biden gave out no money to research, and spent most of its contributions on staff salaries,
federal filings show.
The Biden Cancer Initiative was founded in 2017 by the former vice president and his wife Jill Biden to "develop and drive
implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research and care and to
reduce disparities in cancer outcomes," according to its IRS mission statement. But it gave out no grants in its first two
years, and spent millions on the salaries of former Washington DC aides it hired.
Biden headed up the Cancer Moonshot Task Force when he was veep after his son Beau died of a brain tumor in 2015. After
leaving office, the Biden Cancer Initiative sought to continue such efforts to provide "urgent" solutions to treating
cancer,
according
to a 2017 press statement
announcing its launch.
The
Post
report
confirmed earlier
reporting
by
the Washington Free Beacon, via Breitbart News, in June:
The cancer research non-profit that former Vice President Joe Biden created after leaving the Obama administration in 2017
spent two thirds of its money on staff, with top executives getting as much as six-figures, before shuttering.
The Washington Free Beacon
reported
on
Thursday that the Biden Cancer Initiative directed 65 percent of its total expenditures to staff compensation between 2017
and 2018. Overall, the group raised $4.8 million during the those two years, spending slightly more than $3 million on
salaries and benefits for its employees.
"That is well above the 25 percent charity watchdogs recommend nonprofits spend on administrative overhead and fundraising
costs combined," the outlet reported, noting that Biden's nonprofit "did not cut a single grant to any other group or
foundation during its two-year run."
As Breitbart News
noted
in
October, Biden met with businessman Tony Bobulinski in May 2017 to discuss a potential business venture with a Chinese energy
company. The meeting took place before the prestigious Milken conference in Los Angeles -- where Biden was to speak about his
family's efforts to fund cancer research.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of
Breitbart News Sunday
on
Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is
The
Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump's Presidency
. His recent book,
RED
NOVEMBER
,
tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert
Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at
@joelpollak
.
Get short URL A cancer charity created by presumed
president-elect Joe Biden failed to allocate a single dollar for medical research, according to
media reports, with most of the group's cash going towards generous salaries.
Federal tax filings reveal that the Biden Cancer Initiative, founded in 2017 by the former
vice president and his wife Jill, did not distribute grants during its first two years of
operations, the New York Post reported. The charity, created after Biden's oldest son, Beau,
died from brain cancer in 2015, states that its mission is to "develop and drive
implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis,
research and care."
The Daily Mail confirmed the curious budgetary decisions after also reviewing the
organization's tax paperwork.
According to the Post, Biden's charity raised $4,809,619 in contributions in fiscal years
2017 and 2018, spending $3,070,301 on salaries in those two years. Gregory Simon, a former
Pfizer executive and healthcare lobbyist who was tapped to serve as the organization's
president, took home $429,850 in the 2018 fiscal year, nearly doubling his salary from the year
before. Like Biden, Simon was a member of the Obama administration, spearheading the White
House's cancer task force.
Travel expenses also ballooned between 2017 and 2018, despite the organization never having
made a financial contribution towards cancer research. The group had previously claimed its
main focus was making cancer treatment more affordable and accessible, as opposed to raising
funds to find a cure.
After only two years, the charity "paused" its operations when Biden and his wife
stepped down for Joe Biden's presidential run.
The Biden Cancer Initiative halted its activities in July 2019, after Joe Biden stepped down
to focus on his presidential candidacy. Although technically still active, it has gone into
deep hibernation, with Simon acknowledging in a 2019 interview that, without Biden's
participation, it has become "increasingly difficult to get the traction we needed to
complete our mission."
The NY Post's story caught the eye of US President Donald Trump, who retweeted it without
comment.
Trump has previously described the Biden family as a "criminal enterprise," and said
the former vice president's alleged involvement in shady deals with foreign companies show
Biden is a "corrupt" politician. The Post ran a series of stories suggesting Biden may
have been linked to a questionable business arrangement with a Chinese firm, based on emails
and messages purportedly taken from a hard drive that once belonged to his son Hunter. Hunter's
former business partner later confirmed that the emails were genuine and the former vice
president was intimately involved in the scheme. Biden dismissed the Post's reporting as an
attempt to "smear" his son.
Mondo697 3 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 04:44 AM
Nearly all charities are run primarily if not solely for the benefit of those running them.
Only a miniscule amount is spent on the declared aims of the charity. They are tax fiddles
plain and simple.
fraudchild Mondo697 6 minutes ago 15 Nov, 2020 08:31 AM
biden is cancer? i agree.
lectrodectus 3 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 04:52 AM
It has become .."Increasingly Difficult To Get The Traction We Need To Complete Our Mission"
To Paraphrase...ALL THE MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT... DONATIONS HAVE DRIED UP.
11BangBangBaby 3 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 04:54 AM
Biden dismissed the Post's reporting as an attempt to "smear" his son.
why does he always use his dead son as a shield before running away? he
constantly does this....when asked an awkward question at all it's just his go to excuse.
what kind of a parent uses the memory of their dead son as an excuse to admit to their own
failings?
acacko 11BangBangBaby 1 hour ago 15 Nov, 2020 06:43 AM
a corrupt democrat politician with dementia? Oh.. Wait.. was that a philosophical question?
Mickey Mic 2 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 05:38 AM
Black mailer Joe Biden threatened to cut funds to medical research institutions that don't
report their clinical trial results in a timely manner. "Under the law, it says you must
report. If you don't report, the law says you shouldn't get funding," "I'm going to find out
if it's true" that the research centers aren't reporting the results " and if it's true, I'm
going to cut funding. That's a promise." He should've been locked up after his proclamation
confession to the CFR on Ukraine, where he held back funds until a prosecutor investigating
his son Hunter was fired. What can you expect from one of the biggest crime families in US...
"Honesty" ? Ha, Slow Joe is about as honest as Hillary's innocent record on the Haitian
Relief foundation. For the first time in my life, I'm seeing Americans not liking their cup
of Joe ! PS: Joe Biden is like a web browser with 19 tabs open: 17 are frozen and he don't
know where the music is coming from.
Eviscerate Mickey Mic 10 minutes ago 15 Nov, 2020 08:27 AM
Hilarious and I have little doubt true.
far_cough 3 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 05:24 AM
the whole biden family is so crooked. i hope after the election confusion is over the matter
of their worldwide crime network is reinvigorated and bought to justice...
DR64 1 hour ago 15 Nov, 2020 06:50 AM
We all know Trump is not squeaky clean when it comes to finances and deals which probably
means he is well able to spot Biden's activities. Like they say it takes a crook to spot a
crook. Americans have just jumped from frying pan into the fire. I think Biden is far more
dangerous as well as those yanking his strings.
Sinalco 3 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 04:45 AM
Same as the Clinton Haiti Hurricane Charity, or the Trump Charity that does not give to
Charity... The system is corrupt...
Sapphire1 2 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 06:02 AM
Looks like a tax scam for Biden.
Madbovineuk Sapphire1 2 hours ago 15 Nov, 2020 06:04 AM
Oh yes and US lawmakers are good at that
beliefmakr 1 hour ago 15 Nov, 2020 07:20 AM
A crooked politician? I'm shocked! But I get the feeling that Trump is more jealous than
indignant. He didn't steal nearly as much with Trump University, Trump Steaks, or Trump
Magazine despite his best efforts. I think people in his camp are just upset that the Bidens,
the Clintons, and a few others are just better crooks. They don't want to end corruption.
They just want a bigger slice.
Lois E. Winters 35 minutes ago 15 Nov, 2020 08:10 AM
It seems as though these politicians with their so called charities are nothing more than a
tax exclusion loop hole. Everyone of them ought to be investigated.
To those watching the drama unfolding in Washington, DC around the stalled efforts on the
part of nominal President-elect Joe Biden in forming a transition team, the parallels are
eerily familiar: a bitterly contested election between an establishment political figure and a
brash DC 'outsider', a controversial outcome delaying the implementation of the transition
between administrations, and an openly condescending atmosphere where the incoming team
postured as comprising a return to 'adult' leadership.
That time was December 2000, when a Republican team led by President-elect George W. Bush
stood ready to install a cabinet composed of veteran spies, diplomats, and national security
managers who had cut their policy teeth during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush. With Colin Powell as secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense,
George Tenet as director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice as national security
advisor, the foreign policy and national security team that Dubya surrounded himself with upon
assuming the presidency was as experienced a team as one could imagine.
And yet, within two years of assuming their responsibilities, this team of 'adults' had
presided over the worst terrorist attack in American history, and the initiation of two wars
(in Afghanistan and Iraq) that would forever change both the geopolitical map of the world and
America's role as world leader.
Twenty years later, the roles have reversed, with an experienced team of veteran 'adults'
hailing from the eight-year tenure of President Barack Obama preparing to transition the US
away from four tumultuous years of the presidency of Donald J. Trump. While Biden has not
finalized his foreign policy and national security team, there is a consensus among experienced
political observers about who the top contenders might be for the 'big four' foreign and
national security policy positions in his administration.
While there is no doubting the experience and professional credentials of these potential
nominees, they all have one thing in common: a proclivity for military intervention on the part
of the US. For anyone who hoped that a Biden administration might complete the task begun by
President Trump of leading America out of the 'forever wars' initiated by the 'adults' of the
administration of George W. Bush, these choices represent a wake-up call that this will not be
the likely outcome.
Moreover, a potential Biden cabinet would more than likely complement the existing
predilection on the part of the president-elect for military intervention, pointing to a
foreign and national security policy which not only sustains the existing conflicts in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, but increases the likelihood of additional military
misadventures. The Biden team will almost certainly seek to shoehorn the president-elect's
aggressive "America is back" philosophy into a geopolitical reality that is not inclined to
accept such a role sitting down.
So who's likely to fill what role?
Secretary of State
The hands-on favorite here is Susan Rice, who served as both national security advisor and
US ambassador to the United Nations under Barack Obama. Biden knows her very well, and they
have a great working relationship. With a history of promoting US intervention in Syria and
Libya, Rice would more than likely support any policy suggestions concerning a re-engagement by
the US in Syria in an effort to contain and/or overthrow Bashar al-Assad, and would be reticent
to withdraw US forces from either Afghanistan or Iraq.
She would also most likely seek hardline 'confrontational' policies designed to 'roll-back'
Russian influence in Europe and the Middle East, as well as China's claims regarding the South
China Sea. Rice would seek to strengthen the military aspects of NATO to better position that
organization against Russia in Europe, and China in the Pacific.
A Rice nomination could run afoul of a Republican-controlled Senate, where a source close to
the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has noted that a "
Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees " but would oppose "radical
progressives" or ones who are controversial among conservatives.
While Rice is not a "radical progressive," the Republicans continue to condemn her actions
while serving as the US ambassador to the UN in response to the 2012 terrorist attack on the US
Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans – including the US ambassador to
Libya – dead. This controversy prevented her from becoming secretary of state during
Obama's second term, and one can expect a very contentious Senate hearing if she is nominated,
with no guarantee that she would pass.
An equally qualified, but far less controversial, woman is the likely nominee for this
position. Michele Flournoy, if nominated and confirmed, would become the first female secretary
of defense in the history of the US. Given her extensive resume, which includes several
previous appointments in senior policy positions in the Department of Defense during both the
Clinton and Obama administrations, she would provide an experienced hand in the management of
the Pentagon.
Flournoy once famously told the New York Times that "
warfare may come in a lot of different flavors in the future. " In her previous postings
in the Pentagon, she took a hardline stance against both Russia and China, encouraged military
intervention in Libya and Syria, and sustained military operations in Afghanistan. Her
proclivity to seek military solutions to challenging foreign policy issues would reinforce the
similar inclinations of Biden. With Flournoy at the helm of the Pentagon, America can expect to
experience a full menu of war "flavoring."
While the above two positions represent the ostensible heads of US foreign and defense
policy, the reality is that the US has become increasingly reliant upon the covert action
capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency when it comes to influencing diplomatic and
military outcomes. While news reports have on occasion lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding
covert CIA activities, allowing Americans and the world a small measure of insight into their
scope, scale and effectiveness, the reality is that the vast majority of the work of the CIA
remains classified, revealed only decades after the fact, if at all.
As the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and later as vice
president, Biden is intimately familiar with these covert activities, and of the potential of
the CIA to impact American foreign and national security policy. One of the names being bandied
about for the role of director is Michael Morell. He is a retired career CIA officer, having
worked his way up the ranks over the course of a 33-year career, finishing in 2013 having twice
served as the acting director under President Obama.
Morell would no doubt manage the agency in a professional manner. He is a CIA man, seeped in
the dark arts. Insight into how this experience might manifest itself in a Biden administration
was provided through comments Morell made about Syria
while appearing on PBS in 2016. " What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians
pay a little price ," he said. " When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons
to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay
a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a
price ."
By "paying a price," Morell meant "killing." Russians and Iranians, he said, should be
killed " covertly, so you don't tell the world about it, you don't stand up at the Pentagon
and say 'we did this.' But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran ."
If state, defense and the CIA are the three principal tools available to Biden in the
conduct of foreign and national security policy, the person responsible for making these three
players – along with a host of other departments and agencies – come together as a
single team falls to the national security advisor. Here, Biden seems to be leaning toward
another experienced hand, Antony Blinken.
Blinken's resume includes stints at the State Department and National Security Council
during the Obama administration. Like the other potential nominees, Blinken possesses the kind
of experience necessary to hit the ground running. As someone who knows and is well known by
all the major policy players that could populate a Biden administration, including the
president-elect himself, Blinken would be able to coordinate policy formulation and
implementation in a seamless fashion.
Therein, however, lies the rub – Blinken would serve as a facilitator of
interventionist policy positions that he is inherently inclined to agree with. Like Biden's
other potential nominees, Blinken supported the Obama interventions in Syria and Libya, two
events that serve as a litmus test for ascertaining potential interventionist scenarios in the
future.
Whereas a national security advisor should insulate the presidency from the more focused,
hardline policy proposals put forward by state and defense, and provide balance when it comes
to considering covert action proposals from the CIA, Blinken would function more as a
superhighway of interventionist policy options between these entities and a president whose own
background can be defined as never having seen an opportunity for US intervention that he
didn't like.
As things stand today, one cannot predict the composition of a Biden cabinet with absolute
certainty; it is likely that one or more of the potential candidates listed here will fall by
the wayside, their path blocked by the unpredictability of a Senate confirmation at the hands
of a hostile Republican Party.
But the predilection for military intervention and covert action will define any Biden-led
cabinet, regardless of exactly who ends up seated there. In the end, the likelihood that this
iteration of 'adult' leadership ends up getting America embroiled in excessive interventions
that further disrupt the global geopolitical balance in the US's disfavor while costing its
people precious blood and treasure is high.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it"the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might
just benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
"... It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... The transition has also been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed for the party’s failure in 2016. ..."
"... The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. ..."
"... That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget, but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head. ..."
"... Obama's deep state lied, people died: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-envoy-admits-hiding-us-troop-numbers-praises-trumps-mideast-record/170012/ ..."
"... I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world. ..."
"... The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other. ..."
"... "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." ..."
"... Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state. ..."
Donald Trump was much troubled during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns by so-called conservatives who rallied behind the #NeverTrump
banner, presumably in opposition to his stated intention to end or at least diminish America’s role in wars in the Middle East and
Asia. Those individuals are generally described as neoconservatives but the label is itself somewhat misleading and they might more
properly be described as liberal warmongers as they are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on most social issues and are
now warming up even more as the new Joe Biden Administration prepares to take office.
To be sure, some neocons stuck with the Republicans, to include the highly controversial Elliott Abrams, who initially opposed
Trump but is now the point man for dealing with both Venezuela and Iran. Abrams’ conversion reportedly took place when he realized
that the new president genuinely embraced unrelenting hostility towards Iran as exemplified by the ending of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. John Bolton was also a neocon in the
White House fold, though he is now a frenemy having been fired by the president and written a book.
Even though the NeverTrumper neocons did not succeed in blocking Donald Trump in 2016, they have been maintaining relevancy by
slowly drifting back towards the Democratic Party, which is where they originated back in the 1970s in the office of the Senator
from Boeing Henry “Scoop” Jackson. A number of them started their political careers there, to include leading neocon Richard Perle.
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is
now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini.
The transition has also
been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed
for the party’s failure in 2016. Given that mutual intense hostility to Trump, the doors to previously shunned liberal media outlets
have now opened wide to the stream of foreign policy “experts” who want to “restore a sense of the heroic” to U.S. national security
policy. Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum are favored contributors to the Atlantic while Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss were together at
the New York Times prior to Weiss’s recent resignation.
Jennifer Rubin, who wrote in 2016 that “It is time for some moral straight
talk: Trump is evil incarnate,” is a frequent columnist for The Washington Post while both she and William Kristol appear regularly
on MSNBC.
The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and
everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia
serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. In the post-9/11 world, the neocon media’s leading publication The Weekly Standard
virtually invented the concept of “Islamofascism” to justify endless war in the Middle East, a development that has killed millions
of Muslims, destroyed at least three nations, and cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 trillion. The Israel connection has also resulted
in neocon support for an aggressive policy against Russia due to its involvement in Syria and has led to repeated calls for the U.S.
to attack Iran and destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. In Eastern Europe, neocon ideologues have aggressively sought “democracy promotion,”
which, not coincidentally, has also been a major Democratic Party foreign policy objective.
The neocons are involved in a number of foundations, the most prominent of which is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD), that are funded by Jewish billionaires. FDD is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz and it is reported that the group takes direction
coming from officials in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Other major neocon incubators are the American Enterprise Institute,
which currently is the home of Paul Wolfowitz, and the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins University.
The neocon opposition has been sniping against Trump over the past four years but has been biding its time and building new alliances,
waiting for what it has perceived to be an inevitable regime change in Washington.
That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy
agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create
in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland.
Robert was one of the first neocons to get on the NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president
and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by
Trump. His wife Victoria Nuland is perhaps better known. She was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government
of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support
to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies
on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget,
but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And, to be sure, beyond regime change in places like Ukraine, President Barack Obama was no slouch when it came to starting actual
shooting wars in places like Libya and Syria while also killing people, including American citizens, using drones. Biden appears
poised to inherit many former Obama White House senior officials, who would consider the eager-to-please neoconservatives a comfortable
fit as fellow foot soldiers in the new administration. Foreign policy hawks expected to have senior positions in the Biden Administration
include Antony Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power and, most important of all the hawkish Michele
Flournoy, who has been cited as a possible secretary of defense. And don’t count Hillary Clinton out. Biden is reportedly getting
his briefings on the Middle East from Dan Shapiro, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who now lives in the Jewish state and is reportedly
working for an Israeli government supported think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies.
Nowhere in Biden’s possible foreign policy circle does one find anyone who is resistant to the idea of worldwide interventionism
in support of claimed humanitarian objectives, even if it would lead to a new cold war with major competitor powers like Russia and
China. In fact, Biden himself appears to embrace an extremely bellicose view on a proper relationship with both Moscow and Beijing
“claiming that he is defending democracy against its enemies.” His language is unrelenting, so much so that it is Donald Trump who
could plausibly be described as the peace candidate in the recently completed election, having said at the Republican National Convention
in August “Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing their dreams and the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs,
opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars, wars that never ended.”
It should be noted that the return of "neocons" does not mean the return of people like Wolfowitz, Ladeen, Feith, Kristol who
are more "straussian" than "liberal/internationalist", but those like Nuland, Rice, Sam Powell, Petraeus, Flournoy, heck even
Hilary Clinton as UN Ambassador who are CFR-type liberal interventionist than pure military hawks such as Bolton or Mike Flynn.
These liberal internationalists, as opposed to straussian neocons, will intervene in collaboration with EU/NATO/QUAD (i.e. multilaterally)
in the name upholding human rights and toppling authoritarianism, rather than for oil, WMDs, or similar concrete objectives. In
very simple terms, the new Biden administration's foreign policy will be none other than the return to "endless wars" for nation-building
purposes first and last.
The name Kagan is the Russianized version of the name Cohen. He was going to be McCain's NSA had he been elected. They pulled
a stunt with the Bush admin to make Obama look weak by pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008. Sakaasvili, the president
of Georgia, was literally eating his own tie:
A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy
goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors
feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head.
I don't think they have that much influence. They pushed a lot of nonsense in the late 70/early 80s about how the Taliban were
George Washingtons and here we are today, they're worst than the Comanche. The last time I saw Richard Perle make a TV appearance,
he was crying like a baby. Robert Novak, the prince of darkness, was a Ron Paul supporter. The only ones really kicking around
are Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, but Kristol was almost alone when he was talking about putting 50,000 boots on the ground
in Syria. Rubin is a harpie who only got crazier and crazier. Kagan had his foot in the door with Hillary only because of his
wife. Those two might get back in with Biden on Ukraine, but Biden would do well to keep them at a distance.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present
in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist
foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world.
It seems now that there is a new breed of neocons, unified by opposition to Trump's messaging, but not much else. Odd to find
people like Samantha Power, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, and Paul Wolfowitz marching together in perfect step.
A good perspective by Philip Weiss on the same subject. Eliot A Cohen must be communicating a lot with the Kagan brothers ,
Dennis Ross and Perle to see who can be parachuted either to the WH or Foggy Bottom.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology
The revolutionary spirit (see E. Michael Jones' work). From communism to neoconservatism it's ultimately an attack on the Beatitudes
and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. "The works of mercy are the opposite of the works of war" -- Servant of God Dorothy Day
I hold the Cold Warriors like Scoop a species distinct from those of the post-USSR era. The current version started at the
end of the cold war. We felt like kings of the world after Gulf War 1 and the shoe seemed to fit.
The HW Bush administration pondered how best to use this power for good. I've read some things which report there was a debate
within the administration on whether to clean up Yugoslavia or Somalia first. They got Ron to "do the honors" for the invasion
of Somalia at Oxford: About 20 minutes in.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?35586-1/arising-ashes-world-order
That was played as part of the pep-talk on the Juneau off the coast of Somalia. Stirring stuff.
In some small way I never stopped sipping that Kool Aid. It's hard to stand by and watch unspeakable evil go down when you
have the power to stop it...or think you do. Time will tell if the Neocons are capable of perceiving the limits of force. Certainly
had some hard lessons in the last few decades.
Hogs lining up for a spot at the trough? The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other.
I think its generally shocking that Trump or the republicans didn't make a bigger issue of Biden's history of supporting disastrous
intervention, especially his Iraq War vote. Maybe they felt like its not a winning issue, that they would lose as many votes as
they gain by appearing more isolationist. But overall, Trump favoring diplomacy over cruise missiles should have been a bigger point in his favor in the election.
It is distressing to read that we will have people in the government who are looking for a fight. That is especially true in
view of China's aggression in recent years and the responses we will have to make to that. I think we will have more than enough
to do to handle China. What do the neocons want to do about China?
Here is an article about China that really startled me and made me realize how much of a threat is was becoming. The Air Force
chief of staff talks about the challenges of countries trying to compete militarily with us in ways that have not occurred for
awhile. Here are two quotes that really got me:
"Tomorrow's Airmen are more likely to fight in highly contested environments, and must be prepared to fight through combat
attrition rates and risks to the nation that are more akin to the World War II era than the uncontested environments to which
we have since become accustomed," Brown writes."
And
"Wargames and modeling have repeatedly shown that if the Air Force fails to adapt, there will be mission failure, Brown warns.
Rules-based international order may "disintegrate and our national interests will be significantly challenged," according to the
memo."
The article doesn't say we will have another arms race but that is an obvious response to China's competition with us. I thought
all that was done and gone. I do not want to resume it. I don't want another period of foreign entanglements, period. We still
haven't paid for the War Against Terrorism. I look into the future and all I see is us racking up bills that we have no ability
to pay. And then there is the human cost of all this, I don't want to even think about that.
Snouts in the trough accounts for a certain amount of neocons, I'm sure. There is, however, a unifying vision beyond that which
puzzles me, given the very different political orientations of various neocons. Neocons are found in academia and the media as
well. Those types are less dependent on taxpayer dollars in exchange for their views (they'll get whatever tax money gets pushed
their way in grants, etc regardless).
I find Polish Janitor's "straussian" and "liberal/internationalist" flavors of neocon intriguing, as I hadn't considered that
before.
COL Lang's quote from Plato reminds me of another (from Cormac McCarthy): "It makes no difference what men think of war, said
the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The
ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All
that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state.
I concur with your thoughts about standing by as evil occurs. We just have a habit of jumping into complex situations we don't
understand, and making things worse. I suspect you feel the same way.
The military misadventures during my career (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria) were marked by our own black and white
thinking. The more successful adventures (Colombia, Nepal) were marked by our appreciation (to a certain extent) of the complex
nature of the environments we were getting involved in...and the fact that we weren't involved in nation-building in the latter
two locales. There were viable governments in place, and we weren't trying to replace them.
Here is another Biden clip that should have been exploited too - way back when - when the media was a little more trusted,
but no less pompous. However, Biden The Plagerizer had it coming.
Though I am warming more and more to Trump Media becoming the real soul of America. Plus someone, in time. will need to pick
up Rush Limbaugh's empire. America needs a counter-weight to fake news more than it needs the keys to the White House, with all
its entangling webs, palace intrigues, chains and pitfalls.
Godspeed President Trump. If someone with as few talents s Biden can rise like Lazarus, just think what you can do with your
little finger. No wonder the Democrats want Trump destroyed; not just defeated in a re-election. We have your back, Mr President.
Are the people of America up for another arms race and a more or less cold war with China? I think the Chinese will give us
a lot more trouble than the Soviets ever did.
And yet we allow their students to come here and learn all we know and their elites to bring their dirty money here and we
give them green cards and citizenship and protect the money they took from the Chinese people. Not so smart on our part.
What is the next theater of war that Biden's new friends will involve us in? I noticed lots of Cold War era conflicts are heating
up lately, Ethiopia Morocco Armenia being recent examples. IS in Syria/Iraq is still castrated due to the continued mass internment
of their population base in the dozens of camps, but they have established thriving franchises in Africa and their other provinces
continue to smolder.
During a July 19, 2020 appearance on Operation Freedom, General Mclnerney, referring to his
original March 19, 2017 interview about TFIE HAMMER, stated:
What we didn't know 011 that date in March 2017 was that's what was presented to President
Obama on the 5th of January [2017] just before he left office when they opened the
investigation and he directed the FBI to look into and the reason why the FBI sent two people
over to interview General Flynn. Aid that information 011 the Kislvak memo came from HAMMER. It
wasn't a normal NSA document.
Aid that's why Sally Yates wasn't aware of it until the president mentioned it and said put
the appropriate people. That's a dog whistle to put our special team on. Aid so, Biden was
sitting in that meeting. Biden. Biden has got Russian collusion all over him along with
President Obama.
This could not have happened unless Obama was letting it happen. So that's why we've got to
get John Durham's grand juries going and going on in a hurry, so the Anerican people know how
corrupt the entire Democratic party is, but also the media...
...The Obama Administration cabal waged a criminal campaign against General Flynn, including
attempting to frame General Flynn with Logan Act violations when General Flynn had done no such
thing. Peter Strzok's hand-written notes suggest that it was Vice President Joe Biden who came
up with the idea of prosecuting General Flynn for Logan Act violations. General Flynn, the
incoming National Security Adviser, had cut no deals or suggested any deals to Russian
Ambassador Kislvak, as they well knew.
Director Comey's announcement that the FBI was investigating whether President Trump had
connections to the Kremlin, issued less than 24 hours after the conclusion of General
Mclnerney's radio interview, proved that Admiral Lyons and General Mclnerney, with information
from Fanning and Jones of The Anerican Report, were right 011 target -- THE HAMMER is the key
to the coup.
A the FBI used to say, "There are no coincidences."
They had stolen the keys to the kingdom, and they wanted to keep their weapon.
Strzok and Page were aware of, and texting about, Dennis Montgomery. Both Strzok and Page
were intimately involved with the Russian Collusion Hoax. Both Strzok and Page were key
participants in the coup d etat -- a coup d etat against a duly-elected United States
president. This act of treason had never been seen before in America.
Regardless of whether Strzok and Page had Iranian family members or grew up in Iran, their
oath as public servants was to the United States Constitution. The actions of Strzok and Page
were the actions of an enemy.
"... Now I'm posing this as a serious question. What does the Duopoly gain from Biden
that it can't get from Trump?"
Surely the money pump that was dispensing largesse to the post-Maidan regime in Ukraine
via the contacts that regime has with the DNC (Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council and the
media who take the Atlantic Council's money, like Bellingcat for example) before 2017, and
which must have dried up while Trump was President, will start up again should Biden last
long enough past his inauguration. After all, you know he did indeed push former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to sack his Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for continuing to
investigate the activities of Mykola Zlochevsky and his company Burisma Holdings (at which
Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors) and even
boasted about it.
With Biden at the helm, both Democrats and those Republicans (like Mitt Romney) who do not
support Trump can push for further neoliberal, military and other activity against Russia in
eastern Europe and Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia). They might also try to resurrect
their war in Syria and ensure Syria can never get the Golan Heights back.
But if Atlantic Council is onlyy a DNC tool, how do you explain that under YTrump
administration and Pompeo SoS it was Atlantic Council fellow Franak ViaÇorca who
helped organize the Belarusina color revolution, to the extent that now he figures in his
Twitter account as Tikhanovskaya´s personal advisor?
Thanks for your reply! IMO, there wasn't much drop-off in Color Revolution activity under
Trump, and he followed fairly closely the National Defense Directives against both Russia and
China. Perhaps its the blatant rejection of treaties since Biden has vowed to
rejoin/renegotiate, particularly New START. Maybe it's resistance to a currently secret
policy ploy like the Great Reset or Biden's announced very different approach to the pandemic
or some other secret schism we're not privy to yet. I don't doubt the vote result here in
Oregon since our system is extremely hard to violate in any massive manner--it was an
emotional contest thus the high turnout. The joined Media Narrative is cause for concern for
it signals another BigLie, and to go through that effort means a rather important motive.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 12 2020 1:34 utc | 143
The history of the last three decades show that Republican's wage major wars while
Democrats wage small and/or covert wars (liberal interventions) and regime changes.
Republicans will never relinquish the patriotic mantle that allows them to trump (pun
intended) the left's aspirations.
I don't think this holds water. What I see is a clear pattern of decline:
1) George H. W. Bush directly invades Iraq with legitimate American forces. It a
full-fledged invasion, the first war declared for explicitly economic purposes by the USA.
Nobody finds it weird or contests it, because the USA had just emerged victorious from the
Cold War and is now the sole superpower;
2) Bill Clinton, in order to not rub American supremacy on everybody's faces, invades
Somalia and annihilates Yugoslavia with legitimate American forces behind a UN flag. He wins
Yugoslavia but doesn't manage to do a Communist Nürnberg Trial, and loses in Somalia.
The first chink in the armor of the sole hegemon;
3) George W. Bush wins through electoral fraud (Florida). 9/11 happens with his blessing.
He then has to do a kabuki in order to blame it all on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even then he
doesn't earn the UN's blessing. He invades Iraq and Afghanistan with legitimate American
forces and wins in Iraq. He takes Iraq's oil reserves, but the objective doesn't solve
America's economic problems. Afghanistan turns into a swamp. He fails to invade Iran and
fails to bomb North Korea. He loses against Russia in Georgia. The USA still is able to
invade other countries and destroy them with legitimate American forces, but with much more
difficulty and not always achieving what it wants. For the first time since the beginning of
the End of History invasions are halted before they even begin;
4) Obama has to begin his government with a mammoth USD 1.1 trn unconditional bailout to
America's big banks and other companies. He tries to make a profit from the occupation of
Iraq by recalling American troops and substituting them with drones and mercenaries
(Blackwater). Afghanistan continues to drain the coffers. Russia rises. China rises. He
pathetically tries to invade Syria with auxiliaries (ISIS) and fails utterly (Russia even
imposes a no-fly zone to NATO/USA). Invasions are then further scaled down to color
revolutions (Ukraine, etc.). South China Sea is lost without even a fight. Ukraine is
partitioned by Russia after the color revolution and NATO loses the Black Sea forever;
5) Trump cannot even begin a new war. He contents himself with color revolution in Latin
America, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Belarus and other Central Asian countries. For the first time
since the End of History, a POTUS tries to be friends with a previous enemy nation (North
Korea and Russia). For the first time, a color revolution is reverted in Latin America
(Bolivia), while a clandestine invasion of Venezuela also fails.
So, the pattern here is clearly one of decline. At the beginning of the End of History
(1991), the USA can invade anyone with its regular forces, legally and with the blessing of
the UN and NATO - and wins all those conflicts. Then, it begins to lose or at least not
completely win - but still do the whole thing legally, with regular forces and with
blessings. Then it still is capable of invading and winning - but not legally and not with
the blessing of even the main NATO allies (France and Germany); also, even when it wins, it
is clear it was not what the Empire needed to stay afloat. Then, it has to abandon any
prospects of invasion by regular forces, having to resort to color revolutions and
clandestine auxiliaries (terrorist armies). Then it is not even capable of doing those color
revolutions successfully anymore (except in Latin America - the Empire's historical little
bitch, so it doesn't really count).
The conclusion we can reach here is that Trump didn't initiate any new war for the simple
fact he couldn't: the Empire is overstretched, its resources dwindling.
With Biden, I think we'll witness this process deepening, but in another key:
"Political wisdom holds that Americans, the American public, doesn't vote on foreign
policy," he said in New York, speaking before a crowd that included some former diplomats.
"But I think that's an old way of thinking. In 2019 foreign policy is domestic policy in my
view. And domestic policy is foreign policy."
With Biden, we can see for the first time in American history the USA officially admitting
it is an empire. The American people will be directly involved and voting and supporting for
foreign policy, i.e. invasions and interventions. Domestic policy will fuse with foreign
policy, in a typical imperial metamorphosis. There will be no going back, it will be a war of
annihilation between the USA (I'm here including its provinces) and the rest of the world. As
the famous Soviet epic once said, it will be a battle not for glory, but "for life on
Earth".
Joe Biden's political Career by year:
1973 Biden enters politics
1974
1975
1976
1977 Biden fights to keep schools segregated because "allowing blacks to integrate would create a racial jungle"
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983 Biden taxes SS
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 Ran for president but had to end it after getting busted for plagiarism
1989
1990 C'mon man, almost there
1991
1992
1993 Biden taxes SS again
1994 Biden writes the stop and frisk law which is what African Americans blame for systemic racism today
1995
1996
1997 Almost, not yet because y'know the thing
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008 Calls Obama the first articulate and clean mainstream African American
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020 and now he's ready to "FIX" the Country.
Imagine being so dumb that you think the guy in office for 4 years is the problem and
the guy in office for 47 YEARS is the solution
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Biden has a long history of being deeply culpable in human rights abuses. Our instinct may
be to jubilantly proclaim that the suffering for vulnerable population will now end, but that
wouldn't be the case for, say, civilians in war zones. Biden's decision to actively advocate
for the disastrous war on Iraq and the crime bill, which imprisoned millions of
African-Americans, are rightly notorious.
Biden certainly also did not embolden Obama's more peaceful and internationalist
inclinations, which he demonstrated in his speech to the Muslim world and opposition to the
Iraq war, when he served as his vice-president. As the Guardian [2] reported about 2016, the
last year of the Obama administration, "the ( ) administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs.
This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas
with 72 bombs; that's three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day." Under Obama/Biden, ten times
more drone strikes were authorized than under Bush, and the US joined the coalition to bomb
Yemen, which has exacerbated a famine that had killed 84.701 by November 2018.[3]
Biden has never seriously reflected on the lives there were wrecked and the traumas that
were imposed during the post-9/11 wars, and there is no sign that he will deescalate US foreign
policy in 2021. But there is hope: In opposition to Trump, movements to bolster domestic human
rights in the US have been invigorated. The heroes of the last four years – the Dreamers,
as well as the BLM, anti-detention and Sanders activists – will not go away. Can their
call for moral transformation take on global dimensions?
None of our doubts about Biden should diminish our recognition of the racist horrors of the
Trump years. Some of his supporters claim that "Trump never started a war", and submit this
statement as proof that Trump is less damaging to the world than a centrist Democrat only tell
(or know) half the truth. The trend in US foreign policy has been to drop more and more bombs
since 09/11 – and the Trump administration, which was packed with notorious Islamophobes,
represented the sad, recent pinnacle of a trendline that will hopefully not be continued under
the Biden administration. In Afghanistan, warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions in
2019, which was the highest number since the Pentagon began tracking how many bombs it drops in
2006.[4] Consequently the US, and its allied Afghani forces, killed more than the Taliban
within 2019.[5] Trump would have certainly further undermined international humanitarian law in
war zones. After all, he pardoned a war criminal as an intentional symbolical gesture,[6] and
advocated for bombing the families of terror suspects, which is, of course, a crime per the
Geneva Convention.
If the past years have shown anything, it is how important it is to limit the war powers of
presidents no matter who is in office. The next in line usually turned out to be worse in
important respects when it comes to questions of war and peace. The only antidote is holding
Biden accountable on foreign policy, starting today.
With Joe Biden declared president-elect by a chorus of major networks in unison on Saturday,
the same mainstream media has suddenly dropped any notion of 'Russian interference' in the
election which for years had received wall to wall coverage.
Over the weekend an MSNBC host went so far as to declare without evidence
"This might be the cleanest election we have ever had." And conveniently apart from the
'sudden' unprecedented leap in vaccine development and with markets soaring on the news, the
foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White House on
January 20.
As a case in point NATO's official message of congratulations to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
underscored that a Biden White House will finally be able to confront "assertive Russia"
according to a statement by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
"I warmly welcome the election of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I
know Mr. Biden as a strong supporter of NATO and the transatlantic relationship," Stoltenberg's
written
statement began .
And here's where the NATO chief referenced "assertive Russia" and the "rise of China":
"We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia, international terrorism, cyber and missile threats, and a shift in the
global balance of power with the rise of China," Stoltenberg stated .
The suggestion is of course that Trump didn't exercise enough "strength" - though it seems
hard to make this argument especially in the case of China.
And it's further long been pointed out that US-Russia relations have actually been at a low
point in recent history under Trump , given the Trump administration withdrawal from key
weapons treaties like the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Open Skies, and
with New START set to expire early next year.
There's also the attempts to block completion of the Nord Stream 2 Russia to Germany gas
pipeline, which has included targeted sanctions against Western companies helping to construct
it. The Trump State Department has also done much to open up weapons sales to Ukraine.
Recall too that not only has Trump throughout his presidency demanded European allies do
more in terms of shouldering their fair share of the burden of defense spending for which they
are "delinquent", but has repeatedly called the Cold War era alliance "obsolete" and at some
points even hinted the US could withdraw.
But his ultimate purpose in this appeared geared toward strengthening the organization into
a true alliance and not merely Washington carrying the burden of major spending.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
We detailed last month that top NATO officials
appeared to be openly rooting for a Biden victory following four years of Trump being a
thorn in the side of Brussels. This is true enough, but in terms of Russia one could easily
argue Trump has been a greater hawk in terms of ignoring European demands that key nuclear and
weapons treaties be extended . 07564111 , 5 hours ago
ROFL .. idiot Stoltenberg thinks he is immortal.
cankles' server , 3 hours ago
Wasn't NATO literally designed for war?
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
NATO Declares Biden White House Will Finally Confront "Assertive Russia"
"the foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White
House on January 20."
The only reason any foreign power would prefer to work with Biden is that they know he is
a wimp, that he is corrupt and can be bought (as proven by his history with China) and that
for he will not look out for American interests (as opposed to theirs).
You see, Democrats define anything that takes down America as a win - including there own
contrived victories that will never materialize.
Biden would sit in his underwear and do what he's told to do, like any proper corpse.
That's why the dead (and blue-bots) voted for him.
LevelHeadedMan , 4 hours ago
As we say in Russia;
Собака лает, а
караван идёт.
The dog barks, yet the caravan moves on.
It means we will keep assembling more and more nukes while this idiot continues
bleating.
SMC , 3 hours ago
You have a lot of support from normal, productive Americans.
LevelHeadedMan , 3 hours ago
Thank you. We like regular Americans too!
richard_engineer , 1 hour ago
As an American, I think Russia has been legitimate in its attempts at peace while USA has
been continuously trying to provoke Russia. I think that the bolsheviks you kicked out are
trying to get revenge and use America as their pawn.
Seriously man, I'm legitimately afraid that Russia would launch a pre-emptive attack if
further cornered by USA & NATO. I live in Sacramento, CA - do you think this city would
be targeted by nuke?
I imagine Russia would focus on the defensive nukes placed in Europe first, and then
likely to target many large cities in USA & Europe. Russia has a lot of nukes so I
imagine it would launch full-scale attack to completely disable the opponent from future
attack.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
So after Trump is sworn in on 20th January, NATO is finished. There is no way back from
this.
No1uNo , 5 hours ago
I support the sentiment, my fear is they've mobilised so much resources to constantly
attack Trump, I don't see those attacks ending only escalating. If you can see a way that the
CFR, Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Council, Soros NGO's etc all get disbanded and some
serious jail time thrown at them - then yes their pet projects will suffer. Without that
Trump needs to be very careful outside of the White House.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
Trump could not take down the DS until everyone could see what was happening. The last 4
years have been all about this election - this is how people will finally SEE what has been
happening. There never were going to any arrests in the first term. Now there will be 4 years
to take down the DS... and another 4 years after that. No need to rush, one step at a time
will get us there.
Thurmonster , 3 hours ago
Riiiight.
philipat , 5 hours ago
LOL. And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
And I for one can't think of ANY yet I can think of many provocations against Russia by NATO.
And, of course, if NATO provokes Russia too hard and war does break out, Europe will be on
the front line and could, if Russia so wished, be reduced to rubble in short order. I can't
imagine why the Europeans would want to do this to themselves but there we have it. At least
it would mark the end of the awful EU!
East Indian , 5 hours ago
Russia has stealthily crawled to place itself just next to NATO's boundaries! Isn't
enough?
acementhead , 5 hours ago
And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
Come on man They're (Russia) building a pipeline to sell gas to Germany. How dare they,
that gas belongs to the US oligarchs.
xpxhxoxexnxixx , 1 hour ago
Isnt it funny that the MSM and Dems are completely fine glossing over the fact that half
the country voted against Biden. It's as if they think we're all united simply because of the
outcome. It's no wonder why we have the country we do, and why the dems continue to squeak by
year after year. There is no desire for them to understand the American people- they simply
figure 'we'll get just enough votes to do what we want' 100% of time. There is no desire for
them to actually want to work with others to improve the country. And year after year we
believe it simply in the 'name of democracy'- as if that actually means anything. So Trump is
the red flag commie garbage man to them, and literally anyone else is freedom. If you ever
see the MSM or social media start to talk about why we have a literal divide in this country,
I think i'll call it quits here on Earth. But it'll never happen.
GoldenDebt , 5 hours ago
These evil F-ers want nuclear war. Trump did it right. I suspect Trump was going to forge
a new peace, demonrats didnt want that. They want to kill us all with a nuke war. Democrats
are pure evil.
Jerzeel , 5 hours ago
More like the usual gang want to beat up again on some **** hole country.
Fireman , 5 hours ago
NATO, North Amerikan Terror Organ, that limp appendage dangling from the Pedophile
Politburo in Natostan capital of USSA's flaccid vassal Brussels, seat of the infamous albeit
collapsing EUSSR wants to be the global gangster sidekick of the Pentacon thugs but just
doesn't want to pay to play. Will the Germans get suckered for a third time into a global war
for their anglozionazi bankster masters and the Washing town thugocracy? Nah...they finally
seem to have figured it and STASI agent "Erika" out as the I$I$ "backed" Saudi Mercan IOU
petroscrip toilet paper dollah gets flushed from the global Ponzi sewer of the Potemkin
Village (idiot) Mercan "economy" of slaughter for the profit of the zero 1%.
Meanwhile the Dark Winter of financial collapse is upon US, on both sides of the
Atlanticist swamp, as the detritus of USSA'S Middle East judaic wars rapes, decapitates and
pillages its way across a seething Europe betrayed by the hag in Berlin and her Soros puppet
master. Syria is where the anglozionazi beast and Pentacon Murder Inc. finally bit off more
than they could chew in their serial judaic wars of terror and the rest of humanity sees it
for what it is. All the emasculated pedophile pawns in Natostan huff and puff at Mr. Bear's
doorstep but that is all these Brownstoned cretins will ever do. It is all over bar the
inevitable bankrupt collapse of €urolandia and the long awaited civil war reloaded in
Slumville, USSA. Bismarck was right more than a century ago, the only future Germany has and
Urupp by default is in the warm embrace of Mr. Bear and his vast supply of energy and
resources as USSA vainly squeezes gas from the "shale miracle" BS and hubris bloated turds in
the stinking Washing town swamp as the brand new cadaver in chief, Creepy Joe and his Camel
get ready to torch Slumville in the mother of all dumpster fires.
Onward to Leningrad with Onkel Adolf and the dancing fool of Natostan.
We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia...
Which is code for:
The EU is poorly run and incredibly weak, having to rely on other nations for resources
and subsidies, so please help us because the glory of Europe has pretty much completely
faded. -signed, little bitch Jens
Is-Be , 4 hours ago
"Mr. Gorbechov, you have my word that we will not advance one inch towards Russia."
They are not worthy of their ancestors. Real Northman are bound by their oaths.
Even Loki could not break his.
NorwegianKing , 5 hours ago
Jens Stoltenberg is a Quisling.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
So the extreme aggression of NATO is going to be used to attack the nonexistent Russian
aggression?
Fabelhaft , 1 hour ago
The plan ... is to minimize Putin and or his philosophy of 'Russian resources for Russia',
to the point that the Russian people will vote his method out and gladly surrender control of
their goods to the West. Then, be good servile Russians. Oh, and another thing, a big thing,
the West hates Russia's Cross. The Cross has to go, also.
Somewhat Unisex , 4 hours ago
The whole Russia tensions are nauseating.
Russia has a GDP similar to South Korea.
But the MIC always needs a boogeyman I suppose.
libfrog88 , 3 hours ago
NATO is so full of ****. They are the ones provoking Russia all the time. They need to
justify their worthless existence and it is costing far too much.
nanook007 , 4 hours ago
Yes of course......parasite globalist warmongers love the democrat pedophile hair
sniffer.
overmedicatedundersexed , 5 hours ago
"War is Peace.".some democrat leftist.
Stringer99 , 5 hours ago
Nato like many other organisations needs a threat, real or imaginary to exist. The US
spends more on weapon systems than the next 16 countries combined. Their usual reason is
things like 9/11. The same forces behind 9/11 include the same nato puppet masters and
connected think tanks who also profit from Nato funding. Its just another business model
involving trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers. Whether its the arms industry or big
pharma, fear is their currency of control.
TheySayIAmOkay , 4 hours ago
Great. When does ISIS funding kick back into full gear?
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 4 hours ago
These Northern Atlantic Terrorists Orcs took out 2 secular leaders (Qaddafi, Saddam) and
tried taking out a third (Assad), and they wonder why radical Islam is filling in the void?
How the hell are these sub humans ever in charge of making such decisions? NATO HQ should be
wiped off the map.
They also made the refugee problem worse.
Haboob , 5 hours ago
Russia is no longer the USSR so why "confront" them.
Simpson , 5 hours ago
Resource rich country.
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
its not case...you cant milk taxpayers for 750 bilions usd a year withouth enemies and
threat...so Military industry created terrorists camps and as it failed..now they wanna
encyrcle china and russia and spread ******** about them...danger is if you provoke around
these borders the war might come even as accident as Putin warned..its all only
softwares...
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
DESPITE the all Trump faults he gave humanity four more years...HIlary would go
nuclear...same apply with Biden.
dog breath , 5 hours ago
Gaslighting is strong with EU. Trump wants NATO military spending to be 2% of GDP. Germany
wants gas pipeline with Russia. This is direct contradiction to this NATO *******
propaganda.
minoas , 1 hour ago
They won't be happy until they kill us all in a nuclear war. Russia is not a threat to
Europe. China does not send it's troops around the world overthrowing governments. Encircled
by US bases, it has built a small island off it's coast to protect it's seas lanes while we
have nearly a thousand military installations around the globe if we count our covert ones.
Russia and China is athreat to world hegemony by the US. That is their crime
Tom Angle , 1 hour ago
Who sponsored a Neo-Nazi coupe on the Russian border? Who continually holds war games on
the Russian border? Who does Russian natural gas keep who warm in the winter? Who creates and
sponsors terrorists to make way for a pipeline to Europe? Who builds bio labs on Russian
borders? So who is assertive?
MoreFreedom , 2 hours ago
Translation: Stoltenberg says he's glad Biden is president because that means they'll all
pocket more US taxpayer money, and the US taxpayer is the sheep. There's money to be made in
NATO deals and deployments, provided the US pays for it.
Theremustbeanotherway , 2 hours ago
In the UK, our politicians are corrupt beyond redemption.
Our legal system is becoming corrupt beyond redemption.
The current senior personnel in our armed forces are pansies and incapable of defending
our nation and only capable of attacking the indigenous population.
The current senior personnel in our police forces are bent out of shape determined to
victimise the indigenous population.
We are still under the cosh of the Bolsheviks in Europe intent on promoting war.
Most of the population of the UK are incapable of seeing through the BS and lies - I now
know what it is like to be held hostage in an asylum!!
Old Captain Hindsight , 5 hours ago
NATO outing themselves as enemies of the people?
It is funny watching all of these idiots jump the gun.
jnojr , 41 minutes ago
Maybe Joe Biden can get a Nobel Peace Prize even faster than Barack Obama did?
Promethus , 1 hour ago
I started in the US military during the cold War. It is so sad that people like me no
longer recognize this country and look to Russia as a bulwark of Christianity and western
civilization.
Stay strong Russia. The USA and western Europe have abandoned God and now are reaping what
they sewed..
"Let's bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can't count the number of
times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of
many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump
presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to
"normalcy" -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise
some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign
policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet.
Susan Rice for Secretary of State
Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden's Vice President,
served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both
under the Obama administration.
While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no
scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some
of her statements:
"I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons
and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6,
2003)
"It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction
need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes
whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward,
as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration
about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime
change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a
question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before
we can enforce this and previous resolutions." (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of
Rice's statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.)
She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which
judging by the following quote at
the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a "laissez faire"
attitude : "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the
effect on the November [congressional] election?"
In a
speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about
vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as
illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as "flawed" and "insisted on Israel's
right to defend itself and maintained that Israel's democratic institutions could credibly
investigate any possible abuses." Her position has changed little since then, as recently as
2016,
she proclaimed that "Israel's security isn't a Democratic interest or a Republican interest
-- it's an enduring American interest."
Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser
Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP
Biden's National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013
to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017.
Blinken had immense
influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate
Biden's approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"For Biden ", he argued , "and for
a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy." He added
"It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is
possible."
The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama's campaign promise
to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led
to even more
chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency.
Blinken seems to be
of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : "On
leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn't organize itself. And until this
[Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing,
helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern
relations among nations. When we're not engaged, when we don't lead, then one or two things is
likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place – but probably not in
a way that advances our interests or values – or no one does. And then you get chaos or a
vacuum filled by bad things before it's filled by good things. Either way, that's bad for
us."
Blinken also appears to be steering
Biden's pro-Israel agenda, recently
stating that Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions
that it makes, period, full stop." which includes an all out
rejection of BDS , the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel's
occupation of Palestine.
Michèle Flournoy for Secretary of Defence
Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama
administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
Flournoy, in writing the
Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy
under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.'s endless and costly wars which prevent
us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green
New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, "when the interests
at stake are vital, we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary,
the unilateral use of military power."
While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a "Top
Defense and National Security Think Tank" based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the
Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she
declared , that the United States would "need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts
to destroy an adversary's weapons stockpile" before it "could erect defenses to protect those
weapons, or simply disperse them." She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush
administration, in
a speech for the CSIS : "The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation
– continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as
these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran,
North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world
there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials
or weapons."
It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic
consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental,
military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon
contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that
describes itself on its website as "a
unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining
research and technology to keep our world safer." Their partnership on the AI initiative
entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by
Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police
operations.
Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the
biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50
representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees
supported "ask(ing)
Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict." Flournoy did not. She said
that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these
advanced patriot missiles to defend itself.
Conclusion
If a return to "normalcy" means having the same old politicians that are responsible for
endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real
structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call
for "normalcy" is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led
to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the
stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those
posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars.
Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in
France.
"New normal" as in: having Dominion software flip votes from Trump to Biden, corporate
media doing a witch hunt on Trump for 5 years, MSM lying about everything from George Floyd
not dying from a drug overdose, MSM literally fanning the flames to incite a race war? I
could go on.
...remember that Biden is not MLK. He isn't Malcolm X. He isn't Gandhi. He isn't Mandela. He
isn't even a good person.
He was just the only alternative offered up by the ruling class to oppose a proto-fascist
who emerged from that same ruling class. The US remains a dictatorship of money.
But it was Black, Brown and Native people who made this victory possible because they have
the most at stake.
If Biden and the Democrats toss them aside, which they will likely do, or if he maintains
the status quo and continues neoliberal policies, which appears inevitable, another Trump will
emerge.
And the next one will be far more formidable, dangerous and terrifying. The question is,
will white American liberals fall back asleep for the next four years, or will they come to
realize that problems like racist police violence and economic inequity is systemic and
structural? And that the Democratic Party has no plan to address any of this in any meaningful
way?
... the dissolution of the American Empire will happen regardless of this election because
it is failing in all the ways empire's fail. It may take decades (Rome did not fall in a day),
but on its current trajectory, it is inevitable. And truthfully, that is the best prospect for
humanity and a living biosphere.
Kenn Orphan is an artist, sociologist, radical nature lover and weary, but committed
activist. He can be reached at kennorphan.com .
By C. J. Hopkins , award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His dystopian novel, ' Zone 23 ', is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. His essays and other works can be found at,
and he can be reached via, cjhopkins.com
or consentfactory.org . OK, so,
that was not cool. For one terrifying moment there, it actually looked like GloboCap was going
to let Russian-Asset Hitler win.
Hour after hour on election night, states on the map kept turning red, or pink, or some
distinctly non-blue color. Wisconsin Michigan Georgia Florida. It could not be happening, and
yet it was. What other explanation was there? The Russians were stealing the election
again!
But, of course, GloboCap was just playing with us. They're a bunch of practical jokers,
those GloboCap guys. Naturally, they couldn't resist the chance to wind us up just one more
time.
Seriously, though, while I enjoy a good prank, I still have a number of liberal friends,
many of whom were on the verge of suffering major heart attacks as they breathlessly waited for
the corporate media to confirm that they had successfully voted a literal
dictator out of power. (A few of them suffer from IBS or other gastrointestinal disorders,
so, in light of the current toilet-paper shortage caused by the Return of the Apocalyptic
Plague, toying with them like that was especially cruel.)
But, whatever. That's water under the bridge. The good news is, the nightmare is
over! Literal Hitler and his underground army of Russia-loving white supremacists have been
vanquished! Decency has been restored! Globalization has risen from the
dead!
... ... ..
Meanwhile, the GloboCap propaganda has reached some new post-Orwellian level. After four
long years of "RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION!" now, suddenly, "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
ELECTION FRAUD IN THE USA!"
That's right, once again, millions of liberals, like that scene in ' 1984' where the
Party switches official enemies right in the middle of the Hate-Week speech, have been ordered
to radically reverse their "reality," and hysterically deny the existence of the very
thing they have been hysterically alleging for four solid years and they are actually doing
it!
... ... ///
Marian1637 7 hours ago
I can not comprehend
that democrats do not blame Putin for Biden winning!
Reilly 3 hours ago
Very funny, bravo!
Nothing like a bit of slapstick, with a dose of reality also in the middle of a waking
nightmare about to happen. ;))
DeoGratias 4 hours ago
One correction : it is not GloboCap it is
GloboComs. The objective of communism is to create two classes of a society : rulers and
workers. Thus GloboCaps are GloboComs.
Winter7Mute 5 hours ago
A reliable way to make people
believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished
from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact. I'm not even
sure if most journalists or reporters know what their even talking about, when writing these
articles.
Vidarr Kerr 5 hours ago
There is such a thing as Too Much Sarcasm.
EarthBotV2 Vidarr Kerr 4 hours ago
I disagree. The liberazi "thinks" with the gut -- as in "What does your gut tell you?"...
There's a 'good chance' that the US will return to the policy of foreign wars under Joe
Biden, which will make its reconciliation with the EU impossible, Willy Wimmer, former
vice-president of the OSCE, warned.
The main reasons why the Americans voted for Donald Trump four years ago were their
tiredness of constant wars waged by their country and collapsing economy and infrastructure in
the US, Wimmer told RT.
Trump has kept his promise and didn't start any new foreign conflict, but that may well
change if a member of the Democratic Party is in the White House, former Vice President of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly said.
Joe Biden isn't an empty white sheet – he represents the Democratic Party, who in
the 1990s destroyed the Charter of the UN.
The German political veteran recalled the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia under Democratic
President, Bill Clinton, in 1999. He also pointed out that "in the presidency of [Barack]
Obama, Biden was Vice President and he was in absolute accordance with Obama's drone wars and
the wars in the Middle East, therefore there's a good chance that Joe Biden continues in the
same way as the Democratic Party did it in the 1990s and under Obama" before 2016.
"And going back to before 2016 means going back to war" for the US, Wimmer
argued.
Relations between Washington and Brussels have deteriorated under Trump over his demands for
the EU nations to make larger financial contributions to NATO as well as political and economic
pressure on the block to stop dealing with Russia and China.
Hopes that things would improve under Biden will be dashed, "as long as the US and NATO
don't return to the Charter of the UN," the 77-year-old, who also served as State Secretary
to Germany's Defense Minister, said.
However, he pointed out that it remains a question if the current US economy, which was
heavily hit by the coronavirus, would even allow Biden to return to the aggressive policy,
which the Democrats used to pursue.
Unlike German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who already congratulated Biden over beating
incumbent Trump in the US presidential election, Wimmer believes that others "should be
very-very careful with congratulations."
The Democratic candidate declared himself the winner on Saturday after several major
television networks projected that he was on a path to take more than 270 electoral votes
needed to win the presidency after four days of tense vote counts in several battleground
states.
"It's quite unusual that the result of an election is announced by a news agency or a
news channel. We're used in all our countries, which belong to the OSCE, that we have Election
Committees, who announce results. And this hasn't been done yet in the US," he pointed out,
describing the events surrounding the American election as "unbelievable."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tara Reade,
the former US Senate aide who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, said more allegations may
surface as the media allows more truthful reporting on the former VP's alleged corruption once
his victory is sealed.
"I think there will be more interest as far as other people may be coming forward,"
Reade said on Saturday in an interview with RT's Polly Boiko.
Reade noted that journalists such as Glenn Greenwald were stifled during the election in
their efforts to report on alleged influence-peddling by Biden's family in Ukraine and China,
but once Biden has replaced Trump in the Oval Office, the rules may change.
Reade argued that the US media was forced to exercise self-censorship in their reporting on
Biden during the election cycle, saying that "the media outlets and journalists, independent
journalists, have been frustrated that they have been basically given a message to not go after
Biden.
"I think the gloves come off after he becomes president," Reade said. "I think the
truth needs to come out, and I don't mean attacks, I don't mean attacks like I experienced, by
any means. What I'm talking about is actual journalism being able to get done. If there was
corruption, reveal it. If he used his position as vice president to enrich his family, in the
way he's accusing Trump, then it should be revealed."
Reade earlier this year accused then-senator Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993. Last
year, she was among seven women who alleged that he had touched them inappropriately. She
called Biden a "predator" in her interview with Boiko and said some of her friends
considered his support for the 1994 Violence Against Women Act a "cover for his
misogyny."
"It's like the wolf in sheep's clothing," Reade said. "Oh look at me, I'm safe.
Not really."
Reade, who claimed she was pressured to quit her job on Biden's staff after filing a
sexual-harassment complaint, said that since leaving Washington in 1993, she has watched the
Democratic Party evolve and become more dominated by corporate interests. Even in the 1990s,
she said she witnessed Biden's devotion to credit-card companies and other corporate donors,
arguing that such dominance has only increased.
"We've kind of become the United States of oligarchy."
The party's controllers also have become more pro-war, Reade said. "What gets me about
the Democratic Party is our hypocrisy," she said. "I was part of that cult, if you will,
the Democrats, and I'm out of it now. I really see the hypocrisy, the sanctimoniousness. We
need to stop."
Reade said the party also needs to "stop blaming everything on Russia, which is just
ridiculous," and start having real conversations about improving the US political
system.
"Hopefully we can start looking at other countries as allies and collaborators on ways to
work with them rather than as enemies and find the next war," she said. "My fear with
Biden's cabinet, the packed cabinet he will pick, is that we might end up by spring in another
regime war. That's my prediction."
"... "There's no denying," Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote in 2017's The Once and Future Liberal, "that the movement's decision to use this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and its law-enforcement institutions and to use Mau Mau tactics to put down dissent and demand a confession of sins and public penitence played into the hands of the Republican right." ..."
Early in the Trump years, moderate columnists and strategists held that the mechanisms for
accomplishing what Biden evidently has would be an aggressive critique of progressive identity
politics. It was agreed specifically that Black Lives Matter and progressive activism on
policing and criminal justice could be crippling.
"There's no denying," Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote in 2017's The Once and Future Liberal, "that the movement's decision to use
this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and its law-enforcement
institutions and to use Mau Mau tactics to put down dissent and demand a confession of sins and
public penitence played into the hands of the Republican right."
Despite Democratic victories in 2018's midterms, the argument lived on long enough to worry
moderates who criticized Biden this year in the wake of the demonstrations and riots over the
killing of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. "In the crude terms of a presidential
campaign, voters know that the Democrat means it when he denounces police brutality, but less
so when he denounces riots," The Atlantic 's George Packer wrote in a
piece about the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
"To reach the public and convince it otherwise,
Biden has to go beyond boilerplate and make it personal, memorable."
A little over two months
later, it's actually quite difficult to remember what exactly Biden said that week. And he
never delivered grand denunciations of cancel culture, White Fragility, the 1619
Project, or any of the other culture war material moderates and conservatives suggested he
needed to address to make large gains among whites and white men in particular. Those gains
were clearly made anyway.
So neoliberal Dems gaslighted everybody with Russiagate for four years, staged Ukrainegate,
and now cry for unity. Funny, is not it
For four years, Democrats branded Donald Trump an illegitimate president and treated him as
such. Then-President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden plotted with FBI Director James Comey a
way to oust Trump's pick for national security advisor, Michael Flynn.
Now they face the results of the attempt to depose Trump via color revolution (aka
Russiagate), the result of neo-McCarthyism hysteria and cry uncle. To paraphrase Tolstoy: all
happy democracies may resemble one another, but every unhappy democracy is apparently unhappy in
its own way.
Wayne Dupree has been to the White House to talk to President Trump about race relations
and appeared at election events for him. He was named in Newsmax's top 50 Influential
African-American Republicans in 2017, and, in 2016, served as a board member of the National
Diversity Coalition for Donald Trump. Before entering politics, he served for eight years in
the US Air Force. His website is here: www.waynedupree.com . Follow him on Twitter @WayneDupreeShow
I've participated in eight elections including this one, and I've never before witnessed the
open hostility and vitriol that's been aimed at President Trump.
No president was ever abused like Trump was from day one. The Republicans didn't cooperate
with Barack Obama at all, but any thinking person can see the difference between the way Obama
was treated and the way Trump has been treated. The past four years have set a dangerous
precedent, and you know what they say about karma.
Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer refused to work with President Trump
on anything, but now the socialists want the Republicans to work with them. Interpretation: we
want the Republicans to work with us as long as they believe everything we believe and do
everything to help us, even if, in their eyes, it destroys America. No dissent will be
accepted.
You really have to wonder about this arrogance from the Democrats and their call for unity,
don't you? Joe Biden is calling for unity because he doesn't want to face the constant
scrutiny the Trump administration faced. After all, do you think the hundreds of millions he
received in campaign contributions didn't come with strings attached?
Right now, there's not enough critical thinking for unity to happen; our emotions govern too
many of us. The media have played on that for four years. They convinced millions of
Americans they would have to be insane to consider re-electing Trump, even though most
Americans are sick of the establishment politicians and their big empty promises, sick of their
endless and expensive foreign wars, sick of a sluggish economy, and tired of the outsourcing of
American jobs.
How can unity happen when the rift between liberals and conservatives is larger than ever,
and the two sides envision this country's future in vastly different ways? How will half of
the American population ever again trust their sources of news and information when nearly
every outlet has lost all pretense of objectivity? Every bit of reporting has become an opinion
piece.
In marriage, they call these irreconcilable differences. It may not happen in my lifetime,
but this country would do well to consider a peaceful separation.
Our national media have failed us. And that's all media, including social. They caught us
all hook, line, and sinker. Why? Money. We are such a gullible species. The more people hear an
idea promoted, the more it sounds true. This is why our country is divided. We rely too heavily
on our media for information, true or not. They manipulate us with their words like modern-day
bards. Journalism is indeed dead, and it's been replaced by sensationalism. But it all boils
down to who's really at fault. To find that out, look in the mirror. Yes, we all let this
happen to us.
I wouldn't blame people for believing phony news. Think about it: why do companies spend
literally billions of dollars on commercials? Companies use commercials to change our buying
habits, and they work extremely well on a subliminal level. Likewise, the mainstream and
social media use misinformation, distortions, deceptions, and omissions to change people's
voting behavior on that same subliminal level. The only way to ensure legitimate elections in
the future is to destroy mainstream and social media's hold on our country.
In the past four years, the behavior of the Democrats has been that of junior high school
bullies with no adult supervision. What all men want most is power, and the Democrats will do
anything to get it. We can't take their low road, but should stand against their further
attempts to turn this into a one-party nation. We need a broad spectrum of ideas to keep our
country strong and our citizens cared for.
One party does not have all the answers, nor can they dictate to the other parties how to
worship, think, or even eat. When I was young, I was a Bill Clinton Democrat. I walked away
before the Obama administration and never looked back. I believe more and more people are doing
that, and, by the 2022 midterms – well, watch out, Dems!
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory . ..."
The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten
bestselling books, especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump's haphazard and
continuously shifting orbit. With metronomic regularity, such gossipy volumes appear, make a splash, and almost as quickly
vanish, leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond.
Remember when Michael Wolff's
Fire and
Fury: Inside the Trump White House
was all the rage? It's now available in hardcover for
$0.99
from
online used booksellers. James Comey's
Higher
Loyalty
also sells for a penny less than a buck.
An additional forty-six cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman's "
insider's
account
" of her short-lived tenure in that very White House. For the same price, you can acquire
Sean
Spicer's memoir
as Trump's press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci's
rendering
of
his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski's "
inside
story
" of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not
have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mary Trump, and that journalistic amanuensis Bob
Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain basement prices.
All that said, even in these dismal times genuinely important books do
occasionally make their appearance. My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one. It's called
Tomorrow,
the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy
and if you'll forgive me for being direct, you really ought to read it.
Let me explain why.
The "Turn"
Wertheim and I are co-founders of the
Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft
, a small Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That
Quincy
refers
to John Quincy Adams who, as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago, warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad
"in search of monsters to destroy."
Were the United States to do so, Adams predicted, its defining trait -- its
very essence -- "would insensibly change from
liberty
to
force.
"
By resorting to force, America "might become the dictatress of the world," he wrote, but "she would be no longer the ruler of
her own spirit." While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities, it remains apt.
A privileged man of his times, Adams took it for granted that a WASP male
elite was meant to run the country. Women were to occupy their own separate sphere. And while he would eventually become an
ardent opponent of slavery, in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either. His immediate priority as secretary of state
was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity. That meant avoiding
unnecessary trouble. We had already had our revolution. In his view, it wasn't this country's purpose to promote revolution
elsewhere or to dictate history's future course.
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks:
the Greatest Of All Time. As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians, he brought to maturity a pragmatic
tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent, avid
commercial engagement, and the avoidance of great power rivalries abroad. Adhering to such a template, the United States had,
by the beginning of the twentieth century, become the wealthiest, most secure nation on the planet -- at which point Europeans
spoiled the party.
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914
and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable -- so at least a subsequent generation
of WASPs concluded. This is where Wertheim takes up the story. Prompted by the German army's lightning victory in the battle
of France in May and June 1940, members of that WASP elite set about creating -- and promoting -- an alternative policy
paradigm, one he describes as pursuing "dominance in the name of internationalism," with U.S. military supremacy deemed "the
prerequisite of a decent world."
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from
Massachusetts or planters from Virginia. Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton, wrote columns for
leading New York newspapers, staffed Henry Luce's
Time-Life
press empire, and
distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes (grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among
them). Most importantly, just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR). As such, they had a direct line to the State Department, which in those days actually played a large
role in formulating basic foreign policy.
While
Tomorrow, The World
is not a
long book -- fewer than 200 pages of text -- it is a
tour de force
. In it, Wertheim
describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France.
He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves
castigated as "isolationists," a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness. Those favoring armed
intervention, meanwhile, became "internationalists," a term connoting enlightenment and generosity. Even today, members of the
foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework, which still warns against the bugaboo of
"isolationism" that threatens to prevent high-minded policymakers from exercising "global leadership."
Wertheim persuasively describes the "turn" toward militarized globalism
engineered from above by that self-selected, unelected crew. Crucially, their efforts achieved success
prior
to
Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war,
but the essential transformation of policy had already occurred, even if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what
it meant. Its future implications -- permanently high levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases stretching
across the globe, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically
subversive
arms
industry
-- would only become apparent in the years ahead.
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully
constructed myth, he does so with devastating effect. Most of all, he helps his readers understand that "so long as the
phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin, all is permitted."
Contained within that
all
is a
cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations, successes and failures, notable achievements and immense
tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed. While beyond the scope of Wertheim's book, casting the
Cold War as a
de facto
extension of the war against Nazi Germany, with Soviet dictator
Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler, represented an equally significant triumph for the foreign policy establishment.
At the outset of World War II, ominous changes in the global distribution
of power prompted a basic reorientation of U.S. policy. Today, fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power --
did
someone
say
"the rise of China"? -- are once again occurring right before our eyes. Yet the foreign-policy establishment's response
is simply to double down.
So, even now,
staggering
levels
of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling
"national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of U.S.
policy. And even now, the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and
expedient amnesia, as well as a means to enforce discipline.
Frozen Compass
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster. Yet implicit in
Tomorrow,
The World
is this question: If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a
hitherto successful policy paradigm, then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in the present century not
produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army's
sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht's assault and the accumulation of U.S. military disappointments dating from 9/11.
From a tactical or operational perspective, many will find such a comparison unpersuasive. After all, the present-day armed
forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat, nor is the government of the United States petitioning for
a cessation of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940.
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes. Time and again since 9/11,
whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or lesser theaters of conflict, the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes
for which it went to war. From a strategic and political perspective, therefore, the comparison with France is instructive,
even if failure need not entail abject surrender.
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo
(including Americans who bothered to pay attention) were counting on that country's soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression
once and for all. Defeat came as a profound shock. Similarly, after the Cold War, most Americans (and various beneficiaries of
a supposed
Pax Americana
) counted on U.S. troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly
global status quo. Instead, the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of "endless
wars" that U.S. forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion.
Crucially, however, no reevaluation of U.S. policy comparable to the "turn"
that Wertheim describes has occurred.
An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump's promise to put
"America First" might credit him with attempting such a turn. In practice, however, his incompetence and inconsistency, not to
mention his naked dishonesty, produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags. Threats of "
fire
and fury
" alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ("
we
fell in love
"). Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten. Trump
abandoned
a
global environmental agreement,
massively
rolled back
environmental regulations domestically, and then
took
credit
for providing Americans with "the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet." Little of this was to be
taken seriously.
Trump's legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic
equivalent of
Mulligan
stew
. Examine the contents closely enough and you'll be able to find just about anything. Yet taken as a whole, the
concoction falls well short of being nutritious, much less appetizing.
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the entire national
security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump's departure from office will restore some version of normalcy. Every
component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the
editorial boards of the
New York Times
and
Washington
Post
yearns for that moment.
To a very considerable degree, a Biden presidency will satisfy that
yearning. Nothing if not a creature of the establishment, Biden himself will conform to its requirements. For proof, look no
further than his vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. (No isolationist he.) Count on a Biden administration, therefore, to
perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices.
As Peter Beinart
puts
it
, "When it comes to defense, a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency, and that's going
to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers." Biden will increase the Pentagon
budget, keep U.S. troops in the Middle East, and get tough with China. The United States will remain the world's
number-one
arms
merchant, accelerate efforts to militarize outer space, and continue the
ongoing
modernization
of the entire U.S. nuclear strike force. Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the
"inside."
Above all, Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of
American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership. "The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and
autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future, as well." Those
uplifting sentiments are, of course, his from a recent
Foreign
Affairs
essay
.
So if you liked U.S. national security policy before Trump mucked things
up, then Biden is probably your kind of guy. Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of "dominance in the name
of internationalism" will resume. And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- policies, we should note, that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the
White House.
The Voices That Count
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of
evidence showing that it's not working to the benefit of the American people? Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm
that dates from Hitler's assault on France, now a full 80 years in the past?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that
essential question. In the meantime, however, allow me to make a stab at offering the most preliminary of answers.
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the
military-industrial complex -- the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in
discovering new "threats" -- one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between
self-interest and the national interest. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams never confused the two. His latter-day
successors have done far less well.
As an actual basis for policy, the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes in
Tomorrow,
The World
has proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day
proponents still purport to believe it to be. The paradigm produced in 1940-1941 was, at best, merely serviceable. It
responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment. It justified U.S. participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany, a
necessary undertaking.
After 1945, except as a device for affirming the authority of
foreign-policy elites, the pursuit of "dominance in the name of internationalism" proved to be problematic. Yet even as
conditions changed, basic U.S. policy stayed the same: high levels of military spending, a network of foreign bases, a
penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry.
Even after the Cold War and 9/11, these remain remarkably sacrosanct.
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of:
well, I guess it could have been worse. When it comes to the U.S. response to 9/11, however, it's difficult to imagine what
worse could have been.
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment, however, a different
interpretation prevails: the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory, unsullied by any
unfortunate post-9/11 missteps. The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight
decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden, are dead and gone.
This paradigm persists for one reason only: it ensures that statecraft will
remain a realm that resolutely excludes the popular will. Elites decide, while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the
bill. In that regard, the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today.
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real
change become possible. The turn in U.S. policy described in
Tomorrow, The World
came
from the top. The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit
of deference when it comes to determining what this nation's role in the world will be. Those on top will do all in their
power to avert any such loss of status.
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and
metaphorical. Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns.
While Americans cannot ignore the world beyond their borders, the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of
searching for distant monsters to destroy. Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential first step
toward recovery.
Share this:
Russia has consistently stressed its willingness to work with either candidate -- late last
month, the Kremlin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov rebuffed suggestions that Moscow prefers the
incumbent: "it would be wrong to say that Trump is more attractive to us."
But Russia's political commentary sphere has proven more polarized. Some cite
Biden's readiness to extend the New START treaty without additional conditions as evidence that
Biden is someone that the Kremlin can do business with; others have expressed concern over the
Democratic candidate's "Russophobic" cabinet picks and predict that, under a Biden presidency,
Washington's policy of rollback will escalate to an unprecedented level. But there is also an
overarching belief that Washington's Russia policy is so deeply embedded across U.S.
institutions that not much is likely to change in U.S.-Russian relations.
As Peskov put it, "there is a fixed place on the altar of US domestic policy for hatred of
Russia and a Russophobic approach to bilateral relations with Moscow." Still other commentators
are interested in the process as much as the outcome, drawing attention to ongoing mass unrest and
allegations of electoral misconduct in order to argue that Washington has forfeited its moral
authority to lecture others on proper democratic procedure and the orderly transition of
power.
"@realDonaldTrump election night 800,000 lead was wiped out by hundreds of thousands of
mail in ballots counted without any Republican observer," Giuliani tweeted on Sunday
morning, a day after Associated Press called Pennsylvania and the entire election in favor of
Joe Biden.
"Why were Republicans excluded?," he continued, before asking his followers to
"tweet me your guess, while I go prove it in court."
Like his boss, Giuliani has insisted that Biden's apparent victory was the result of fraud.
Republican observers say they were denied access to counting centers, which allowed staff
inside to do "bad things" with the ballots, in Trump's words. At least one postal worker
has claimed that he was ordered to backdate mail-in ballots, while the Trump campaign has
alleged that droves of dead people voted in Philadelphia, and that staff there illegally
counted late-arriving mail ballots.
Giuliani called the "Philadelphia Democrat machine" "brazen," and claimed that the
late heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier and actor Will Smith's grandfather both voted in previous
elections in the city after their deaths.
"I bet Biden dominated this group," he tweeted. "We will find out."
Just an example of how brazen the Philadelphia Democrat machine is.Former heavyweight
champion Joe Frazier voted in the 2018 election. He died on 11/7/18.Will Smith's grandfather
voted in 2017, 2018. He died in 2016.I bet Biden dominated this group. We will find
out.
Biden beat Trump in Pennsylvania by around 40,000 votes, or 0.6 percent of the total vote,
though a small number of ballots remain to be counted. Though Republicans in the Keystone State
have not outright called Biden's win fraudulent, State House Speaker Bryan Cutler called on
Friday for Governor Tom Wolf to launch a "full audit" of the vote there before
certifying the result.
In a
letter to Wolf, Cutler cited the widespread use of mail-in ballots without signatures, the
exclusion of Republicans from polling places, and the extension of the mail-in deadline as
"issues that cannot be overlooked."
Based on how the vote was run in Pennsylvania, "no matter who wins, you're going to have
50 percent of the population, no matter which side, that is not going to have faith in the
result," State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman told reporters on Friday.
Quizzed by reporters about her handling of the vote, Pennsylvania's Secretary of State,
Kathy Boockvar said that she had done everything "to make sure every voter, every candidate
and every party has access to a fair, free, safe and secure election."
Biden has vowed to regain the world's respect for the Outlaw US Empire, which begs this
question: When did the world actually respect it? "Leaders" who uttered the word respect were
paid to do so as it was painfully clear for those at the top levels of governments that after
WW2 what was the USA was now the Outlaw US Empire since it had no compunction violating
International Law and thus its own fundamental Law--a nuclear armed outlaw is something you
fear, not respect. And even before WW2, FDR had to make clear his foreign policy toward those
in the Western Hemisphere was to be that of a Good Neighbor, not Loan Shark. Again, the Loan
Shark is feared, not respected. So, what respect is it that Biden seeks to regain since none
has existed for over a century? We'll need to wait and see what he does immediately after
he's sworn in on 20 January for he must first show respect for the Constitution he'll swear
to defend and uphold, and that means obeying the edicts of International Law as directed by
the UN Charter which is part of said Constitution. IMO, that would need to be a mandatory
first step if he wants to gain respect. Otherwise, he'll signal the USA will remain the
Outlaw US Empire.
Viewing Biden as a cannula to insert Harris and all that would imply, I ask how such a
weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule. Mrs Thatcher sought this,
as did Bush 43, Truman with Korea, and as many others have classically done, by making a war
and a victory. It does seem sure that the "election" has failed materially to achieve the
basic goal of creating consent. In the example of Thatcher, Robert Green tells us that in the
Belgrano affair the war went very nearly to atomic explosives. One is inclined, in the matter
of atomics, to speculate on how many times luck will prevent nukewar. Of course Korea also
came quite close to nukewar too, and remains there.
The glorious (if hypothetical so far) Harris War may not go well, as Martyanov tells us,
the US has in fact lost military supremacy, and the weak unconsented Harris is not liable, I
judge, to have the strength or understanding to avoid defeat.
Defeat, at this stage of empire, may be akin to the wizard of oz being seen to be a fake.
Indeed, Harris herself seems to be a fake "black" and also a fake champion.
When empires lose wars and are seen to be insane, the several satrapies begin to depart.
Only today, they say, Germany decided not to buy F35's... Therefore, considered as a whole
from this moment in History, it seems to me that we shall have a glorious atomic defeat, will
all that follows.
That would seem to satisfy the Deagle prediction of a mere 54 million persons in USA circa
2025.
When discussing weak people in the White House, don't forget the Bush Baby. Weak
presidents serve a purpose, which is to allow their handlers in the CIA/deep state to work
unimpeded. What this means is that Harris has no bearing on whether the US will go kinetic
again. That decision will be up to committees in the CIA/deep state. Unfortunately, the CIA
is a distillation of the very most violently psychotic and delusional freaks from American
society, which is itself a society that produces more than its share of violently psychotic
and delusional freaks.
Neoliberal fascists continue the purge of the real Left and give us a small taste of what
will happen under a Biden presidency
Posted by: killwallstreet | Nov 8 2020 13:37 utc | 3
------------------------------------------------------
Neoliberals and Neocons are both supporters of the Empire! The only difference is Neocon
don't hide their Empire agenda behind some nice words/slogans like the Neoliberals.
Mao once said he'd prefer to deal with the right party.
I ask how such a weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule.
I think you are failing to see the continuity of EMPIRE policy. Biden, Harris, Trump,
Hillary, Obama, GWBush, Clinton all did or will do what the Deep State EMPIRE managers want
them to. Harris is no any more prone to war-making than any of her predecessors and will not
take risks that the Deep State have not thoroughly examined.
This confirms my hypothesis that stated the liberals didn't like Trump merely because he's
vulgar - not because of his policies.
This is the "confidence thesis", which states that the sole factor for the success of any
given liberal system (not socialism - socialism is failed by design...) is merely the people
in it to make it work and trust blindly it will work. Guess where this thesis is dominant?
The financial sector.
The logic of finance is impregnating in every facet of American life and politics. The USA
is consolidating itself more and more as an exclusively financial superpower.
If he's smart, the likely President-elect will stop the unpopular endless wars and use the
money to help our domestic economy.
...Lunch Pail Joe was supposed to win back the support of white, blue-collar workers who had
defected to the Republicans. Campaign organizers said he would energize Black and Latinx
voters. But there wasn't much of a shift among non-college educated men. And those folks who
did go Democratic largely voted against Trump, notfor Biden. It's as if
Biden had undergone an enthusiasm bypass.
Trump's populist appeal has strong racist and misogynist elements, but also reflects a
genuine anger at economic inequality and endless wars. If Biden simply returns to mainstream
Democratic Party governance, it won't satisfy the Democratic Party base nor those Trump
supporters with legitimate complaints.
So what is to be done?
Biden will have his hands full reversing Trump's disastrous domestic policies. But he can
also make serious changes in US foreign policy.
Biden can implement progressive and popular policies during his first 100 days in office, in
many cases, programs that he already promised and which don't require Congressional approval.
These include:
Stop the war in Yemen : This years-long conflict, which benefits no one but the
oil-rich rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has killed more than 100,000
people and caused the preventable deaths of 113,000 children .
Biden could immediately freeze weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, forcing them to stop
bombing civilians and withdraw their troops. It would be one step toward ending unpopular,
endless wars.
Earlier this year, Democrats and anti-interventionist Republicans in the Senate voted to
invoke the War Powers Act to stop funding the Yemen war. It was vetoed by Trump.
To his credit, Biden supported the war powers resolution. His campaign spokesperson Andrew
Bates
toldThe Washington Post , "Vice President Biden believes it is past time to end US
support for the war in Yemen and cancel the blank check the Trump Administration has given
Saudi Arabia for its conduct of that war."
Lift Trump's unilateral oil blockade of Cuba and restore normal diplomatic relations:
Trump has gone further to economically attack Cuba than any other President. He cut off much of
Cuba's oil supplies from Venezuela by
applying sanctions against international shipping companies. This, combined with a halt in
foreign tourism, has wrecked the Cuban economy. Public transport doesn't have enough gasoline;
trucks can't bring produce from the countryside.
The people of Cuba pose no danger to the US. During the later part of Barack Obama's
presidency, people from the US freely visited Cuba, to the benefit of both countries.
During the campaign, Biden
said , "As President, I will promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted
harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights."
With a stroke of the pen Biden could lift the oil embargo, re-open US visits to Cuba, and
fully staff the Embassy in Havana, which is now operating with a skeleton crew.
Rejoin the Iran nuclear accord: Trump unilaterally withdrew from the internationally
binding Iran
nuclear accord and imposed harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people. This policy of
"maximum pressure" has failed to change Iranian domestic or foreign policy. Biden should
immediately rejoin the accord and lift all sanctions related to nuclear issues.
In September, Biden wrote
, "If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the US would rejoin the
agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations." He added that the new administration
would lift the "disgraceful" ban that prohibits Iranians and people from other Muslims nations
from entering the US.
But Biden's promises were couched
in bellicose, Cold War rhetoric about Iran's alleged threats to the US. Democratic and
Republican hawks will certainly pressure Biden to take a hard line against Iran. But both
countries would benefit from re-implementing the accord and lowering tensions.
End attacks on China: Trump initiated a trade war against China. He tried to ban
Chinese technology from being used in the US and even
sought the arrest of a top Chinese corporate executive. But, of course, China retaliated.
Trump's policy against China has been a massive failure, with the US losing nearly
300,000 jobs as of September 2019.
China poses no military threat to the people of the US. China has one military base outside
its territory; the US has about 750. China now has also developed the world's second largest
economy and competes successfully with US corporations. The trade war is aimed at promoting US
corporate profits at the expense of Chinese competitors.
With executive action, Biden could end the trade war quickly. Unfortunately, Biden has
"drunk the Kool-Aid" when it comes to China. He said , "My focus will be on rallying our friends in
both Asia and Europe in . . . joining us to get tough on China and its trade and technology
abuses."
Biden must shift policies on China as part of recognizing that the world has changed a lot
in recent years.
Joe Biden is a mainstream Democrat who supported many of the foreign policy disasters
of past presidencies. He backed the occupation of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq War, and he
strongly supports Israel against the Palestinians.
But today, the US is considerably weaker, wracked by recession, and politically divided.
People are fed up with endless wars. Regional powers such as Turkey, Russia, and Iran are
exerting influence in areas formerly under US domination.
If he's smart, Biden will recognize the new reality, stop US interventions, and use the
money being spent on foreign wars to help our domestic economy. I'm confident he will make some
promised changes but progressives will have to build grass roots pressure to make the changes
we really need.
Foreign Correspondent appears every other week. Reese Erlich is an adjunct professor in
International Studies at the University of San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
The world Vice President Biden knew at the end of the Obama administration no longer exists.
In four years, President Trump reshaped the geopolitical reality around the globe, making
Biden's dreams of "normalization" impossible.
If the press reports are true, it appears that much of the world joined the roughly 50
percent of Americans who celebrated the news that Joe Biden had passed the Electoral College
threshold of the 270 votes needed to become president-elect. While America struggles to find a
path where Biden will be able to restore domestic tranquility to a deeply divided nation, the
world will likewise need to get to grips with how it will respond to an administration whose
thinking is rooted in a world that no longer exists.
The geopolitical reality that existed in 2016, following eight years of the Obama
administration, has been radically transformed after four years of a Trump administration which
broke with virtually every previously held diplomatic norm, tradition, and precedent. It was
not just US policy that had been altered – the world also changed, forced to adapt to
Trump's unconventional approach toward international affairs. A Biden administration which
seeks to recreate the world that existed in 2016 will find itself ill-prepared to deal with the
harsh new realities of a post-Trump world.
Repairing the US economy will be a top domestic priority for a Biden administration, and
this cannot be without consideration being given to the contentious state of US-China
relations. Policies
seeking to bring an end to the ongoing US-China trade war will collide with
Biden's tough rhetoric regarding China's military presence in the South China Sea and
elsewhere. It is hard to see how either can be done in isolation, meaning the status quo
inherited from the Trump administration will likely remain for some time to come.
Hollow
climate rhetoric
Joe Biden has promised that he would re-enter the Paris Climate Accord immediately upon
assuming the presidency. When the Trump administration formally withdrew the US from the Paris
Accord on November 4, 2020, Joe Biden responded by tweeting"Today, the Trump Administration officially left the Paris Climate Agreement. And in exactly
77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it."
Re-entering the Paris Climate Accord will not pose much of a problem – the US never
treated it as a treaty, with then-president Obama bypassing constitutional requirements for
Senate advice and consent by simply signing an executive order. But is unlikely that Biden will
be able to get Congress to fund a
multi-trillion-dollar initiative at a time when the US economy is reeling from the economic
downturn brought on by the Civd-19 pandemic. In short, Biden's plan to rejoin the Paris Accord
is little more than political theater with no chance of meaningful success.
Repairing the
Iran deal or not
Another "day one" priority for Biden is to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal). President Trump precipitously withdrew from this
Obama-legacy agreement in May 2018 (another agreement enshrined not as a treaty, but rather
through executive order).
Biden has committed to rejoining the deal "once Iran returns to compliance," and then use
the JCPOA as the basis upon which to negotiate a broader and longer-lasting deal with Iran.
One of the first challenges confronting a Biden administration is to navigate the issue of
what constitutes "returning to compliance." It was the US, not Iran, that withdrew from the
JCPOA, and today the JCPOA framework continues to exist, sans America. As such, the first step
that must be taken is for the US to rejoin without pre-conditions. Then and only then would
Iran consider the possibility of resuming negotiations about any post-JCPOA agreement.
However, some of Biden's key foreign policy advisers
appear to have re-thought their position on Iranian sanctions , which would be lifted if
the US rejoined the JCPOA. There is a feeling that the Trump policy of "maximum pressure" might
be on the verge of paying dividends. Void of any up-front commitment regarding future nuclear
policy, ballistic missiles or regional interference, there is a feeling in the Biden camp that
keeping sanctions in place might be the best policy option vis-a-vis Iran.
Further complicating any future Biden Iran policy will be how a Biden
administration deals with the issue of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria,
and the Trump Arab-Israeli "peace offensive" which has seen several Gulf Arab States normalize
relations with Israel as part of an effort to solidify an anti-Iranian coalition in the Persian
Gulf. It is highly likely that Biden will seek to solidify the US military presence in the
region, thereby threatening the peace agreement with the Taliban, and provoking pro-Iranian
militias in Iraq. Likewise, Biden will seek to use the US military presence inside Syria as a
means of strengthening US-Kurdish ties. In short, a Biden administration will find itself
rapidly bogged down in the forever wars in the Middle East, with no plan on how to either win
or get out.
US-Israeli relations during the Obama administration were at an all-time low, primarily
because of Israel's handling of the issue of Palestinian rights and statehood. With the Trump
administration all but writing Palestine out of any Arab-Israeli framework for peace, the Biden
administration will be immediately confronted by the issue of
how to re-engage on the issue of Palestine , knowing that in doing so it could upset the
trajectory of Arab-Israeli normalization that had been begun under Trump.
Turkey and
NATO
Likewise,
the issue of Turkey looms large . Turkey's involvement in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and now
Azerbaijan has changed the geopolitical landscape in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the Levant,
and the southern Caucasus in the four years since the Obama administration. Any effort to
aggressively confront Turkey would need to be taken in conjunction with Biden's plans to
"repair" America's relationship with NATO and the rest of Europe. This is especially the case
regarding Turkey's contentious relations with both France and Greece.
NATO itself is a major issue confronting a Biden administration.
Biden has said he will renew good relations between the US and its NATO allies strained by
four years of the Trump administration. But what does this mean exactly? Will Biden keep US the
forces in Germany that Trump had begun to withdraw? And what will Biden do about US forces in
Poland? Does Biden's pledge to "get tough" with Russia extend to doubling down on demanding new
elections in Belarus? Providing more lethal aid to Ukraine? Further encouraging Georgian
membership in NATO? What will Biden's policy be regarding intermediate-range missiles in Europe
following Trump's withdrawal from the 1987 landmark INF Treaty? The reality is Trump has left a
potential Biden administration a tangled mess in Europe, where any policy initiative in one
area raises a host of problems in another.
And then there is the issue of Russia. Biden spent
his entire campaign promoting how "tough" he was going to be on Russia , and in particular
its president, Vladimir Putin. Two major decisions that will be confronted by a Biden
administration early on, however, would require more finesse than muscle. The most pressing
will be the extension of the Obama-era New START treaty, set to expire on February 21, 2021
– exactly a month and one day after President Biden would be sworn into office. Russia
has indicated that it is ready to extend the New START treaty without preconditions, and
it is likely that a Biden administration would seek to do just this in order to preserve
the last reaming arms control framework between the US and Russia. The next step, however
– negotiating a follow-on treaty – requires an atmosphere of trust that, on the
surface at least – appears to be lacking on the part of a new Biden administration,
especially if it is simultaneously seeking to appear "tough."
Another problem is that of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, connecting Russia with Europe.
The Trump
administration has put in place strong sanctions designed to kill the project. Germany, a
critical NATO ally and one of the nations with which a Biden administration would logically be
seeking to repair relations (especially after the particularly contentious relationship between
Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel), has taken umbrage over what it deems to be US
interference in its sovereign economic interests.
When Biden was vice president under Obama,
he called the Nord Stream 2 project"a bad deal for Europe." Every indication is
that Biden continues to embrace this stance. Even if Biden were to soften his position on Nord
Stream 2 as an olive branch to Germany, however, it would not mean that Biden would be willing
to soften the US policy on sanctioning Russia over Ukraine. The fact is, Biden does not much
care for Putin, and it is hard to see how the kind of personal relationship that preceded most
meaningful US-Russian diplomatic breakthroughs could be engendered, let alone prosper.
There are many other critical foreign policy challenges facing a potential Biden
administration, including the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, Venezuela, the war in
Yemen, and the growing ISIS presence in Africa, to name but a few. A Biden administration would
most likely seek to bring into its ranks foreign policy and national security experts who had
been weaned on eight years of the Obama administration. But the world these experts left in
2016 no longer exists. Moreover, these experts have been virtually shut out from any advisory
role during the Trump administration. A new Biden foreign policy team will be seeking to
rebuild relations with a world based upon an outdated game plan, creating the potential for a
disconnect between expectations and results that could further strain America's relationship
with the global community.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The prevailing view is that a victory for Biden would be bad for Russia, because a
Democratic administration is expected to impose new economic sanctions on Moscow as punishment
for its bad behavior -- first and foremost, for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. This view is widely shared by pro-Kremlin pundits, senior officials and the
executives of state-owned enterprises, and is even promoted by the few remaining independent
Russian media outlets such as the Bell newsletter, a daily staple in the information
diet of the Russian upper-middle class.
A more nuanced view on Biden is held by some people working on U.S. issues in the Russian
government. A president who is not tainted by suspicion of being a Russian asset -- and who
knows how to organize a normal process for national security discussions -- will be able to
restore some guardrails to the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent further deterioration,
those people argue. A President Biden would not be able to pay close attention to Russia, since
he and his senior advisers will be overwhelmed by domestic issues and otherwise focusing on
China. But a possible new Democratic administration appears to be open to retaining some
pillars of the arms control regime and discussing rules of competition in cyberspace. And it
could be more clear-eyed -- and therefore skeptical -- about the side effects and efficiency of
sanctions as the United States' major tool in Russia policy. Much will depend on who is put in
senior positions such as secretary of state and national security advisor, and on the midlevel
bureaucrats controlling the Russia portfolio.
After U.S.-Russian relations nearly hit rock bottom on Trump's watch, nobody in Russia
believes that four more years of Trump could be good for Moscow. If Trump is reelected, the
only silver lining will be the even deeper level of disarray in the Western alliance and U.S.
disengagement from its partners that a second Trump term would likely bring. For the Kremlin,
schadenfreude over the gradual demise of Pax Americana would simply sugarcoat the risks and
downsides of Trump remaining in the White House.
Alexander Gabuev is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center. Twitter:
@AlexGabuev
While many seem to prefer a multi-millionaire tycoon that inexplicably became a politician,
you prefer a politician that inexplicably became a multi-millionaire. That's fine, but I
don't recall hearing any consistent policy from Joe Biden other than his promises to not be
Donald Trump.
The truth is that you don't like Trump, or perhaps you don't like his policies. Don't
pretend you did an analysis and decided that Biden has better policies, as we haven't seen
any of Biden's policies.
You are fine with ignoring Biden's threats to withhold aid from the Ukraine unless they do
XYZ, but it's a "thug's approach" when Trump does it?
"... Mike Lind, the American academic and author has observed , around the idea of America moving toward a 'managed' society -- based on 'science' -- that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a managerial, expert class. ..."
"... The notion however, of what America -- as Idea -- now constitutes, has fractured into two tectonic plates, moving apart in very different directions -- and likely to move even further apart as each 'plate' remains convinced that 'it won' -- and the sweetness of victory has been stolen. ..."
"... The fact remains that the election has produced a result in which it is abundantly clear that one half of the American electorate precisely voted to oust the other half. ..."
"... A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make claim to the 'will of the majority'. ..."
One clear outcome of the U.S. election was
the collapse of the promised 'Blue Wave' -- an implosion that marks the 'beginning of the
end' to a powerful spell enthralling the West. It was the delusion which Ron Chernow, the
acclaimed U.S. presidential historian, gave credence, as he contemptuously dismissed America's
"topsy-turvy moment" as purely ephemeral, and a "surreal interlude in American life": No longer
can it be said that there is one 'normal'. Win or lose the White House, Red Trumpism remains as
'President' for half America.
Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration -- a return to a hallowed
consensus in American politics -- to a reassuring 'sanity' of facts, science and truth .
Biden, it was hoped, would be the agency over-lording a crushing electoral landslide that would
terminate irrevocably Trump's rude interruption of the 'normal'. Biden supporters were rallied,
Mike Lind, the American academic and author has
observed , around the idea of America moving toward a 'managed' society -- based on
'science' -- that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a managerial, expert
class.
Over time, Lind suggests, American society would begin to depart more, and more easily, from
its republican roots, through a process already underway: via attempts to alter the
Constitutional order, and other rules, to bring about a change in the way America is
governed.
The notion however, of what America -- as Idea -- now constitutes, has fractured into two
tectonic plates, moving apart in very different directions -- and likely to move even further
apart as each 'plate' remains convinced that 'it won' -- and the sweetness of victory has been
stolen.
The fracturing of the 'One Normal', by contrast, provides some kind of respite to much of
the globe.
The fact remains that the election has produced a result in which it is abundantly clear
that one half of the American electorate precisely voted to oust the other half. It is gridlock
-- with the Supreme Court and Senate in the hands of one party, and the House of
Representatives and White House (possibly) in the hands of the other. As Glenn Greenwald
warns :
No matter what the final result, there will be substantial doubts about its legitimacy by
one side or the other, perhaps both. And no deranged conspiracy thinking is required for
that. An electoral system suffused with this much chaos, error, protracted outcomes and
seemingly inexplicable reversals will sow doubt and distrust even among the most rational
citizens.
Though the maths and maps suggests Biden will likely reach 270 Electoral votes, the old
saying 'It ain't over 'till it's over', holds true. The electoral vote scenarios in the key
'swing states' would only apply if there is no litigation, fraud or theft. However all three
are in play -- If you are stuffing the ballot box, you first wait to see what the regular vote
is, so that you know how many votes you 'need' (
mathematical anomalies aside) to push your candidate over the top. Trump, somewhat rashly,
gave out the GOP vote calculations at 02.30 on Wednesday, and hey-presto, loads of absentee
ballots suddenly arrived at certain polling stations at around 04.00. That seems to have
happened in Wisconsin, where over 100,000 Biden votes appeared seemingly out of nowhere on a
flash drive delivered by hand from a Democratic district. That put Biden ahead in Wisconsin --
but litigation is in process. Likewise, it appears that a huge "absentee ballot" dump appeared
in Michigan that heavily favored Biden.
This is just the beginning of a new and more uncertain phase that
could go on for weeks . It may be that ultimately Congress will have to certify and make
the final determination in late January. Meanwhile, there are some things we know with much
higher certainty: The Republican majority in the Senate may hold until the 2024 election. So,
even if Biden wins, his agenda will not hold through 2024.
A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make
claim to the 'will of the majority'. Whomsoever is certified by Congress cannot truthfully say
they represent 'the nation'. Consensus is fractured, and it is difficult to see any leadership
that can bring Americans together as a 'united people'.
"There is not a single important cultural, religious, political or social force that is
pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart," David French
notes in a new book Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our
Nation . French -- an anti-Trump conservative -- argues that America's divisions are so great,
and the political system so poorly designed to handle them, that secession may eventually be
the result: "If we keep pushing people and pushing people and pushing people, you cannot assume
that they won't break", he writes. (A
2018 poll found that nearly a quarter of each party -- Democrat and Republican --
characterized the opposing party as "evil").
An ideological split, and the concomitantly contested America as Idea has huge geo-political
implications, reaching well beyond America itself -- and principally for Europe's
élites . European leaders did not see it coming when Trump was elected in 2016. They
misjudged Brexit. And this year, they misread U.S. politics once again. They yearned for a
Biden win, and they (still) fail to see the connection between the popular rebellion of Red
under Mr. Trump, and the angry protests occurring across Europe against lockdown.
Separating tectonic plates -- more strategically -- usually signal a kind of dualism that
betokens civil conflict. In other words, their separation and moving apart turns into an
ideological struggle for the nature of society and its institutional fabric.
Historian, and former War College Professor, Mike Vlahos
warns (echoing Lind), that, "there is, here: more of a hidden -- and thus in a sense,
occult struggle -- by which over time, societies begin to depart more, and more easily, from
their roots. The western dominant élites presently are seeking to cement their hold over
society [moving towards a 'managed' society]: To have full control over the direction of
society, and, of course, a framework of rule that protects their wealth."
"Quite to the surprise of everyone, and given that the Republicans are being represented by
a billionaire who has a great many friends in Manhattan -- the Wall Street donors to the two
campaigns,
outnumber Trump's donors for Biden by 5-to-1".
Why, Vlahos asks, would Wall Street invest in a man -- Biden -- and in a Party, ostensibly
seeking to move America toward this 'managed' progressive society? Is it because they are
convinced of a need radically to restructure the world's economy and geopolitical relations? Is
this then Vlahos' occult struggle?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Many of the élite hold that we are at that
monumental inflection point at this moment -- In a nutshell, their narrative is simply
this: the planet is already economically and demographically over-extended; the infinite
economic expansion model is bust; and the global debt and government entitlement expenditure
bubble too, is set to pop at the same moment.
Mike Vlahos notes
that in a curious way this American story mirrors that of ancient Rome in the last century of
the Republic -- with on the one hand, the élite Roman class, and on the other, the
Populares , as Red Americans' equivalent:
"This is in fact the dual story of Rome in the last century of the Republic, and it tracks
very well -- with the transformation going on today [in the U.S.] -- and it is a
transformation The society which emerged at the end of the Roman Revolution, and civil war
had too, a totally dominant élite class.
"This was a new world, in which the great landowners, with their latifundia [the
slave-land source of wealth], who had been the 'Big Men' leading the various factions in the
civil wars, became the senatorial archons that dominated Roman life for the next five
centuries -- while the People, the Populares, were ground into a passive -- not helpless --
but generally dependent and non-participating element of Roman governance: This sapped away
at the creative life of Rome, and eventually led to its coming apart.
" today American inequality is as great as in the period right before the French
Revolution, and is mirrored in what was happening to Rome in that long century of
transformation. The problem we have right now, and which is going to make this revolution
more intense, is I think, the cynical conclusion and agenda of Blue to just leave behind the
Americans they do not need [in the New Economy] -- which is to say all of Red America, and to
put them into a situation of hardship and marginalization, where they cannot coalesce, to
form a rival -- as it were -- Popular Front.
"What I think what we are seeing here [in the U.S.] is profound: American society --
emerging from this passage, is going to be completely different. And frankly, it already
feels different. It already feels -- as it has felt for the past four years -- that we are in
a rolling civil war norm now, in which deep societal strife is now the normal way in which we
handle transfers of power. Issues will be [momentarily] resolved, with the path of society
[painfully] staked out through violent conflict. That is likely to be our path for decades
ahead.
"The problem with that in the shorter term, is that there is still enough of the nation
aroused and ready to fight this process. The problem: Can the last energies of the Old
Republic still be harnessed against this seemingly inevitable, transformation?"
A 'fourth industrial revolution' is the only way by which to 'square this circle', according
to this mindset. The Reset is purposefully aimed to disrupt all areas of life, albeit on a
planetary scale. Shock therapy, as it were, to change the way we humans think of ourselves, and
our relationship with the world . The Great Reset looks to a
supply-side 'miracle', achieved through full-spectrum automation and robotics. A world where
the money is digital; the food is lab-grown; where everything is counted and controlled by
giant monopolies; and everyday existence is micromanaged by ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI
that registers thoughts and feelings before the people even get a chance to make those
thoughts.
LVrunner , 2 hours ago
Traitorous Mittens Romney took to Twitter to congratulate sleepy joe today. He’s
such an epic douchebag!
PGR88 , 2 hours ago
He reminds me of some kind of aging gay Mormon **** star
LVrunner , 2 hours ago
His kid was in business with bidens, not much of surprise. Just disgusted.
Roacheforque , 1 hour ago
I find it amazing that pundits can describe the detailed evidence of the fraudulent
activities of democratic operatives, along with the understanding that no such activities
took part on the republican front, and simply dismiss this legal and moral contrast with a
broad stroke finding that "the nation is divided".
Simply. *******. Amazing.
Who writes this ****?
I am no Trump sycophant, but the contrast in "division" is law abiding vs. fraudulent,
anarchy vs civilized order, constitutional vs. totalitarian. Trump's personality flaws are
immense, but I contend that a solid majority of Americans voted for president in accordance
to the red wave downvote, and that a gross misrepresentation of living human Biden voters
does not constitute an equal division.
Thank God!
Fizzy Head , 2 hours ago
Funny how there is no evidence of fraud with the Dems, but it was all Russian meddling in
the last election...
#palletsofballotsisfraud
Chemical_Engineer_IT_Analyst , 2 hours ago
Remember Republicans you are the ones who have the real power!
It's not a good idea to bully the productive class. Without the conservative workers the
country would starve in the cold and dark. Who are not needed are the parasitic class of
politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, Deep State workers, incompetent teachers and Marxist
professors. And we would all be better off without Facebook and Twitter. We also don't need
NBC CNN, ABC, and other alphabet media, Washington Post, New York Times and other propaganda
outlets.
SurfingUSA , 2 hours ago
Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration – a return to a
hallowed consensus in American politics – to a reassuring ‘sanity’ of facts, science
and truth .
Give me a break. He served as a prospect of a Chinese sock puppet.
not dead yet , 1 hour ago
Selected facts, selected science, selected truth. Better known as cherry picking. If that
isn't working turn fiction into fact and truth to legitimize junk science. Better known as
man made climate change.
tk8565 , 2 hours ago
If you like your fraud, you can keep your fraud.
This will happen repeatedly from every election on, as they learn and improve.
If it isnt fixed now in court it will never be.
Election laws must be fixed.
If unsuccessful the only plan left is to ((censored))
ClusterF , 2 hours ago
No thank you, and yes I care damn well enough to fight about it. The founders rebelled
over a miniscule tea tax for gods sake!!!! This is about subversion of the entire race to a
globalist over class.
the idea of America moving toward a ‘managed’ society – based on
‘science’ – that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a
managerial, expert class.
Managed society sounds a heck of a lot like communism. That is, one-party "management" of
people and resources by elites unaccountable to the people via free and fair elections.
ChetRoman , 2 hours ago
"Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration – a return to a hallowed
consensus in American politics – to a reassuring ‘sanity’ of facts, science
and truth "
Who writes this horse****? Biden was a senile placeholder for the next puppet of the
"ruling class" or "deep state" that has only contempt for working Americans, the deplorables.
Biden will formalize Big Tech's and MSM domination of what we can say and think. They have
censored 95% of the media to keep the public from seeing how thoroughly corrupt and
incompetent Biden is. Trump has his faults but he is the only one, in at least the last 30
years, that even mentioned the downward spiral of the working Americans. What we have is a
Color Revolution and the Bolsheviks are a major part of it.
Patmos , 1 hour ago
Technocracy is just another form of tyranny, and once the global economy inevitably
collapses technocracy will only end up proving the saying that when the blind follow the
blind they both end up in a ditch.
Deplorable , 1 hour ago
I'm actually happy that Biden won and will continue with the lockdown ********. It keeps
me working from home until I decide to officially retire. As a govt contractor I can get away
with working less than half the time while still getting paid for a 40 hour workday.
Added bonus, I can drink beer all day long and day trade on the side.
hoytmonger , 2 hours ago
Nothing will change with Biden as President,
Except for the rhetoric.
Nexus789 , 2 hours ago
They will spend their time enriching themselves. Biden, according to Forbes is worth ten
million. How does a career politician do that.
RozKo , 2 hours ago
A world where the money is digital; the food is lab-grown; where everything is counted
and controlled by giant monopolies; and everyday existence is micromanaged by
ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI that registers thoughts and feelings before the people
even get a chance to make those thoughts.
Oh boy, lots of fun, maximum security prison with a twist, you'll be getting screwed by
robot bubba and he be in your head too.
Onthebeach6 , 2 hours ago
Rupert Murdoch said a couple of months ago that he expected Trump to lose in a
landslide.
Looks like he worked overtime to achieve this outcome.
3-fingered_chemist , 2 hours ago
Trump should just give the Left what it wants. Total lockdown of the country until we have
6 months straight of zero cases of coronavirus. That means no new President can be sworn in
until that time is reached. Have fun! The next two years will be hilarious as the Dems
further implode. You already can see it with Pelosi wanting to be Speaker again. The
Progressives will think that they have some mandate, but the Old Guard is going to throw them
under the bus yet again. ANTIFA and BLM will be burning down the Dem cities not because of
Trump but because they aren’t getting their way. Biden won’t even be allowed to
make decisions, but the Progressives won’t be calling the shots either. This will be
the de facto Hillary Presidency. The irony is that Mitch is likely to be the most powerful
person in Washington.
monero_123 , 2 hours ago
Even though I do agree with some conservative principals, I probably lean more blue than
red overall.
Unfortunately, I still don't get the opinion on getting mad at the "blue" states for
making some of these very commentators' life worse. The computer you are using, the phone you
have in your pocket, the internet you are browsing, the webhost that hosts Zerohedge, etc,
etc is all from the advancements of companies/talent that are in those states.
But, at the same time, the more people are angry at the invisible boogeyman, the easier it
is for myself to advance in society while others just sit and complain.
OK Boomer , 16 seconds ago
It's not that complicated. The US has had for many decades an entrenched "Deep State"
running much of the govt. Republican and Democrat parties are the two hands of this Deep
State. When an establishment Democrat president replaces an establishment Republican (or vice
versa), no actual power is transferred. It's just the Deep State passing the baton from one
hand to the other. The enduring power is in the un-elected govt. The process of electing a
president is normally just a symbolic ritual which serves to generate consent by allowing the
masses to feel as though they actually chose their govt.
Trump was the unicorn president. He was never supposed to be elected. And even as
president his power has been very limited. The Justice Dept, CIA, FBI, all conspired against
him. The only prosecutions by "his" Justice Department were against members of his own
administration. The purpose of the US president is to act as a figurehead and a rubber stamp
for the wishes of the dominant un-elected govt. Biden fits the bill perfectly--a complete
non-entity.
N2M , 1 hour ago
Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press Kindle Edition
The Task before "Sleepy Joe" is to put Liberal America Right Back to Sleep
by Jonathan Cook / November 6th, 2020
At birth, all of us begin a journey that offers opportunities either to grow – not
just physically, but mentally, emotionally and spiritually – or to stagnate. The journey
we undertake lasts a lifetime, but there are dozens of moments each day when we have a choice
to make tiny incremental gains in experience, wisdom and compassion or to calcify through
inertia, complacency and selfishness.
No one can be engaged and receptive all the time. But it is important to recognise these
small opportunities for growth when they present themselves, even if at any particular moment
we may decide to avoid grasping them.
When we shut ourselves into the car on the commute to work, do we use it as a moment to be
alone with our thoughts or to silence them with the radio or music? When we sit with friends,
do we choose to be fully present with them or scroll through the news feed on our phones? When
we return from a difficult day at work, do we talk the issues through with family or reach for
a glass of wine, or maybe bingewatch something on TV?
Everyone needs downtime, but if every opportunity for reflection becomes downtime then we
are stagnating, not growing. We are moving away from life, from being human.
Dried-out husk
This week liberal Americans reached for that glass of wine and voted Joe Biden. Others did
so much more reluctantly, spurred on by the fear of giving his opponent another four years.
Biden isn't over the finishing line quite yet, and there are likely to be recounts, court
challenges and possibly violence over the result, but he seems all but certain to be crowned
the next US president. Not that that should provoke any kind of celebration. The rest of the
world's population, future generations, the planet itself – none of us had a vote –
were always going to be the losers whichever candidate won.
The incumbent, Donald Trump, miscalculated, it seems, if he thought dismissing his opponent
as "Sleepy Joe" would be enough to damage Biden's electoral fortunes. True, Trump was referring
to the fact that Biden is a dried-out husk of the machine politician he once was. But after
four years of Trump and in the midst of a pandemic, the idea of sleeping through the next
presidential term probably sounded pretty appealing to liberals.
Most of them had spent their whole political lives asleep, but four years ago they were
forcibly roused from their languor to protest against Donald Trump. They grew enraged by the
symptom of their corrupted political system rather than by the corrupt system itself. For them,
"Sleepy Joe" is just what the doctor ordered.
But it won't be Biden doing the sleeping. It will be the liberals who cheerlead him. Biden
– or perhaps Kamala Harris – will be busy making sure his corporate donors get
exactly what they paid for, whatever the cost to the rest of us.
In this analogy, Trump is not the opposite of Biden, of course. He represents stagnation
too, if of a different kind.
Trump channels Americans' frustration and anger at a political and economic system they
rightly see as failing them. He articulates who should be falsely blamed for their woes: be it
immigrants, minorities, socialists, or the New World Order. He offers justified, if
misdirected, rage in contrast to Biden's dangerous complacency.
But however awful Trump may be, at least some of those voting for him are grappling, if
mostly unconsciously, with the tension between stagnation and growth – and not of the
economic kind. Unlike most liberals, who dismiss this simplistically as "populism", some of
Trump's supporters do at least seem to recognise that the tension exists. They simply haven't
been offered a constructive alternative to anger and blame.
Ritually disappointed
Unlike the liberals and the Trumpists, many in the US have come to understand that their
political system offers nothing but stultifying stagnation for ordinary Americans by
design , even if it comes in two, smartly attired flavours.
They see that the Trump camp rages ineffectually against the corporate elite, deluded into
believing that a member of that very same elite will serve as their saviour. And they see that
the Biden camp represents an ineffectual rainbow coalition of competing social identities,
deluded into believing that those divisions will make them stronger, not weaker, in the fight
for economic justice. Both of these camps appear resigned to being serially – maybe
ritually – disappointed.
Failure does not inspire these camps to seek change, it makes them cling all the more
desperately to their failed strategies, to attach themselves even more frantically and
fervently to their perceived tribe.
That is why this US election – at a moment when the need for real, systemic change is
more urgent, more evident than ever before – produced not just one but two of the worst
presidential candidates of all time. We are looking at exactly what happens when a whole
society not only stops growing but begins to putrefy.
Enervating divisions
Not everyone in the US is so addicted to these patterns of self-delusion and self-harm.
Large swaths of the population don't bother to vote out of hard-borne experience. The system
is so rigged against them that they don't think it matters much which corporate party is in
power. The outcome will be the same for them either way.
Others vote third party, or consciously abstain in protest at big money's vice-like grip on
the two-party system. Others, appalled at the prospect of Trump – and before him the two
Bushes, and before that Ronald Reagan – were forced once again to vote for the Democratic
ticket with a heavy heart. They know all too well who Biden is (a creature of his corporate
donors) and what he stands for (whatever his corporate donors want). But he is slightly less
monstrous than his rival, and in the US system those are the meaningful electoral options.
And among Trump's supporters too, there are many desperate for wholesale change. They voted
for Trump because at least he paid lip service to change.
These groups – most likely a clear electoral majority – could redirect the US
towards political, social, even spiritual growth, if they could find a way to come together.
They suffer from their own enervating divisions.
How should they best use their numerical strength? Should they struggle to win the
presidency, and if so should it be a third-party candidate or should they work within the
existing party structures? What lesson should they draw from the Democratic leadership's
sabotaging – twice over – of Bernie Sanders, a candidate offering meaningful
change? Is it time to adopt an entirely different strategy, rejecting traditional politics? And
if so, can it be made to work when all the major institutions – from the politicians and
courts, to the police, intelligence services and media – are firmly in the hands of the
corporate enemy?
Terrible reckoning
There is no real way to sleep through life, or politics, and not wake up one day –
usually when it is too late – realising catastrophic mistakes were made.
As individuals, we may face that terrible reckoning on our death-beds. Empires rarely go so
quietly. They fall when it is time for their citizens to learn a painful lesson about hubris.
Their technological innovations come back to haunt them, as ancient Rome's lead water-pipes
supposedly once did. Or they over-extend with ambitious wars that drain the coffers of gold, as
warrior-kings have discovered to their cost through the ages. Or, when the guardians of empire
least expect it, "barbarians" – the victims of their crimes – storm the city
gates.
The globe-spanning US empire faces the rapid emergence of all these threats on a planetary
scale. Its endless wars against phantom enemies have left the US burdened with astounding debt.
Its technologies, from nuclear weapons to AI, mean there can be no possible escape from a major
miscalculation. And the US empire's insatiable greed and determination to colonise every last
inch of the planet, if only with our waste products, is gradually killing the life-systems we
depend on.
If Biden becomes president, his victory will be a temporary win for torpor, for complacency.
But a new Trump will emerge soon enough once again to potentise – and misdirect –
the fury steadily building beneath the surface. If we let it, the pendulum will swing back and
forth, between ineffectual lethargy and ineffectual rage, until it is too late. Unless we
actively fight back, the stagnation will suffocate us all.
The emergence in recent weeks of a coalition of neoconservative Republicans and former US
national-security officials who have thrown their support behind the Democratic candidacy of
Joe Biden is an ominous development to those who believe US foreign policy should be guided by
the principles of realism and military restraint, rather than perpetual wars of choice.
In early June, a group of former officials from the George W Bush administration launched a
political action committee (PAC) in support of Biden's candidacy. The group,
43 Alumni for Biden , boasts
nearly 300 former Bush officials and is seeking to mobilize disaffected Republicans
nationwide.
The mobilization appears to be having an impact: More recently, "more than 100 former staff
of [the late US senator John] McCain's congressional offices and campaigns also endorsed Biden
for president,"
according to NBC News , as well
as dozens of former staffers from Senator Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
That Republican support comes in addition to the more than 70 former US national-security
officials who teamed up
and issued a statement urging Biden's election in November.
Citing what they believe is the grave damage President Donald Trump has done to US national
security, the group does include some mainstream Republicans like Richard Armitage and Chuck
Hagel, but also features notable neocon hardliners like Eliot Cohen, John Negroponte and David
Kramer, who, perhaps not incidentally, played a
leading role in disseminating the utterly discredited Steele dossier prior to Trump's
inauguration.
These are not merely grifters or desperate bids for attention by unscrupulous and avaricious
Beltway swamp creatures. Though there are those too: the so-called
Lincoln Project , helmed by neocon operative Rick Wilson, which is an outside group of
Republicans (including former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele)
devoted to defeating Trump in November.
As historian David Sessions recently
tweeted , "Basically nobody in liberal circles is taking seriously the consequences of the
fact that the exiled cadre of the Republican Party are building a massive power base in the
Democratic Party."
The merger between Democrats and neocons is not merely confined to the world of electoral
politics; it is already affecting policy as well.
Over the summer, in response to The New York Times'
dubious "Russia bounty" story , Democratic congressman Jason Crow
teamed up with Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney (daughter of former US vice-president
Dick Cheney) to prohibit Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee also collaborated to pass an amendment that
imposed restrictions on Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany , showing, if nothing
else, that the bipartisan commitment to the new cold war is alive and well.
It is noteworthy that while there has been considerable pushback to economic neoliberalism
within the Democratic Party in recent years, thanks, mainly, to the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders, the advocacy of reformers like Elizabeth Warren and the increasing popularity of
economists like
Stephanie Kelton , the same cannot be said for foreign policy.
Biden has evinced an openness to being "pushed left" on social and economic policies if he
is elected president, but on external affairs he still largely operates within the standard
Washington foreign-policy playbook.
If anything, on foreign policy Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, having fallen
not only under the spell of "Russiagate" but also increasingly under the influence of neocons
and other former Bush officials who have pushed that discredited narrative for their own
ends.
The Democrats have also displayed a rather supine obeisance in regard to the country's
intelligence community, in spite of a
multiplicity of well-documented lies or half-truths that would at the very least justify
some skepticism about their claims or motivations.
Nobody should be surprised.
The neocons had been signaling their intention to flee the Republicans as early as 2016 when
it was widely reported that Robert Kagan had decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president
and speak at a Washington fundraiser alongside other national-security fixtures worried about
the alleged isolationist drift within the Republican Party.
Indeed, the Democrats welcomed the likes of Kagan and fellow neocon extremist Max Boot with
open arms, setting the stage for where we are today: a Democratic presidential nominee running
to the right of the Republican nominee on foreign policy.
Missing: whither the progressives?
Over the past few US election cycles, progressive Democrats have increasingly challenged the
party's prevailing neoliberal bias on domestic economic policy. Equally striking, however, is
that they have been delinquent in failing to provide an alternative to the hegemonic influence
of militarists and interventionists growing within their party regarding foreign policy.
As it stands today, the so-called progressive foreign-policy alternative is really no
alternative at all. To the contrary, it evokes Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's seminal work,
The Leopard , whose main character, Tancredi,
sagely observes to his uncle , "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to
change."
So it is with much of what passes for a genuine foreign-policy alternative: The rhetoric
slightly changes, the personnel certainly change, but in substance, the policy status quo
largely remains.
Consider a
recent interview with the socialist Jacobin magazine featuring Matt Duss, a foreign-policy
adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Duss, who seeks to articulate the foundations of a new
"progressive" foreign policy, told the Quincy Institute's Daniel Bessner:
"We have neither the right nor the ability to transform other countries, but we should do
what we can to protect and expand the political space in these countries for local people to
do that work. We can also provide funding or resources for American civil society actors to
work in solidarity with their international counterparts ." [emphasis ours]
That sounds anodyne enough, but in reality, it is nothing but a form of liberal
imperialism. Historically, seemingly benign initiatives conducted under the aegis of local
people backed by so-called democracy-building programs have often planted the seeds for more
malign military intervention later.
Who makes the decision as to which local people to support? How does one (purportedly)
protect and expand that political space? We have seen how well that worked out in Afghanistan,
Iraq, or, indeed, in the mounting human tragedy that is Syria today.
Comments like that of Matt Duss amount to this: "We don't have the right to transform other
countries but we're going to try anyway." Forswearing pre-emptive military action (wars of
choice) isn't enough. Change will only come about when US foreign policy adheres to the
principles of the UN Charter, and above all, the ancient Westphalian principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. American policymakers need to
learn that less is more.
That used to be a guiding principle of Democrats, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "
good neighbor policy " that repudiated intervention in the domestic affairs of Latin
America.
Of course, as subsequent events such as World War II illustrated, there may be a point at
which external assistance/intervention in other parts of the world might become necessary; but
the United States should not perpetually arrogate to itself the role of sole judge and jury in
determining when that line should be crossed, no matter how benign its intentions might
appear.
The broader point is that explicating a foreign policy somewhat less hawkish and merely
paying lip service to international law that transcend the norms established by the Bush-Cheney
neocons isn't enough.
That is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Republican-lite economic agenda embraced by "
New Democrats " such as Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner,
whereby the Democrats internalize the Republican Party's market-fundamentalist paradigm, but
simply promise to implement it more fairly, rather than do away with it altogether.
That appears unlikely to change under a future Biden administration. As American
Conservative editor Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
has noted , "Democratic interventionists and Blob careerists now [sit] at the right hand of
[Biden] like [Antony] Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and
Michele Flournoy , who has been touted as a possible secretary of defense.
"They would sooner drag the country back into Syria, as well as position aggressively
against China if the military pushed hard enough and there was a humanitarian reason to justify
it."
Nowhere in Biden's foreign-policy ambit do we find mainstream figures warning about the
dangers of a new cold war with Russia or China, nor to the broader problems posed by America's
overall propensity toward militarism. In fact,
Biden does just the opposite .
The shape of things to come?
With the notable exceptions of a few anti-war Democrats like Barbara Lee, Tulsi Gabbard, Ro
Khanna and Jeff Merkley, the opposition party has spent much of the Trump era turning itself
into the party of war.
Meanwhile, one could envisage a future where the Republicans, under the influence of
"national conservatives" such as Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, or even Trump advisers such as
retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor (recently nominated to be US ambassador to Germany),
becomes the party of realism and restraint abroad.
To the limited extent that President Trump has been guided by any kind of restraint (which
has been
capricious at best ), it has paid dividends for the United States. In the Middle East, for
example, given that the United States is now largely energy-self-sufficient, it no longer needs
to play policeman in that part of the world.
A little tidbit for you. A couple of weeks ago, a Facebook (on which I seldom post) "friend"
shared a TDS video about Trump "conspiracy theories". I replied saying conspiracies exist,
identifying them is the problem. His response basically challenged me to "prove it". I provided
several links, including a couple of court cases, showing that the media ignores what does not
fit their narrative. I closed by saying the TDS crowd is delusional. Trump is different in
kind, not substance.
Today, I was notified that a different "friend" had shared a video. It was another mindless
rant about Trump and his lies about election fraud. Facebook has blocked my ability to comment.
But hey, there's no such thing as Big Brother. I wasn't "supporting" Trump, only pointing out
the narrative is managed.
I really don't understand either side of the Trump thing. US elections, for decades, have
been about which competing faction of the corporate uni-party in Congress gets to call the
shots. Trump is his own corporate party, which stunned both the Demicans and Republocrat Inc.s.
He has cut in on their territory and will pay the price for not being compliant. To return to
the vernacular of my misspent youth – same shit, different pile.
The result of this election can be summarized with one phase "Strange non-death of
neoliberalism."
Joe Biden win is a win the tech companies, the big banks, Beijing, as well a PMC
class.
likbez 11.07.20 at 5:37 pm ( )
It's entirely possible that Biden will be a 1 term President, and this is something that
Democrats should have given some thought to. But they had other, sillier, things on their
mind, and, well, here we are.
They don't care. It is return to business as usual -- classic neoliberalism with the
classic neoliberal globalization on the agenda. And this is all that matter to them.
The people behind Joe Biden are Clinton classic neoliberals. Who ruled the country since
1990th with a well known result.
It is unclear what will happen in 2020 as Biden is a weak politician clearly unable of
dealing with the current crisis the country faces. He is kick the can down the road type of
guy.
And some start speculate that Dems the might get Tucker Carlson in 2024 as the opponent to
Kamala.
(2) From an American perspective, Republican control of the Senate means that the Dems
have limited scope to carry out grandiose economic and social experiments. Which I doubt
Biden is much interested in anyway. (Incidentally, the idea that Biden or Copmala is in any
way a "socialist" is yet another far-fetched MAGA fantasy just ask the folks at Chapo Trap House ). The idea that he came to
power via fraud will not be quite enough to delegitimize the Biden Presidency – it's
not like George W. Bush's narrow and contested victory over Al Gore in Florida remained
much of an issue after a couple of months – but it certainly wouldn't hurt
Republicans to have that as an additional rhetorical tool.
(3) Most consequentially, this substantially discredits American soft power and its
"democracy promotion" efforts.
Michael McCaffrey is a writer and cultural critic who lives in Los Angeles. His work can be
read at RT, Counterpunch and at his website mpmacting.com/blog . He is also the host of the popular cinema
podcast Looking California and
Feeling Minnesota. Follow him on Twitter @MPMActingCo 23:32 Biden's electoral victory has been met
with cheers, proving that gullible Americans are eager to get fooled once again.
A few hours ago I was startled by a collective shout that went out across my neighborhood
here in Los Angeles. I had no idea what all the noise was about, but people were making quite
an exuberant ruckus. After checking the news I quickly realized the cheers were due to the fact
that all the networks were officially calling the presidential race for Joe Biden.
I haven't heard that much happy screaming since a few weeks ago when the Dodgers won the
World Series, and before that when the Lakers won the NBA championship. It is apropos that
Angelinos would cheer Biden's victory the same way they celebrated their sports team's titles
as all of these events are nothing but a function of empty tribalism and vacuous emotionalism
that in the long run don't actually mean a damn thing.
For the fools here in the City of Angels celebrating Biden's victory, nothing will
fundamentally change in their lives, for good or for ill. They will still have to step over
hordes of homeless people and used needles and human excrement as they navigate this sick,
venal, miserable third world shithole trying, and usually failing, to scratch out a living and
to make ends meet.
Biden's rapturously received electoral victory is a vacant win for nothing but a
stylistic change. The hysterically happy masses around me are overjoyed because Biden isn't as
much of a boor as Trump, not exactly a high bar. That said, Biden will certainly be more of a
bore than Trump.
On substance, Biden is, like the Orange Man liberals love to loathe, a shameless
corporatist who will bend over backwards to fill the coffers of the fat cats in board rooms and
on Wall Street, all while screwing over poor, working and middle-class people.
Biden's ascension to the American throne is akin to the dreadful sitcom Two and a Half
Men replacing Charlie Sheen with Ashton Kutcher. The obnoxious Sheen and his "tiger blood"
were gone, but the show still really sucked and Kutcher was an annoying jerk in his own
right.
As far as Biden replacing Trump goes, for people like me, things will only change on the
surface and the sitcom that is American politics will still suck.
For instance, those who think public college should be tuition free for the working class
and student debt cancelled, meet Joe Biden, the man who was instrumental in getting a
bankruptcy bill passed that made it impossible to discharge student debt , thus damning
generations to indentured servitude to pay back school loans over-inflated through government
interference.
For people who think we should have universal health care, meet Joe Biden, an architect of
Obamacare, that insidious bill written by insurance companies that fleeces Americans by forcing
people to buy their abysmal product at exorbitant prices under force of law. Biden, similar to
Trump, has even promised to
veto any universal health care bill that would ever come to his desk.
For those opposed to Wall Street socializing losses while privatizing gains, meet Joe Biden,
who will, like Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump before him, populate his administration with
nefarious Wall Street shills and despicable devotees of the Goldman Sachs cult who will
hungrily devour any taxpayer bailouts that they can get their hands on.
For peace loving people who think America should be less militaristic, belligerent and
bellicose abroad, meet Joe Biden, the man who voted for the
Iraq War that killed tens of thousands, and is a poodle to the Pentagon with an itchy
trigger finger to get tough with America's adversaries, be they real or imagined, across the
globe.
For those who think the drug war and criminal justice system are an abject failure, meet Joe
Biden, the man who wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that has given
America the dubious distinction of having the highest prison population rate in the entire
world.
For working class folks that have repeatedly gotten screwed by Washington's corporate
friendly free trade policies that decimated the manufacturing base in America and eventually
led to the rise of Donald Trump, meet Joe Biden, the
NAFTA -loving narcissist who pretends to be a man of the people but is really the lap dog
of big money interests.
For those who despised Trump for his war on the press, meet Joe Biden, who was vice
president for Obama, the man who waged more than a Trumpian rhetorical war on the press, but an
actual war on the press by using the
Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers more times than every other president in US
history combined.
For people outraged by Trump putting "kids in cages" as part of his crackdown on illegal
immigration, meet Joe Biden, who was vice president during the Obama administration which
aggressively deported
more immigrants than Trump and who also put "kids in cages".
For every emotionally triggered simpleton so gloriously giddy over Trump's demise and
Biden's rise: meet the new boss same as the old boss. You are all being fooled. Me I won't
get fooled again.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
I think calling it Harris (Biden) administration is a bit childish. Harris will have about as
much effect on policy as Pence had during last 4 four years. Certainly nothing like Cheney.
And she won't be the Dems candidate in four years.
Chris Sweeney, UK reporter, says" Britain died for me, its become a Covid-obsessed police
state."He further writes that the courageous spirit that defines Britain is disappearing. Do
you feel the same about the US. I do. The response to the lockdown and masks etc. sends brave
loggers here in the Catskill into a state of child-like fear . Who said there is a sucker
born every minute.
In 2013 he told the Ukrainian government that it can't use police force against
"demonstrators".
The police were the "bad guys" if they stopped the violent protesters. This game has boomeranged back to the USA in 2020.
Ironically we got the same guy who pushed this theme in Kiev in 2013:
In 2013 Joe Biden went to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, and warned the government not to
harm the demonstrators. That act made clear to the world that the US was allied with them,
if not orchestrating the demonstrations and then the subsequent coup against the elected
government.
As Bernie Sanders pointed out in a video that went viral, initial results were always
going to favour the Republicans because Republicans were more likely to vote in person,
whereas Democrats were more likely to use mail-in ballots which take time to
count, so this is precisely what was anticipated, this was always going to happen, there's
nothing untoward or unexpected happening here. As the count continues the 'process' begins
to inexorably favour the Democrats.
First of all, the election fraud is not something exceptional. It small dozes it is
present in any of US election. More in the past (Kennedy-Nixon), then currently. See
A Brief History of Mail-In Vote Fraud
I do not think that fraud alone is capable of flipping the states. The key problem for
Trump is that he a fake/fraudulent populist: look at Trump tax cut and that might explain why
less voters supported him in 2020 . And Biden with all his warts is IMHO better choice then
Trump with this bulling and "national neoliberalism" stance along with aggressive "might is
right" foreign policy (just
look at Pompeo)
But at the same time some facts require careful analysis. Among them
Kyle Becker@kylenabecker
Swing state voting irregularities:
Biden outperforms [Dem] Senators in swing states, underperforms in VA, NH, RI
Biden underperforms Hillary/Obama in cities, except in MI, PA, GA, WI
Biden may well be sworn in as the next president, but the results are otherwise crushing for
the Democratic Party establishment.
They threw extraordinary amounts of money at big Senate races: $108 million in South
Carolina, $88 million in Kentucky, $69 million in Maine, $43 million in Montana. It was an
unmitigated failure. Not only did Democrats fail in all of these bids, they are also on track
to lose up to ten seats in the House of Representatives.
"Here's the real story of what happened last night: I'm going to give you some positive
news." Charlie Kirk, co-founder of the right-wing youth organisation Turning Point USA,
addressed voters across the airwaves in Pennsylvania yesterday morning, as votes were still
being counted.
"You wouldn't know any of this if you were just watching the activist media, but there's a
lot of good news for us today. We prevented Chuck Schumer [the Democratic Senate
minority leader] and his multi-billion dollar onslaught to try to purchase your government. You
stopped that: God bless you for it."
Kirk is not wrong. Much of Biden's domestic policy platform is meaningless without a strong
Congressional majority. Everything the new president tries to deliver – even a badly
needed coronavirus stimulus package – will be stymied. Should he actually manage to get
some legislation through an obstructionist Senate, much of it will then be doomed by Trump's
signature legacy: a Supreme Court with a 6-3 Conservative majority.
... ... ...
Change Was Not on the Ballot
Plenty of people we spoke to were voting against Donald Trump, but not necessarily for Joe
Biden. This is borne out in national polls: as Fox News
reported , many Biden voters were motivated primarily by the desire to get Trump out of the
Oval Office, rather than to see Biden in it.
... ... ..
Citizens across most of the world will breathe a sigh of relief if they see Donald Trump
leave office. But, as Craig from Florida put it a few weeks ago when he decided not to cast a
ballot: "I don't know who will win on 3 November. But I do know it won't be the American
people."
Biden probably means a new war for the USA by mid-22. He'll need it to try to get some
unity and gather Congressional support from hawks on both sides of the aisle. Squad will sell
out for green crumbs from the war budget. MSM will cheer war all the way. PMC will be all
very serious and lecture everybody on how smart the latest war is.
However, there is a distinct possibility that, if the anti-Iran propaganda push gains
traction, America might face an outright defeat. That would be a game changer; sort of an
'American Teutoburg Forest' scenario.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
I can just see it now. After a disastrous US first strike, Joe Biden would be seen
stalking the halls of the White House late at night shouting while ripping out his hair-
"Michèle Flournoy, Michèle Flournoy, give me back my Carriers!"
America is already "outsourcing" their "proxy" wars, such as in Syria. Financial aid as
well as low level arms provision do the trick there. For a "serious" war, the productive
capacity could be found, even if it takes a year or so to ramp up; WW-2 is an example.
Manpower is certainly available.
It is true the U.S. is essentially at war with Iran, Venezuela, and other places through
sanctions, sabotage, destabilization efforts, ect., but a serious war against a country like
Iran, without public consent and support is probably a bridge too far. Cheney wanted a second
9-11 type event to mobilize the U.S. public against Iran. The U.S. government runs on
borrowed money and allegedly doesn't have enough money for such items as Medicare for all, a
Green New Deal, or COVID relief. The U.S. is beset with internal and external problems. To
start a major war in this context would be incredible folly.
The US military budget is sacrosanct, with the defense companies distributing
jobs/spending all over the USA.
Remember the HRC advisor Madeline Albright quote?
"In a meeting about the costs and dis-advantages of an intervention in Bosnia, Albright
turned to Powell and declared, "What is the use of having this wonderful military if we never
use it?" In his memoirs, Powell recalls that he almost had "an aneurysm" following this
exchange."
But note, the cautious Colin Powell, of aneurysm concern, later pimped for the Iraq
War.
Why the old crew that pushed for Libya intervention might be partially re-united under
Biden, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton (but not Samantha Power) with, perhaps, Flournoy
assisting.
Maybe Madeline Albright will be advising in the background?
I expect a new "democracy building war" from the Biden administration, and would be very
pleased to be proven wrong.
But any war will not be stopped because "we can't afford it."
They are war mongers, one and all, but I think there are real difficulties and costs with
any new wars. We can't even win or get out of our current "Forever Wars". These wars have now
existed for the entire lifespan of people now enlisting in the military.
I think you may be missing the point of our wars. In the areas we can't outright dominate
through globalized financialism, we create sustained low level violence as a cover for
resource extraction.
Whether it's oil in Syria, rare earths, exotic metals in Bolivia etc., or drugs to fund
our co-combatants to maintain the underlying ungovernability of the region, say Afghanistan
or the intersection of Columbia, Venezuela and Brazil, the point is to maintain some profit
flow for some corporate or agency interest without the agency or private beneficiaries having
to pay for it through taxes or direct legal investment that can't be protected by US
courts.
Your latter point, about who fights these actions is the real resource constraint the US
faces, the rest is now either paid for through the economics of extraction as described above
or seigniorage by the Fed.
Incidentally, I don't think this is some "conspiratorial" result, rather it's 70 years of
corporate development by Milo Minderbender, it is the logical conclusion or " War is a Racket "
A ranking Israeli Minister has already threatened that if Biden signs up to the nuclear
deal again, that they will be forced to attack Iran. In other words, he wants America to stay
out of the deal so that they can attack Iran of Israeli's behalf. Israel can't hit Iran
because Iran can hit back at Israel so they want American forces to do their attacking for
them. And in any case, dead American service-people don't vote in Israeli elections so no
skin off their noses.
My dad was a big war history buff, and he spoke about how "a bunch of weirdos" would seem
to come to power at the same time and everything would then dutifully proceed to s(family
blog)t.
Hitler is treated, almost revered, as some Evil Mastermind but he was basically a weirdo
if you look closer and if it wasn't for Mussolini and Chamberlain and a bunch of other really
wack puzzle pieces that you couldn't imagine being dogcatchers in a sane society, WWII would
arguably have not happened.
Admittedly sort of a Great Man theory of history, but the "Great" part a bit redefined,
but certainly was always something to chew upon and he made his points really well.
So Bibi, Biden, Macron, MBS, wow not looking good is it? Trump does not really fix this,
he may make it worse as a Chamberlain type.
I read somewhere that the Brits (and French?) were hoping to use the Nazis against the
communists, not unlike the way the U.S. is currently trying to use the fundamentalists
against Syria and other places.
Yes, if you want to look at that era from 10,000ft. Hitler pulled off two major stunts
that turned him from a weirdo footnote in history into history's biggest monster.
1) He flipped the script on the West, who looked the other way on the military build up in
the 1930s because they wanted him to attack the USSR. Cutting a deal with Stalin (who knew
the game) to carve up Poland meant the German army could turn westwards.
2) Warfare had changed significantly in the 20th Century. In WWI, no one in charge
understood that the way to fight wars had changed. In fact, 2+ years in, the French and
British were still sending waves of infantry charging into German machine gun nests (at Somme
and Verdun).
Hitler just so happened to have a general staff that had been experimenting with the novel
use of air power like Stuka dive bombers in the Spanish Civil War. They'd also been
developing theories of how to use tanks and armored vehicles, along with that air power, to
punch holes through heavily fortified defensive positions.
Better tactics, organization and leadership meant the German Army was able to swiftly
overrun their French opponents who had both greater numbers and generally better
equipment.
If France had held it together for any length of time, it's very questionable how long
Germany could sustain a war effort. All the top brass in Germany seemed very concerned about
it.
Without the early victory in France, it's plausible Hitler would have rapidly lost
legitimacy and been ousted either in a coup, assassination, or some other means and wouldn't
loom so large in modern historical memory no Holocaust or D-Day or any of the watershed
moments of the 20th Century.
Sorry, dChris, but your blend of special ingredients (the people you mention), were more a
hindrance to fascism, or so says Robert Paxton, in his book on fascism – "The Anatomy
of Fascism." WW2 I'd argue was going to happen no matter what. Hard to find a good proof that
holds up on the Great Man (Person) Theory of history. I met Netanyahu at MIT were I was sure
to wear my PLO shirt when he was around. He liked to talk, and he talked a good game, but he
could never deliver, ever. The issue was: the freedom to speak, not about Jews & the PLO.
Even then the hallways of the university were darkening
Building on your point, having a problem of Fascism is one thing. But let's be honest, not
all fascisms are created equal.
The Italian version, -- which struggled to with a war in Ethiopia.
The German version, -- which rolled over one of the finest contemporary military forces of
the time in France, and then pushed Russia to the brink of destruction.
You may well be right that fascism was somewhat baked into the circumstantial cake, but I
think we can all agree those are two versions are each VERY different problems to get a
handle on.
I would guess that if the US attacked Iran, Iran would retaliate in part by attacking
Israel. I'm not too sure the notion holds up that Israel would come out of the conflict
unscathed.
Post election anecdotes:
Driving along the main drag of the half-horse town today, I saw two big pickup trucks with
large Trump flags flying. One flag said; "Trump is my President, win or lose."
Our son and middle girl, both adult age, aren't speaking right now due to disagreement over
who to vote for.
No one on the street yesterday looked happy. We usually see at least one or two on any day.
Not yesterday. Uniform glumness prevails.
Direct observation suggests that turnout was high, but no solid numbers available yet.
Drivers on the actual street were more than usually "dangerous." The main drag looked a bit
like "Death Race 2020." Everyone rushing and taking obvious chances. A lot of speeding and
running red lights, not just yellow light lottery players.
At least the nightly 'shooting gallery' of the last few months has stopped.
Here in Tucson, I noticed something very interesting.
In the days and weeks after the death of George Floyd and the protests (and, sotto voce,
riots and vandalism in and near Downtown), this city was wall-to-wall BLM signs.
Then came Kenosha.
The BLM signs started disappearing, and most of them haven't come back.
Could the main difference be the proportions of "working class" versus "PMC" support for
BLM? The "working class" is somewhat used to police violence against them and so, able to
'process' the dynamics of the Kenosha killings. The PMCs have little to no experience with
actual violence directed towards their persons and thus become "gun shy" quickly.
Anyway, it's a thought.
As a Democrat down a ways on the ballot, it was obvious that, once again, Democrats
snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Republican leadership is merciless and could care
less about doing anything positive for the majority of citizens. Their 'secret sauce' is to
keep the middle class opposed to the labor class. It is the money, honey. And it has
corrupted both parties. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is Democrats
apologize for their sins. The One Percent selects the nominees in both political parties and
sail on their yachts. Everyone else gets to pay the debt. Until that toxic mix changes, we
will continue to struggle as a democracy.
A larger percentage of the 'labor class', women, and minorities went to T this time than
in 2016. How to explain that? The Dems offered nothing, ran on nothing, except "Orange man
bad" and "we're going back to the O years." (I'm not at all surprised so many down ticket
races when to GOP candidates. Can't beat something with nothing, as they say.) Taibbi's
latest long (paywall) article asks quixotically if the GOP is becoming the party of the
working class.
I'd answer Taibbi's question with: probably not. T isn't a neoliberal in economic outlook.
Both D and R party estabs are neoliberal in economic outlook. T is a one-off in that regard.
My guess: most people are ready to vote for anyone who will hold pharma, big Ag, monopolies,
insurance companies, etc accountable for the financial harm they've caused 90% of the people.
My second guess: both parties will work like hell to prevent any candidate like that from
getting to the general election. See Dem estab v. Sanders and Warren.
adding: wages for a lot of the lowest paid working class actually went up during the T
admin, for a lot of reasons, not so much to do with T but on his watch. Did the MSM ever
report on that economic change? Does the MSM ever report on economic issues that affect the
90% ? Now they're shocked to find T won more votes from, for instance, Black voters than any
GOP president candidate since 1960.
Red States and Blue States held their relative lines on the election map. System 1
thinking prevails in times of stress and Americans stood by their reflexive identities.
The only thing radical were expectations. Democrats ran a status quo candidate and
expected a radical result. Being insane they have already blamed their loss on not doing more
of the same.
What is patently clear is how bitterly polarized and divisive US domestic politics have
become. This is due to the historic failing of the two-party system which has, over
decades, left whole swathes of the population, in particular the majority working class,
alienated from the political class. There is irreparable distrust and distortion among the
American populace. To the point where it would seem impossible for any nominal winner of
the election to be able to command a mandate.
A tried and trusted mechanism for galvanizing is to "unite" the people by rallying them
around the flag against some designated foreign enemy. Given the increasing unwieldy,
fractious nature of American society, it is all the more imperative for the US ruling class
to impose some level of coherence in order to restore the essential authority of governing
power. With this paramount need to shore up a sense of authority, it can therefore be
expected that American foreign policy will become more aggressive and militaristic in the
next four years.
Yes, the earth keeps spinning no matter who "wins" the election.
Armenia, apparently the skies are clear of turkish drones with a little help from Russian EW,
so the Artsakh army is deploying armor again to defend Shusha, they almost lost control of
the road to their capital Stepanakert.
Another relevant piece of information, the Ukros smelling victory by their satrap Biden
last night heavily attacked Donetsk, a taste of things to come.
Posted by: vk | Nov 6 2020 16:33 utc | 76
That's a good one, Evo calling for Almagro, the OAS will take care of Georgia and
Pensilvania.
The current outcome of this election, a stalemate, is perhaps the best possible
outcome for rest of the world, not only is showing the world how corrupt, outdated and
illegitimate the US' electoral college system is, but this near evenly divided election
result will creates a space for the rest of the free and sovereign world to take a breath
from continues US assault on them.
Elections results that are determined by courts and lawyering do not have legitimacy or
mandate for at least half the voters in US and very doubtful to the rest of the world. This
was the best outcome possible, for those In the world seeking to become free from American
claws.
The coming internal political instability uncertainty and infighting will weaken and keep
the beast busy for coming years, which by itself should provide opportunity for the rest of
world to participate in world affairs.
"... There was no blue tide. Nor was there a red tide. ..."
"... Trump outperformed 2016 in every demographic category except white males. ..."
"... The Republican increase in the House plus Republicans holding the line in the Senate means if Biden wins - McConnell is 99% certain to not go along with a stimulus in February just to ensure that the blue states' bleeding budgets don't get shored up and to set up maximum pain during the Biden administration - as a prelude to the 2024 presidential race. ..."
"... There will not be scrutiny of tech companies unless Trump wins. The Google antitrust will fizzle out with Biden/Harris in office. ..."
"... Health care remains a quagmire. If Biden had gone Medicare For All, or even Bernie, I would have voted for either, holding my nose. The ongoing Democrat sellout to the health care industry continues. ..."
"... If Biden wins, the Democrat party won't change its ways. ..."
2) There was no blue tide. Nor was there a red tide. I said it would be close, and this
present situation absolutely qualifies as close. I now expect this to drag on for weeks -
possibly until December.
3) COVID policies - lockdowns and what not - are not even close to universally supported.
The PMCs like it, the conservatives don't.
4) Trump outperformed 2016 in every demographic category except white males. Not that he
is majority supported, that he got more votes from these groups in 2020 than in 2016 - from
black men, from black women, from white women, from Hispanic men, from Hispanic women and
from the "other" category: source
What can we say for sure from this election?
a) There won't be a new stimulus unless Trump wins. Pelosi not taking the $1.8T proposed
in October (vs. the $2.8T the Democrats wanted and vs. the $1T first proposed by McConnell)
was a huge mistake.
The Republican increase in the House plus Republicans holding the line in the Senate means
if Biden wins - McConnell is 99% certain to not go along with a stimulus in February just to
ensure that the blue states' bleeding budgets don't get shored up and to set up maximum pain
during the Biden administration - as a prelude to the 2024 presidential race.
b) There will not be scrutiny of tech companies unless Trump wins. The Google antitrust
will fizzle out with Biden/Harris in office.
c) Health care remains a quagmire. If Biden had gone Medicare For All, or even Bernie, I
would have voted for either, holding my nose. The ongoing Democrat sellout to the health care
industry continues.
d) If Biden wins, the Democrat party won't change its ways. It won't go Medicare For All.
It won't return to its blue collar roots. It will continue to be the apologists for
Republican deregulation pushes.
e) Identitarian politics doesn't work. If Biden wins, this may be glossed over but Trump's
improvement vs. 2016 - even in a record turnout year - means that the identitarian politics
issue resonates only with the PMC crowd. As Krystal of Rising notes: it is stupid to focus on
this issue when the PMC crowd is pro-Democrat no matter what.
Things which are less clear:
Will the Republican party understand and acknowledge what Trump has done? Call it populism
or Trumpism or whatever - Trump has breached the Democrat stranglehold on minorities and the
lower classes. Anyone who saw any of the rallies in the past 5 weeks knows the base Trump
inspired is not going to disappear, but the old-money stranglehold on the Republican party is
not to be underestimated.
Strategically:
I see this election as positive. So many sacred cows gored. So many people - regardless of
who wins President - are going to be energized/angry. This hopefully focuses attention on the
huge list of things which need to be fixed so that there is a chance they will be.
It seems that we all will have to fill up our popcorn supplies as the rather comical and
disgraceful
process of U.S. vote counting is likely to continue until maybe December 8, the safe harbor date on
which the states will have to certify their electors.
The race is nowhere near where the Democrats and their supporting media had expected it to
go. Just last week polls claimed that Biden would lead in Wisconsin
by 17 percent . The current margin is a rather dubious
0.6 percent which upcoming recounts may well eliminate.
That the Democrats lose House seats, do not win the Senate and barely manage to drag their
demented presidential candidate towards a stalemate tells a lot about their lack of sane
policies. A donor party completely disinterested in what the people really want - medicare for
all, no fracking etc. - will have little chance to survive a future onslaught of conservatives
with a more competent figure head than Donald Trump.
There will be protests, probably violent ones, and more legal action from either side. I see
no comprise possible that would satisfy both parties. I fear that, should Trump lose this
election.
Trumpism will only grow and make the U.S. ungovernable.
Maybe Trump and Biden could publicly draw straws to get over with it.
I did not support #DemExit before tonight. But I just got off the phone with my 24 year old daughter. She's depressed as hell
by what we all see, because they are not bothering to hide it anymore. I could not promise her things will get better, because
they won't.
We do not have a democracy, we have an #oligarchy and when shit hits the fan (as it will sooner than later), our nation
will become another dictatorship or military junta.
So, I'm done with the party system, because we only have one party - the party
for and by the rich. I'm abandoning the Democratic party because it abandoned us for corporate cash decades ago. That's all I
have to say. End of story.
reporting that 82% is in. If so then Biden would need to get 67% of the remaining votes. He's currently at 27%. What are the
odds that such a huge number of Biden votes would now come in? Zero, of course. There's no chance of it and Bernie has won California.
But CNN, for one, is still refusing to call it for him. They had no problem calling Michigan, though, with something like 18%
in.
Perhaps Bernie will hold on and win Washington. We'll see. Tulsi has over 8,500 votes so far. If we were to emulate the Hillbots
we'd be screaming at her, saying she hurt Bernie!!! ! But we don't do that because we're more aware.
#2 Said results won't
be available until tomorrow. We still don't have full results from California...
@Shahryar@Shahryar
Meanwhile, Bernie shows at 14.8%, below the 15% threshold.
I did not have an instant of anger at Tulsi, only sadness.
Sadness
that the mockery of democracy that holds sway in this country would repeatedly set us up for those ridiculous attacks that someone
has been a "spoiler".
Exclusive: How The Bidens Made Off With Millions In Chinese Cash
New
documents show that as regulators closed in, Hunter struck a fresh deal with his Chinese partners
World Food Program USA Board Chairman Hunter Biden speaks at the World Food Program USA's Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership
Award Ceremony at Organization of American States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for
World Food Program USA)
The Senate's
report
on
Hunter Biden's activities released several months ago, which was
spun
by
the New York Times as having shown "no evidence of wrongdoing," nevertheless had several important gaps in the business
activities of the troubled son of the former vice president.
Draft legal documents and 2017 bank records obtained by The American Conservative show at least $5 million was transferred to
Hunter and Jim Biden from companies associated with the Chinese conglomerate CEFC, with millions coming after the company had
come under legal scrutiny both in the United States and China.
CEFC official Patrick Ho was arrested in November 2017 and charged by the Southern District of New York with corruption, and
was convicted last year. In addition, on or about March 1, 2018, CEFC Chairmen Ye Jianming was arrested in China for economic
crimes and hasn't been seen since. CEFC assets in China were seized by Chinese state agencies. In the U.S., major
beneficiaries were Hunter and Jim Biden.
What the following documents show is that as regulators moved to seize CEFC's assets, Hunter Biden attempted to take control
of the company founded in partnership with it. Instead, after striking a deal with two CEFC employees in the U.S., the funds
were disbursed over the next six months to his and his uncle's companies until it was all gone, in total at least $5 million.
2017 Bank Records
On August 5, 2017, the Bidens and CEFC entered into a 50-50 limited liability company agreement (Hudson West III) between
Owasco, Hunter Biden's company, and Hudson West V (CEFC). The Sep 22, 2020 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee (the
"HGSAC Report") surmised an agreement like this, but a copy can be seen, for the first time
here
.
In early 2017, CEFC was ranked as one of the top 500 corporations in the world.
Hudson West III set up two bank accounts with Cathay Bank, with the first set up on or about August 5.
A
company associated with CEFC deposited $5 million into the account on August 8; no contribution was made by the Bidens.
On
Nov 2, 2017, CEFC Limited deposited a further $1 million into the account. (Subsequently, the Hudson West III account shows a
wire of $1 million back to CEFC Limited on Nov 21, followed a few days later on Nov 27 by a credit memo for $999,938. The
HGSAC Report interpreted the Nov 21 wire transfer as a return of the $1 million, but appear to have omitted consideration of
the credit memo apparently reversing the return).
The
net result is that CEFC and its affiliates deposited almost exactly $6 million into Hudson West III in 2017.
In the 5 months between August 8 and Dec 31, 2017, Hudson West III disbursed almost $1.6 million to Owasco (Hunter Biden) in
wire transfers and credit card binges by the Bidens. The transfers appear to have been structured as $165,000 in monthly
payments, plus two other payments of $400,000 and $220,387.
Collated
screengrabs from Hudson West III bank statements showing payments to Owasco (Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC)
The HGSAC Report reported on the $99,000 credit card spree by the Bidens in early September 2017, but, in addition to that
spree, there was an additional $77,700 in credit card sprees, making a total of $176,700 for the five month period.
Figure
2. Screengrab from Hudson West III bank statements showing credit card disbursements
Total expenditures by Hudson West III in the five months were $1,947,439, of which $1,522,000 went to the Bidens (via Owasco
and credit cards).
Hudson
West III bank accounts contained more than $4 million in cash at the end of 2017.
March 2018 Deal
Shortly after the arrest of CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming on March 1, 2018, there appears to have been a rolling seizure of CEFC
assets. Even with the profligate spending by the Bidens, Hudson West III would still have had about $3.5 million in cash in
March.
On March 26, a Chinese-American employee who was fiercely loyal to Hunter suggested to him that Hunter and the two CEFC
employees in the U.S. (Mervyn Yan and Kevin Dong) figure out a way to appropriate the Hudson West III cash before it was
frozen by Chinese regulators or receivers:
you guys (You/Mervyn/Kevin)
figure out a way to have the money transferred to the right U.S. account before any restriction levied by Chinese
regulators or appointed new boss in charge of manage the enterprise Ye left behind.
In fact, Hunter had already begun the process of appropriating Hudson West III cash before a receiver could arrive. On March
18, Hunter's lawyer sent a letter to Mervyn Yan proposing that Hudson West V (the proximate CEFC entity) assign its interest
in Hudson West III to Owasco (Hunter), a transaction which would give control of all the cash to Hunter (see
here
,
and
here
).
On or about March 30, 2018, Hunter and the two Chinese appear to have worked out a different arrangement. Among the newly
available documents are redlined versions of an assignment agreement in which Hudson West V assigned its 50% interest in
Hudson West III to Coldharbour Capital Inc., with Kevin Dong the proposed signatory for Hudson West V, Mervyn Yan for
Coldharbour Capital and Hunter signatory for Owasco's consent to the assignment.
The HGSAC Report does not appear to have had access to these documents: they noted that ownership of Hudson West III at some
point was 50% Coldharbour, but does not appear to have been aware of the prior ownership of this interest by Hudson West V or
the assignment to Coldharbour in late March 2018.
During the next six months, the cash was completely drained into the accounts of Owasco and Coldharbour, spent on consulting
fees and expenses. According to the HGSAC Report, total payments from Hudson West III to Owasco amount to an astonishing
$4,790,375 by September 2018, when the Hudson West III accounts were totally depleted. In November 2018, Hudson West III was
dissolved by Owasco and Coldharbour.
From the 2017 bank records, we know that $1,444,000 had been transferred to Owasco in 2017 (excluding direct payment of credit
card sprees); thus, transfers to Owasco in the first eight months of 2018 were approximately $3,345,000.
The assignment of Hudson West V's interest in Hudson West III to Coldharbour and the dissipation of cash to the Hudson West
III managers would probably not have stood up to a determined receiver appointed by the Chinese parent company, but there
doesn't appear to have been any attempt by the parent company to stop or control the dissipation of Hudson West III's cash
reserves.
Lion Hall (Jim Biden)
Invoices
Included in the newly available material are invoices to Owasco and, separately, to Hudson West III from Jim Biden doing
business as Lion Hall Group. The HGSAC Report stated that, between Aug 14, 2017 and Aug 3, 2018, Owasco sent 20 wires totaling
$1,398,999 to Lion Hall Group. The newly available documents show that Jim Biden charged Owasco $82,500 per month as a
"monthly retainer for international business development":
Readers will recall that Hudson West III bank statements showed regular monthly payments of $165,000 for the last 5 months of
2017. The corollary is that Hunter split this regular monthly payment from Hudson West III 50:50 with Jim Biden. The HGSAC
Report notes that the payments to Lion Hall Group had been flagged by Owasco's bank (Wells Fargo) for potential criminal
activity. The new documents contain an inquiry email from Wells Fargo compliance, together with a reply from Hunter which was
unresponsive on the key compliance questions. By the time that Wells Fargo raised its compliance concerns, the Hudson West III
cash had been exhausted and with it, presumably the stream of 50-50 payments to Uncle Jim.
As noted above, in addition to the regular $165,000 monthly payments, Owasco received other large transfers in 2017 and
presumably in 2018. It is not known whether Uncle Jim split these 50-50 as well, or whether this was a side transaction by
Hunter.
Concurrent with this flood of
money from CEFC, Hunter continued to receive a lavish stipend from Burisma. Nonetheless, by the end of 2018, Hunter had
hundreds of thousands in tax liens. In March 2019, despite having received millions from Chinese business interests, Hunter
even had to plead with former partner Jeffrey Cooper to email him $100 for gas so that he wouldn't be stranded on the highway.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Arthur Bloom is editor of The American Conservative online. He was previously deputy editor of the Daily Caller
and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and American studies from
the University of Kansas. His work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The
Spectator
(UK),
The Guardian, Quillette, The American
Spectator
,
Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
email
Not by the Conservative press. But certainly by the Liberal press. I was born in a country
where all the news sources were owned by one of the political parties. Now I live in a
country where we have the
de facto
situation. In
America we are very good at setting the standard as the
de
jure
state of affairs, while ignoring the
de facto
state
of affairs. Every country has its share of hypocrisy. But there are few places, if any, where
it is institutionalized as America. We need to do much better. Despite what the Conservatives
say, the Liberal press used to try to do journalism. But they have given up.
I'm old enough to remember when CNN was a pretty middle of the road news organization.
But Fox came along and proved that naked partisanship, half-truths, innuendo, and
brightening up the hate centers of the brain was a far more profitable way of doing
business. CNN just had to compete.
We do have the Fox "News" Network (Most watched cable news channel, or so the
continually brag, and with TV/cable being where most Americans get their news from that
makes them a pretty big player) and One America "News" Network. Ad in the Sinclair
Broadcasting Network--they have no problem sending out canned od-eds supporting Trump
so they should have no ideological objection to pursuing this story. Perhaps they could
do some investigating and reporting instead of filling their airtime with
unsubstantiated accusations made by others that they take at face value.
Not to mention there are some print sources--The Washington Times, the NY Post, the
Orange County Register, Des Moines Register, etc.
Right? Between Fox News, the Murdoch owned papers, Breitbart, the Daiky
Caller/Wire, and Sinclair, the idea that right isn't represented in the media is
frankly insane. Even Q Anon has a better reach in Facebook than the NYT and they
are a pure distillation of conservatism.
"There is no conservative media" is an idea about as tethered to reality as
conservative media is in general.
This is news. Hunter Biden is most likely a crook. And a well-known watchdog group has just filed a
12-page complaint with DOJ requesting an investigation. Also check out this TV appearance on
Newsmax.
Hunter Biden is most likely a crook. But what a person "most likely is" is not news. I used
to watch Newsmax because it is good to hear about stories that the liberal press doesn't
cover. And it is good to get varying perspectives on news events even if the liberal press
covers them. But I can't take tv news any more. They are all mostly useless for people like
me who detest both political parties. I watch only Newsy. You should try if you are really
interested in news.
"watchdog group" you say? And that is supposed to me make me think that there is a difference
between that and the Republican Party? The liberals pioneered that trick. Now everyone uses
it. That is, name (effectively) an arm of the Democratic Party a "watchdog" and that is
supposed to give it credibility. But the trick is subject to our First Law of Politics.
Whatever tactic one party deploys, as long as it is successful, the other party will deploy
it. No matter how much they denounced it previously. At best, they will rename it. But
usually, they don't bother.
In any case, unless this "watchdog group" is alleging a crime there is no basis for a DOJ
investigation. What is the criminal accusation?
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't even waste my time reading this piece. Arthur seems to have all of a
sudden become interested in corruption (which likely didn't even happen) in a way he expressed no
interest in for the last 4 years. Forgive me if I don't vote him as an honest broker.
It's just so weak. This isn't an October surprise -- this is like a turkey surprise casserole
served two weeks after Thanksgiving. Even if this were a game-changing piece of reporting, it
seems a dubious tactic to release it on the morning of the election on a website that
probably gets less views than some random 16 year old dancing on Tik-Tok.
TAC's pivot over the last couple years into Brietbart territory is embarrassing. A lot of rightwing
media and personalities held out for awhile on Trump, but eventually saw where the wind was blowing
and jumped in the deep end. I hope no one on the principled right or left ever lets them forget it.
No shelter for scoundrels....
Thanks for publishing this. I hope more such pieces appear here in the next few weeks. TAC's regular
readers from the Left don't like it. Good. Rub their noses in it.
I was mentioning Hunter Biden and his Ukraine dealings back in 2014 but I don't have a public forum
outside email and social media and no one thought it of interest till his dad was running for
president against a man who by many accounts has been a crook his entire adult life, and proud of
it.
So Hunter failed to register as a foreign agent. Isn't that what Mike Flynn got busted for
along with some other Trump campaign officials? And hasn't Trump demanded his people all be
forgiven for their transgressions cause it wasn't really a bad thing?
Out of curiosity, among the hundreds if not thousands of websites you could be reading right now,
apart from thousands of decent monographs and works of fiction, why are you spending time this
morning at this "nutjob site," going so far as to login to the comments section to express to the
other presumably "nut job" readers that you're better than them?
This speaks VOLUMES about your worth as a human being. When you wake up around 3 AM over the next
few nights, it'll hit you. Let it sink in. Let it marinate. From such truths character is built.
It's pretty extreme. TAC comment section has become unusable bickering and taunts even after
blocking half the content. I don't know what they are hoping to accomplish other than
confirming our worst guesses about their character.
Exclusive? Of course! No one in their right mind would print it. And the enemy of the state-fake news
outlets are all looking for scoops and looking to win major awards and prizes for breaking a
story-----and for some reason all of these thousands of journalists did not get this "exclusive."
all unproved nonsense.Where is the indictment, when, after all Trump and Barr woprk hand in hand...simply
BS stuff to support Trump. Should Trump lose, watch the legal stuff that he will confront. Now worry
about that
When did this site turn into The Tucker Carlson show ? Please return to the thoughtful conservative
thought that you are know for. Sign of the times I guess and how internet culture can demean us all.
It's the same delusion they engaged in with Trump. They overweight the feelings of their in
group and underweight the population as a whole. Tucker doesn't actually have many viewers in
the scheme of winning a national election. He couldn't appeal to moderates.
Neoconservatives are flocking to the Biden campaign. The DC braintrust that believes in
using US military power to aid Israel in the Middle East has jumped parties before– to
Clinton in '92, and back to Bush in 2000– and now they're hopping aisles to support
Biden, with Bill Kristol leading the way.
Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by "Jewish Americans for Biden", and
moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans
endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump's character posing a danger to democracy. But both
neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East and
reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won't
necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support
Israel and believe in American military intervention.
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic , echoed
the fear that Israel is being politicized. "A lot of Jews made a big mistake by taking
something I was in favor of, moving the embassy to Jerusalem and obsessing about that," he
said. But there was huge political risk in that: if the United States is internally divided,
at war with itself, and "Israel has become a partisan issue, which it should never ever be .
That's not in Israel's longterm security interest."
Biden will reverse that trend by appointing strong supporters of Israel, Cohen said.
"Joe Biden has a long record as a friend of Israel. I think we're both quite familiar
with the kinds of people who will go into a Biden administration and I think we feel very
comfortable that they will have a deep and abiding concern for Israel which is not going to
go away."
Edelman also said that Trump has created many "dangers" in the region by not being
aggressive:
"By withdrawing or threatening to withdraw US forces, by repeatedly not replying or
dealing with Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf or against Saudi oil infrastructure,
he's created a sort of vacuum that is being filled in Libya by Russia and by Turkey "
Biden will work with allies and be ready to use U.S. military in the region– or as
Edelman said, "to play."
"The region is a mess," Edelman said. "And yet the president continually says he wants the
U.S. to withdraw from the region. The reality is that the withdrawal of US power form the
region has helped create this morass of threats."
He cited three war zones in which the U.S. or proxies' bombing is essential to U.S.
security, Libya, Yemen and Syria.
In Syria, "The Trump administration pulled out and said, we don't want to play here,"
Edelman said.
"Other forces are going to fill the vacuum created by the absence of US leadership and
they won't be benign forces," Edelman said. Iran, Russia, or Turkey will come in and create a
"vortex of instability that can potentially come back to haunt us" -- with terrorist attacks
or the disruption of energy markets.
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
In other words, Trump has failed the Israel Lobby because he has tried to pull our US forces
from the Middle East and, although he has laid down sanctions against Iran, he has not gone to
war. Of course, these are the people who promoted the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war. They
are probably right that Russia and Turkey would benefit from US pulling out completely
(Libya??), but where are legitimate US interests in all this? Trump ran on ending Middle East
wars and getting out of the region–the original reason the neocons jumped ship (in
addition to fears of a nascent Orange Hitler). Despite being president he has been unable to do
so. He has been strongly
opposed by the foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon -- a testament to the extent
to which the US security establishment is Israel-occupied territory.
Lurking in the background of the attitudes of Cohen and Edelman is the idea that Biden would
tame the forces on the left that have been so critical of Israel in recent years. With Biden
they get it all: Strongly pro-Israel even to the point of initiating a war with Iran, taming
the anti-Israel voices on the left (Kamala Harris with her Jewish husband s not among them),
and perhaps a Senate led by Israel operative Chuck Schumer. Meanwhile the Republican Party
would default to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining neocons, and the hope of a
nationally competitive GOP, much less a truly populist GOP, would die. Bill Kristol loves the
prospect of a long-term Democrat domination.
And of course, all of these bellicose proposals are cloaked in a veneer of "Jewish values"
-- not so ironic if one assumes, as is certainly the case, that promoting war for specifically
Jewish interests is indeed a Jewish value.
Cohen spoke about Jewish values. He and his family belong to an orthodox synagogue and
have raised four children with a religious education. "I've tried to live my life by Jewish
values. One thing that's very important for Jewish Republicans. Obviously the issue of Israel
is important, it's the only Jewish state, it's important to look after it and for it to
thrive, but what is our approach to politics?" Jews don't believe that you Render unto God
the things that are God and render unto Caesar the thing that are Caesar's and therefore not
take issue with a politician's character "so long as they do what we want them to do." He
said, "That's not the Jewish way." In the Book of Samuel, the king engages "in despicable
behavior," and the prophet storms into his bedroom. "We believe that character matters." And
this election is about character.
Okay, Trump is not a saint. But given that Biden is up to his eyeballs in scandal doesn't
bother Cohen at all -- despite overwhelming documentation. So we are not supposed to care that
the Biden family raked in millions by using Biden's influence to alter US foreign policy or
that China could easily blackmail him into doing their bidding on trade and military issues. So
in the end, it's really about what Cohen, Edelman, Kristol, et al. think is good for Israel
(Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot jumped the GOP ship even before Trump was elected). Again, count
me unsurprised.
And of course, the other thing is that neocons have always been on the left
within the Republican Party. One might say they have attempted to not only make Israel a
bi-partisan issue (their first priority) but also promoting the liberal/left social agenda,
such as replacement-level non-White immigration, as a bipartisan issue -- both values strongly
promoted by the mainstream Jewish community. They jumped ship mainly because Trump was
promising to undo the liberal/left social agenda as well as disengage from foreign wars and US
occupation of the Middle East. During the 2016 campaign, some of the strongest denunciations of
Trump came from neocons ("
Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump: Neocon Angst about a Fascist America" ).
If you haven't seen it, Carlson's interview with Bobulinski is damning, and the documents he
refers to have been thoroughly authenticated.
Trump has been dealing with jews all of his life and knows what they are like. This is a
double-edged sword for jews as he is wise to their dishonest criminality and double-dealing
and is able to work around their machinations and dishonesty.
This s why (some) jews hate him. If he wanted to, he could expose them for what they truly
are
To Trump's credit, he has his own security detail interspersed within his Secret Service
protection team making possible harm or actions against him difficult if not impossible. A
good thing
I truly believe that Jews are the strongest assets Satan has. They are constantly forcing
us super-stupid Gentiles into wars for Israel. We have Gentile-American soldiers (Jews don't
serve) facing off against my white Christian brothers, mainly to be a counter-balance to
Iranian forces in the country who are battling U.S.-backed terrorists. Jews hate Russians
because they are white Christians and they actually hate us white-Christians in America, too.
(For now, we are simply useful idiots for them.) It is time that we Gentiles wake up and kick
every single last Jew out of this country before the Jews get us all killed!
DJT has done a good job of separating the J wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Unfortunately, it's the chaff that seems to have all the power money and influence. For
now.
Who paid for all this peace in the Middle East?
American tax money was used to
De-stabilize Iraq
De-stabilize Libya
De-stabilize Syria
Only Iran is left as a major power in the Middle East.
Let's get the draft going to get our brave boys and girls(and LGBTQ) fighting to maintain
peace in the Middle East.
We ALL need to give until we can give no more.
Maybe draft exemptions for the Ivy League, someone has to tell us what to do.
Jewish promoted Critical Race Theory believes and teaches that systemic racism is the main
reason why blacks commit criminal acts. Therefore the response to the disparity between White
and Black crime is to alter the standards, i.e., change White expections of the Black
community. Because to say to Black Americans that they must alter their behavior to meet the
current standards is racist.
Samuel Krasner, the Jewish DA in Philadelphia, is aboard with this. He decriminalised
shoplifting in his jurisdiction. And we now have shoplifters walking out of stores with
armfuls of stolen goods whilst smiling in the cameras and saying, 'I can't be
prosecuted.'
Then there is this unbelievable piece of BS legislation from Virginia: "Virginia
legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights,
etc."
When Virginia state legislator who sponsored the bill, Patrick Hope, was asked about this
by a reporter from The Daily Press he responded by saying he didn't know that police were no
longer allowed to stop vehicles for not having their lights illuminated.
Patrick Hope sponsored a bill without actually knowing what was in it! If you think at
this stage that Patrick Hope is a hopeless idiot he gets worse.
When the importance of working brake lights on vehicles was mentioned to Hope he said:
"The brake lights -- I'm not concerned about that as a safety issue -- but I can certainly
see how headlights could be of concern ."
A Virginia state legislator is dumb enough to believe that brake lights have no importance
whatsoever to road safety in his state.
The modern United States? You couldn't f ** king make it up! By the way, who are the
majority people driving defective cars in Virginia? Blacks and other newly arrived
minorities, of course.
Would the local authorities in any part of Israel decriminalise shoplifting for a minority
demographic in their area? Not likely. How about Samuel Krasner, would he recommend that
crime be legalised for minorities in the state of Israel? No, he wouldn't. He's not stupid.
He would not do anything that would destroy his native country.
Would an utter idiot like Hope be allowed to introduce insane life endangering legislation
in Israel? No, his Jew financial backers would not allow that.
But, Trump or no Trump, all this is coming to your local area of America very soon.
It's amazing. It's astounding. A cursory look shows there are Jews behind every act of
destruction against White America and its founding culture.
The Jews are driving the de-educating of American youth, they've staffed 90% of the media
with lying, immoral and shameless journalists and installed unintelligent and easily
corruptible politicians in both US political parties.
As we see with Hope, the Jews have made possible state legislators who are so stupid that
they are probably suffering from mental health issues. What's very sad is that there's hardly
a peep from the great American public against them.
The Jews who first suggested making anti-semitism a crime in the West actually said to
their comtemperies at the time that it was just a "pipe dream." They never actually thought
in their wildest dreams that Western people and politicians would accept the lie that
anti-Jewishness was systemic in the West and needed laws to counteract it.
But, unbelievably for them, they easily got their anti-Semitism legislation enacted. And
then, enboldened, they drove ahead with Holocaust denial and all the other BS.
Now, as we see with the headlights, brake lights and the decriminalising of shoplifting
for Blacks, the Jews have become viciously emboldened. They've learned that European
provenanced Whites will accept any and all Bull S ** t that is thrown at them.
Shame on all Americans for sitting idly by whilst the tiny Jew demographic urines on all
that your forefathers built and fought for.
If your descents are Islamist slaves policed by Blacks in the latter half of this century
(all ruled from on-high by the Jews) they'll deserve it. They'll deserve it because their
fathers and grandfathers were idle and lazy cowards who sat on their butts while the great
inheritance which they were bequeathed was pulled out from under them.
BTW: Who had secured a vantage point in New York in September 2001 from which to watch the
planes fly into the buildings? And who then danced and cheered energetically as the planes
hit the buildings and killed 2,977 people?
Surely, you might think, it was Arabic Islamists, or Pakistanis, or some other race of
Muslims.
You'd be wrong if you thought this.
The correct answer is "five Israelis". Yes, it was five Jews who danced and sang as 2,977
Americans were murdered in cold blood.
@Lot el. Cursed with the loss of thousands of American lives resulting from such actions.
Cursed with the loss of tens of thousand of non-American lives from such actions. All this
for a shitty little country with which America doesn't even have a defence treaty.
Our Steadfast Ally ? The USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard and the Israeli selling of American
defence technology to China immediately spring to mind. There is no defence treaty between
America and Israel. Israel is not America's ally. Rather it is a parasite on the American
body politic. Either Americans rip the parasite off their body, or it will eventually kill
America.
Doh! [Just as well I guess...] In yet another embarrassing senior moment, Biden introduced
his teenage granddaughter Finnegan (err.. no, Natalie) as his late son Beau Biden ['s
daughter? (mindreading here)] to a crowd of supporters during an election day appearance in
Philadelphia today.
The Biden campaign has worked tirelessly over the past year to channel the image of Joe
Biden as a "serious person," particularly on foreign policy matters. Biden, according to this
narrative
, is an elder statesman who grasps the intricacies of international politics. Trump, by
contrast, is
presented as an inept bull in a china shop who only speaks
the language of "fire and fury." Only Biden, we are told, can bring back stability around the
globe.
Don't believe a word of it.
This carefully curated image of Joe Biden's strategic acumen and geopolitical foresight is
at odds by the former vice president's own stated views and policy track record. His statements
about a variety of countries suggest that they are based less on a strategic view of world
affairs than snap judgments.
Consider Korea. At the Third Presidential Debate on October 22, Trump touted the benefits of
having "good relations" with foreign leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong Un. Biden responded by
invoking Hitler: "We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe,
the rest of Europe. Come on. The reason he would not meet with President Obama is because
President Obama said, 'We're going to talk about denuclearization. We're not going to
legitimize you and we're going to continue to push stronger and stronger sanctions on you.'
That's why he wouldn't meet with us." It should go without saying that likening Kim Jong Un to
Adolf Hitler is not only wildly inflammatory but also contributes nothing to our policy
understanding of either figure. The second part of Biden's statement is even more dangerous,
reflecting a failed commitment to old Washington orthodoxy at a time when a growing number of
North Korea experts are quite correctly warning that a blanket insistence on
denuclearization as a precondition for peace talks is futile and counterproductive.
Biden extended a similarly brash stance toward America's friends. At a recent Philadelphia
town hall event, Biden-- who has incessantly lectured Trump on the perils of spurning America's
longstanding allies-- all but
consigned two key US partners into a new Axis of Evil: "And NATO is in the risk of
beginning to crack because they don't doubt -- they doubt our -- whether we're there. You see
what's happened in everything from Belarus to Poland to Hungary, and the rise of totalitarian
regimes in the world, and as well, this president embraces all the thugs in the world." It
bears repeating that Hungary and Poland -- which have both had
legitimate and competitive elections within the past several years-- are not only members of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but are among the two biggest military contributors to
NATO's collective security arrangement. Biden's comments are even more tone-deaf in light of
data showing that Poland and Hungary consistently rank among the most pro-American EU
member states. This unprompted attack has already prompted vigorous
rebuke from the government in Budapest, needlessly harming relations between a NATO ally
and prospective President-elect before they began.
Nor does Biden fare better on matters of grand strategy. At a political event in Iowa City,
the former Vice-President dismissed the bipartisan consensus that Beijing poses potential
economic and security threats to the United States. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on,
man I mean, you know, they're not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They're not competition for
us," he said. Biden's reasoning? Chinese society is too divided, and the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) too corrupt, to mount a credible challenge to the United States: "They can't even
figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea
and the mountains in the east, I mean the west.. they can't figure out how they're going to
deal with the corruption that exists within the system."
In point of fact, serious
ethnic cleavages and rampant corruption have not prevented China from aggressively
expanding its geo-economic influence across every continent. From shoring up Venezuela's
embattled Nicolás Maduro with mercenaries and billions of dollars to systematically
undercutting
Washington's economic and political
reach in Africa, the CCP is actively challenging US interests across the world. This isn't
to say that those challenges are unmanageable with fresh and forward-looking strategies, but to
deny their existence only serves to compound their growing threat.
Biden's comments unsurprisingly drew the ire of politicians from as diverse a cast as
Mitt
Romney and Bernie Sanders . With the
2020 presidential election looming large on the horizon, Biden jettisoned his position for an
entirely new set of talking points. By the summer of 2019, Biden was
arguing that Trump is the one who is blind to the Chinese threat: "While Trump is attacking
our friends, China is pressing its advantage all over the world you bet I'm worried about China
-- if we keep following Trump's path." He labeled China as a "competitor" at a September 18 CNN
town hall in 2020, and again during a 60 minutes interview last week.
It is unclear what prompted Biden's change of heart, other than perhaps the electoral optics
of being seen as soft on China at a time when millions of Chinese Uighur muslims are being
ethnically cleansed in hundreds of internment camps strewn across China's northwest.
Biden's abrupt, pre-election
transformation into a China hawk has hardly been accompanied by concrete solutions for
managing Sino-American competition. Instead, he continues to tout the old chestnuts of
Washington's inept bipartisan China policies: targeted sanctions for human rights abuses,
multilateral action to stem China's "illegal and unfair trade practices," and more robust
enforcement of intellectual property laws. These generic prescriptions are premised on the
decades-old neoliberal article of faith that closer engagement with international institutions
will inevitably bring China into the fold of liberal-democratic nations.
But a rising China remains a secondary concern for the Democratic candidate, whose go-to
campaign trail foreign policy topic remains the Russia menace. Beginning with the Obama
administration's support for regime change in Ukraine during the 2014 Maidan revolution, Biden
has distinguished himself as one of the foremost advocates for a bellicose approach toward
Russia. Biden's conceit stems from a peculiar, but unfortunately popular, understanding of
Russian president Vladimir Putin's true motives: "The Cold War was based on a conflict of two
profoundly different ideological notions of how the world should function. This is just
basically about a kleptocracy protecting itself I think there's a basic decision that they
cannot compete against a unified West. I think that is Putin's judgment. And so everything he
can do to dismantle the post-World War II liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I
think, is viewed as in their immediate self-interest,"
said Biden during a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations appearance.
In Biden's view, Putin, an authoritarian kleptocrat fearful of losing his iron grip over
Russia, is on a mission to divide and destroy NATO and the EU because he knows he can't compete
against a united west. Thus, concludes Biden, the thrust of Washington's Russia policy should
be to " impose
meaningful costs " on Moscow for its vast and ever-growing list of transgressions against
the free world. Predictably, these "meaningful costs" amount to more of the same: targeted
sanctions, stationing NATO troops ever closer to Russia's borders, corralling NATO into a
united front against Russia's global assault on democracy, and lobbying for the NATO accession
of post-Soviet states like Georgia and Ukraine.
Though certainly punitive in their effect, it is unclear what concrete strategic goals these
policies are meant to accomplish. After six years of crescendoing sanctions and international
measures aimed at isolating Moscow geopolitically, Russia is no closer to pro-western regime
change; if anything, the economic pain from sanctions has only stoked anti-western sentiment
and further consolidated the Russian masses behind Putin's government. Nor did the Obama-Biden
administration's punitive measures induce any significant changes in the Kremlin's behavior,
partly because the sanctions arrayed against Russia are so rigid and exhaustive that the
Kremlin has long since
abandoned any hope they will ever be lifted.
If nothing else, Biden's recent foreign policy statements are par for the course of his
four-decade long political career-- one that has long been characterized by intermittent
attempts to seize short-term political advantages by rewriting his own policy history. Since
the beginning of the 2020 election, for example, Biden has consistently portrayed himself as an
avowed opponent of the Iraq War. "From the moment Shock and Awe started," said Biden at a
Democratic Presidential Debate in 2019, "from that moment, I was opposed to the effort." But,
as numerous fact-checkers have noted , Biden was not at
all opposed to "the effort." In fact, he repeatedly endorsed the invasion of Iraq from 2003
through 2004, even chiding some skeptical Democrats for not being sufficiently supportive of
the war effort. Biden's volte-face only came in 2005, coinciding
with his newly revealed intention to explore a presidential run. By then, opposition to the
Iraq war was no longer a particularly novel political opinion to hold.
Biden's track record hardly paints the portrait of a sophisticated statesman or "serious"
foreign policy thinker. What emerges instead is the familiar portrait of an old party stalwart
who will say anything, sign on to any position, to seize an advantage in that moment. What so
many commentators and journalists have graciously dismissed as his countless '
gaffes ' is really a reflection of a tired and outdated worldview.
* * *
Mark Episkopos is the new national security reporter for the National Interest.
An email from the famous hard drive indicates a Chinese state-owned company wanted an
introduction from Rosemont Seneca Hunter Biden, from ABC News Nightline one year ago (
Source )
Back in March, I wrote a
column in these pages about the Chinese business entanglements of major media companies in
the U.S. By far the most seriously entangled is Comcast, the owner of NBCUniversal, parent
company of NBC and MSNBC, which is in the process of opening a Universal Studios theme park in
Beijing.
Portions of Hunter Biden's hard drive have now been shared with TAC. On the drive is an
email from president of Rosemont Seneca Eric Schwerin, a company co-founded by Hunter and John
Kerry's stepson, saying that Chinese state-owned enterprise CITIC was hoping they would make
introductions with Universal employees and propose the Beijing theme park.
"They'd like an introduction to Universal (Comcast) as they'd like to open a Universal
Studios China theme park outside of Beijing," Schwerin writes. "As I said, that one should be
easy via Melissa Mayfield/David Cohen [two Comcast executives]."
"She said they'd like to pay us for our help on these -- I told her we'd discuss whether we
could do that -- but were sure we could figure something out even if it was success fee based
on the US side but that I would talk to you," Schwerin added.
To what extent this was followed up on is at this point unclear. However, what it indicates
is that a company founded by two Democratic political scions was willing to facilitate a deal
for their friendliest media network, a network that has been unrelentingly hostile to Trump and
more or less completely ignored recent Hunter Biden disclosures. If Hunter helped facilitate a
sweet deal like this, it's only fair that they scratch his back too.
00:13 / 00:59 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Arthur Bloom is
editor of The American Conservative online. He was previously deputy editor of the Daily Caller
and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and
American studies from the University of Kansas. His work has appeared in The Washington Post,
The Washington Times, The Spectator (UK), The Guardian, Quillette, The American Spectator ,
Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.
Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop contained a 'treasure trove of top-secret material,
including his father's private emails and mobile phone numbers,' and was protected by the
password "Hunter02", according to the
Daily Mail .
The younger Biden's MacBook Pro was full of 'classic blackmail material' between
compromising sexual material and the private information of not only the Bidens, but also Bill
and Hillary Clinton.
Hunter's passport, driver's license, social security and credit card numbers were also on
the laptop, which revealed that he spent $21,000 on a 'live cam' porn website (while claiming
he was too broke to pay his stripper baby-mama child support?).
Via the Mail :
The material, none of which was encrypted or protected by anything as basic as two-factor
authentication, includes:
Joe Biden's personal mobile number and three private email addresses as well as the
names of his Secret Service agents;
Mobile numbers for former President Bill Clinton, his wife Hillary and almost every
member of former President Barack Obama's cabinet;
A contact database of 1,500 people including actress Gwyneth Paltrow, Coldplay singer
Chris Martin, former Presidential candidate John Kerry and ex-FBI boss Louis Freeh;
Personal documents including Hunter's passport, driver's licence, social security card,
credit cards and bank statements;
Details of Hunter's drug and sex problems, including $21,000 spent on one 'live cam'
porn website and 'selfies' of him engaging in sex acts and smoking crack cocaine;
The article does not that while Hunter may have used his family name to boost deals with
Chinese and Ukrainian firms, there is nothing implicating Joe Biden in any wrongdoing (just a
massive like that he 'never spoke with Hunter' about his business dealings).
"'It's a data breach and dangerous to have this type of material floating around," one
former police commander told the Mail . "For someone prominent, there is not only a risk of
great reputational damage but also a risk of blackmail should the material fall into the wrong
hand s."
Hunter's laptop was filled with 11 gigabytes of material covering the period from when his
father was Vice President, to when Hunter dropped it off at a Mac Store in Wilmington,
Delaware. wee-weed up , 10 hours ago
"What laptop?" -- MSM
Macho Latte , 10 hours ago
The Progs are now using the MSM to broadcast the Biden corruption scandal so that they can
use it to justify elevating Queen Kam El Tow to POTUS very soon after the Biden inauguration.
He'll be gone before April 1. Queen Kami will give him a pardon within minutes of seizing
power. All investigations into the Criminal Elite will be disappeared and all evidence will
be destroyed.
Progs don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
- Admiral Painter
systemsplanet , 9 hours ago
FBI was planning on using Hunter's laptop as Biden's control file.
ImGumbydmmt , 5 hours ago
And they are BOTH (Hunter and Hitlery) still walking out and about the world as free
people.
Sessions?
Barr?
Durham?
Wray?
Riiiiight.
ballot box?
Cartridge box is all thats left folks
Kan , 4 hours ago
Clinton crime family is still doing the 501.3c TAX dodge for trillions of dollars from the
gates foundation and over 100 universities in the jUSSA.... many other fun things.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 9 hours ago
Exactly, plus there is no way that the NSA did not have the IP and MAC address of every
computer that had ever downloaded every email to and from Hunter Biden. The "Big Guy" had
been on the Senate Intelligence Committee and already knew this which is why he insisted on
verbal directions only.
What "voters" don't fully understand is that elected representatives are the first line of
"useful idiots" for deep state.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 10 hours ago
The FBI and CIA are the real national security nightmare
Vivekwhu , 10 hours ago
Spot on! Good luck in claiming back the US Republic from these traitors at the top. This
must start this Tuesday or it is all done for.
Macho Latte , 9 hours ago
Too many people succumb to the psychological warfare that has been raging against us for 5
decades. It is very difficult to break free from the indoctrination regardless of
intelligence or education. The backbone of the DemonRat organization is a very strong emotion
that overcomes all logic and reason. It is HATE. Today it is called by the gentle name of
Identity Politics. Nevertheless, it is still a hate based psychological manipulation. Women
need to hate men. Blacks need to hate everyone. Whites need to hate themselves. Everybody
needs to Hate Trump.
Argon1 , 5 hours ago
They have power, they are corrupt, but such things are not absolute. Which is why people
are made examples of in law (pour encourager les autres ), but enforcement is minimal. Number
of Federal employees 2 million, population 330 million, number of FBI employees 35,000 of
which we can say only a 3rd will be available some are office staff, sick and others have
long term commitments. So these riots would have meant FBI would have been deployed even if
not used etc or would have been at the Mexican border since the wall closing has allowed a
much tougher border regime.
Proudly Unaffiliated , 6 hours ago
As represented by FBIbook and DNCIA.
LetThemEatRand , 10 hours ago
Countdown to charges being brought against everyone who ever possessed the hard drives....
Certainly more likely than anyone with the last name Biden getting in trouble. MSM has
already declared that there is no evidence that Joe had any involvement in Hunter's business
deals, which is demonstrably false. There's the "Big Guy" emails; there's the fact that these
foreign entities kept paying Hunter millions for his "name," and they would not have
continued to do so if they were getting nothing in return; there's the fact that Bobulinksi
has proof that Joe attended meeting with Hunter's employers; and that's just scratching the
surface with what we know now.
ponchoramic , 10 hours ago
The laptop/ hard drives were abandoned for more than 90 days, transffering ownership to
the shop owner, by law!
hashr_syndicate , 2 hours ago
@ Caloot
Crack is not purified, it is just changed to a base form which lowers it melting point
allowing someone to smoke it, hence the term free base. Smoking allows for a faster uptake
into the body giving more or a rush. The only way you can get the same rush with coke is to
shoot it up. The closest you could come your statement of it being true is to perform an
acid/base extraction by turning it into crack and then filtering contaminants and then using
an acid to drop the carbon back off and returning it to cocaine.
cabystander , 6 hours ago
To quote Schumer (+/-): the intelligence agencies have six ways from Sunday of getting
you.
That can be extended to the Government, in general. In spades.
Gobble D. Goop , 9 hours ago
Apparantly, C. Wray has an interest in keeping the laptop suppressed:
"This has all been debunked and we're not going to dignify it by responding to it."
- The Democrat News Media Complex
Floki_Ragnarsson , 9 hours ago
The FBI has NEVER had America's interests at heart. Ruby Ridge ring a bell?
invention13 , 9 hours ago
No, the FBI has it's own interests at heart. I would love to see the files that J. Edgar
had on everyone in Washington.
edotabin , 9 hours ago
Why are you surprised? You are dealing with a culture so corrupt, so rabid, so evil....
These people smell worse, are dirtier than and are harder to remove than than 6 months of cat
urine in an abandoned house.
Anyone who has dealt with cat urine in abandoned and severely neglected houses knows how
extensive the steps required are to remove the rot/stench.
Hint: When you open the doors and windows and run outside, you can still smell it 30-40
yards away. I've even had to use a jackhammer at an angle to chisel it out from the concrete
slab.
TBT or not TBT , 7 hours ago
The D after the name is the tell. It's a party of racketeers, pervs and grifters seeking
more power. The very best of them are merely amoral cynical AF Machiavellians.
Vivekwhu , 10 hours ago
And the FBI kept all this secret while Trump was being impeached over a phonecall to the
Ukrainian president? Why? So they could blackmail and control another US President, as in
this vile corrupt Biden creature, when he was quietly elected next week? This is the only
possible explanation for Wray and his band of corrupt leaders.
Just how rotten is the FBI, uh, the premier law enforcement agency in the world???
radical-extremist , 9 hours ago
"We'll be prepared to issue comments on Hunter Biden's laptops after the election. For
right now our focus is on dangerous white supremacist militias and hate crime hoaxes."
- C. Wray, Director of the FBI
J J Pettigrew , 9 hours ago
And why did Christopher Wray sit on this for ten months?
Comey protected Hillary
Wray protects Biden
novictim , 9 hours ago
"'It's a data breach and dangerous to have this type of material floating around," one
former police commander told the Mail . "For someone prominent, there is not only a risk of
great reputational damage but also a risk of blackmail should the material fall into the
wrong hand s."
Show of hands:
Who thinks that the CCP spy chief that the Bidens were in business with did not already
have all of this blackmail material?
The Bidens kept the secrets from the USA and even screwed that up. But the Ukrainians,
Russians and Chinese Communist Party had all of this all along. That is why China Joe is such
a great alternative to Trump for them. China Joe is totally and completely compromised and
millions have already voted for him. Which would be funny if not for the insane Deep State
that also seems to be owned by the Communists.
radical-extremist , 9 hours ago
Biden is in no way compromised because any evidence the CCP goes public with will never be
reported on, except by maybe Fox News.
cjones1 , 9 hours ago
Mueller was FBI Director when both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were committing national
security violations and money grubbing, "pay to play" diplomacy - 2012 election interference
by the IRS, etc., too!
This "Deep State" complicity in and enabling of such corruption runs several levels deep
in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
J J Pettigrew , 7 hours ago
Comey protected Hillary
Wray protects Biden
and as luck would have it...both Democrats.
And the attacks on the GOP elected President...fake and falsified with the assistance
of......
those who protected Biden and Hillary.
Remarkable for an apolitical entity such as the FBI.
Shut. It. Down. , 9 hours ago
Stripper mama's lawyer needs to file a subpoena for access to the hard drive.
No telling what assets Hunter was hiding while trying to weasel out of child support.
Should be good for another couple mil.
LetThemEatRand , 10 hours ago
Note that the FBI investigation into Hunter is for "money laundering," as opposed to
anything involving public corruption or influence peddling. That tells me that they are
carefully avoiding anything that would involve Joe. And we all know that a year or two from
now or whenever this story settles down, there will be a page 8 newspaper article about how
the FBI found insufficient evidence of any criminal activity by Hunter to justify
charges.
They keep using the same script, and it always ends in a twist ending involving anyone
you've ever heard of doing nothing wrong other than "poor judgment."
quanttech , 8 hours ago
Biden values - bomb children in countries that never attacked us. tell supporters they're
organic, grass-fed love bombs.
Trump values - bomb children in countries that never attacked us. tell supporters we're
withdrawing from the wars while INCREASING the bombings.
American values - duuuuuuuh i dont care as long as inocent children are being bombed.
duuuuuuuh i'm so sad they cancelled keeping up with the khardashians. duuuuuuuuuuuh i need a
chicken sandwhich but i'm too fat to get out of my lazyboy duuuuuh
SummerSausage , 9 hours ago
CIA trailed Hunter to brothels and drug dens when he was overseas. They knew.
Foreign countries sucked electronic information off Hunters computers and phones when he
was overseas. They knew.
Jill and Joe kept Hunter away from children. They knew.
Kerry's step son was in business with hunter. They knew.
Obama spied on everybody. He knew.
American media covered up for Hunter & Joe for years. They knew.
Looks like normal Americans were the last to know.
J S Bach , 9 hours ago
"There is not only a risk of great reputational damage but also a risk of blackmail should
the material fall into the wrong hands."
Yep... and with this knowledge... ANYONE who votes for Joe Biden is a traitor to this
country whether they like it or not.
From Dante's "Inferno"...
The ninth (deepest) circle of hell is reserved for traitors...
"9). Treachery: The deepest circle of Hell, where Satan resides. As with the last two
circles, this one is further divided, into four rounds. The first is Caina, named after the
biblical Cain, who murdered his brother. This round is for traitors to family. The second,
Antenora -- from Antenor of Troy, who betrayed the Greeks -- is reserved for
political/national traitors. The third is Ptolomaea for Ptolemy, son of Abubus, who is known
for inviting Simon Maccabaeus and his sons to dinner and then murdering them. This round is
for hosts who betray their guests; they are punished more harshly because of the belief that
having guests means entering into a voluntary relationship, and betraying a relationship
willingly entered is more despicable than betraying a relationship born into. The fourth
round is Judecca, after Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ. This round is reserved for
traitors to their lords/benefactors/masters. As in the previous circle, the subdivisions each
have their own demons and punishments."
Not to take all of this literally, but it shows the wisdom of our ancestors and the
intense acrimony they felt towards this most nefarious act.
freedommusic , 7 hours ago
Imagine what was on Weiners laptop.
So let's review boys and girls.
The FBI now has Anthony Weiner's and Hunter Biden's laptops.
If Law enforcement and the DOJ do NOT do the jobs they swore an oath to, then who does
that leave to uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law?
Chew on that for a moment...
jeff montanye , 7 hours ago
don't forget seth rich's phone and laptop never looked at by either the d.c. police or the
fbi.
corruption in washington d.c. is like the hindus' turtle akupara on the back of a larger
turtle, on the back of . . .
Christopher Wray is directly implicated in the laptop emails. He recieved a 14% stake in
Rosneft shares. Arrest everyone in DC and get some rope.
OpenEyes , 8 hours ago
Yes, it's coming out that Wray was actually on the other side of the table in Hunter's
negotiation for his Chinese "chairman" in the deal to buy into the Russian energy company.
Wray was working for the law firm representing the Russian energy company (he made millions
there before coming into the FBI). Not only was Wray aware of the crime, he was a player in
that deal. No wonder the laptop, and all other evidence, has sat untouched in a dark vault at
the FBI for almost a year.
I'm hoping that Trump fires Wray, Haspel and Barr on Wednesday regardless of the election
outcome. Then I'm hoping that Wray is facing an indigtment before Christmas.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 9 hours ago
What REALLY sinks the Bidens is having to account for all of that cash that they a) never
paid taxes on and b) Potato Head Joe NEVER declared on his financial disclosure forms as
required by law!
BinAnunnaki , 8 hours ago
They both go to jail for not registering under FARA.
Just like Michael Flinn
OllieHalsall , 9 hours ago
Giving evidence to a criminal organisation like the FBI is like asking Joe Biden to
babysit your 11 year old daughter.
You wouldn't do it would you!
American2 , 9 hours ago
Immediately, ask for Bill Clinton, or Jeffery Epstein as his replacement.
Someone Else , 8 hours ago
Landslide for Trump!
desertboy , 9 hours ago
Anybody who could think the Biden's would be played by the CCCP in China business dealings
is a conspiracy theorist.
And everyone knows Joe Biden is too smart to be co-opted by his son in his dealings,
anyway.
(straight-face delivery)
Nunny , 9 hours ago
Bada-bing
UnicornTears , 9 hours ago
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to screw things up"
The MagicNegro
Ision , 9 hours ago
I wonder if Hunter ever held a government job, or appointment, which involved the handling
of classified information? I have no idea.
But, exactly how did Hunter get TS information on his computer?
No matter. The National Security Act of 1947 applies. Since it does, multiple felonies
have been committed. How many people are involved in the commission of these felonies,
besides Hunter?
Just like Hillary's illegal servers...the existence of which automatically gives rise to
dozens of felonies...Hunter's felonies are automatic with the existence of ANY TS classified
information, found outside of officially controlled, and authorized, locations.
If anyone planned to deliberately deliver such information to unauthorized individuals,
additional felonies are involved.
There is simply no excuse, or defense.
I say this as a former NSA field agent. It appears Hunter should be in prison, along with
Hillary.
MTGOPLAYER , 9 hours ago
According to the FBI, as long as his intentions were pure, no crime was committed.
vasilievich , 9 hours ago
I can't begin to describe how shocked and angry I am - and I've been involved to the
extent of risk to my life.
I've had one US Army person say to me: You were in...!?
Invert This MM , 7 hours ago
The crime families like to keep together. There are pictures on the laptop of Hunter doing
Malia Obama. Her cocaine riddled credit card was in the picture. Hunter has a tattoo of the
Finger Lakes on his back. That region is suspected of being an area heavy into child
trafficking. These people are sick.
9.0onthericterscale , 9 hours ago
Demlibs keep screeching out 'Russia Russia Russia!' like they have Tourettes Syndrome.
They can't help it anymore .It's so far past the point of meaningfulness you gotta feel
sorry for the little +ards.
Mzhen , 9 hours ago
Hunter took three laptops to the repair shop. And they were all wet . Which appears to
indicate a deliberate attempt by someone to destroy the data. Before there were second
thoughts. This period of time coincided with the final breakup with Hallie.
almostnuts , 9 hours ago
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hmmmm. Hiding assets from child support, all those cozy names with phone
numbers attached, passport info, ss info, 21,000$ in **** sites. This isn't going to well huh
Robert? Anyhow the fbi has you covered, but your drug habit is going to kill you because you
are a liability to a lot of people, places, and things. From now on Robert i'd beware of
pretty women in a foreign land and don't sleep in the same place every night. You may be well
connected, but you're marked for disposal. Tah, tah, be reading about you.
DavidJoshimisk , 7 hours ago
So if I understand this correctly.........Hunter and Jim Biden were front men for the
Biden Family operations and the Big Guy was calling the shots. So...Obama and the FBI knew
nothing of this? Seems unlikely.
Oilwatcher , 10 hours ago
Dude must be baked hard all the time to go off and leave data like that at a repair shop
instead of coughing up an $80 repair bill.
Anonymous IX , 10 hours ago
Exactly.
"Baked hard" + arrogance (with having always gotten away with no consequences for all his
illegal/immoral actions in the past).
Sometimes the powerful and mighty fall hard. Evidently, we're in one of those epoches. He
may suffer very little criminal action against him, but he'll never recover...nor will the
Bidens...from a scandal of this magnitude and distasteful revelations.
ponchoramic , 10 hours ago
He probably hates his Pop. I think it's in some of his texts. Def the blacksheep of
family. Prob why he was on drugs in the first place.
HUNTER Biden rented a pricey Los Angeles mansion for a party and allegedly "broke his
sober streak" after fighting with his new wife weeks ago, according to a new report. Joe
Biden's son ...
glasshour , 8 hours ago
The Bidens are compromised.
Detain. Interrogate. Jail.
OpenEyes , 9 hours ago
It's coming out that Wray was actually on the other side of the table in Hunter's
negotiation for his Chinese "chairman" in the deal to buy into the Russian energy company.
Wray was working for the law firm representing the Russian energy company (he made millions
there before coming into the FBI). Not only was Wray aware of the crime, he was a player in
that deal. No wonder the laptop, and all other evidence, has sat untouched in a dark vault at
the FBI for almost a year.
I'm hoping that Trump fires Wray, Haspel and Barr on Wednesday regardless of the election
outcome. Then I'm hoping that Wray is facing an indigtment before Christmas.
OpenEyes , 8 hours ago
And Fauci too. God, I hope he gets rid of that slime-ball.
Hunter Biden's Story Could Help Hillary Clinton To Become Vice President
The recently revealed business deals of Hunter Biden will strongly influence politics after
an eventual Joe Biden win in tomorrows election.
On October 15 the New York Post published a story on Hunter Biden based on data from
a laptop Joe Biden's son had left with a repair shop. The Biden family has not disputed that
the laptop or the data on it is genuine. Next to
the porn on the laptop there were thousand of emails which
describe shady deals with a (now defunct) large Chinese energy company , CEFC.
Twitter , Facebook and other media
like the Intercept tried to prevent the distribution of the story. They falsely
claimed that the information was 'hacked' or unproven. The censorship inevitably made the story
more prominent and increased the number of people who learned of it.
A week after the NY Post story ran Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of
Hunter Biden,
went public with further allegations against him:
Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, said Wednesday night that he
can confirm details regarding his overseas business dealings, including that a reference to a
"Big Guy" in a May 13, 2017 email did, in fact, refer to Democratic presidential nominee Joe
Biden.
In a lengthy statement, Bobulinski identified himself as the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, a
firm he described as "a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye
and the Biden family." He added that Hunter Biden and James Gilliar, another business
associate, brought him on as CEO of the venture.
"Hunter Biden called his dad 'the Big Guy' or 'my Chairman,' and frequently referenced
asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing,"
Bobulinski said. "I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his
business. I've seen firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business,
they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line."
A number of outlets have each carried various snippets of the whole story of Hunter Biden's
very profitable dealings with foreign companies. That has created a confusing picture. Stephen
McIntyre, who has done useful investigative research on climate change, Russiagate, and the OPCW shenanigans in Syria, has
thankfully created a 19 pages long
timeline with all the Biden-China evidence that has so far seen the daylight. He
writes:
The Biden family was involved in two major Chinese deals:
a carried stake in Bohai Harvest Partners Investment Fund. Their interest in this deal
began in 2013. Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and James Bulger each had 10% interests. This
fund is still active. Bobulinski was not involved in this deal.
a second deal initiated in 2017 in which the Bidens received $5 million from Chinese
energy company CEFC and/or its officers. CEFC had, in a short period, become a huge company
and, even more quickly, disintegrated. This second deal was the one involving Patrick Ho,
who was arrested in Nov 2017 in US for corruption, Gongwen Dong and its chairman Ye
Jianming, who was arrested in China and/or disappeared in March 2018.
Nearly all of the interesting texts and emails from 2017 and Bobulinski's information
are limited to this second deal. These were only a small fraction of sleazy transactions by
Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and associates. Concurrent with this affair were transactions in
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Russia as well as participation in major frauds by John Galanis and
Jason Sugarman in which Archer (but not so far, Hunter Biden) have been convicted. The texts
and emails have been released in a piecemeal and disorganized way. In this article, I'll
attempt to re-assemble a narrative of events for the CEFC affair.
...
Another timeline of the Hunter Biden affairs with slightly different material
has been collected by Seamus Bruner and John Solomon. They write:
The New York Post
broke news last week that Joe Biden himself may have benefited from his son's dealings.
The Post quoted a cryptic message from one of Hunter's partners, saying that "10 [percent]
held by H for the big guy?" The recipient of that message, Tony Bobulinski, says "there is no question"
that "H" stands for Hunter and the "big guy" is Joe Biden.
We gain further insight into the operations of Biden Inc. in emails provided to us by
Bevan Cooney, a former business associate of Hunter Biden. Cooney, who is currently in prison
for his role in the Indian Bond Scheme that is sending Hunter Biden business partner Devon
Archer also to jail, shared 26,000 emails that show what Hunter's role was in their business
ventures. The Biden name was considered "currency" for their foreign business ventures, and
was a "direct pipeline" to the Obama-Biden administration. Deals involving Hunter benefited
from the "Biden lift," the help that the name would provide in overseas dealings.
What might the Bidens' foreign benefactors have expected in return for all this largesse?
We can't say. But some may see a correlation between that foreign money and Joe Biden's
policy posture toward the sources of that money.
Stephen McIntyre has promised to update his timeline with the material revealed by the other
authors. As McIntyre is always diligent in his work his timeline can be taken as an
authoritative source.
While I am still digging through the above collections here my first thoughts on why these
matter.
The facts show that Hunter Biden and other traded on and profited from Joe Biden's position
by selling his 'influence' to foreign companies. It is likely that Joe Biden at least
indirectly also profited from that work.
A federal judge named Joe Biden as a possible "witness" along with his son Hunter in a
criminal fraud case last year that ended in the convictions of two of Hunter's business
partners, according to little-noticed court documents. The Democratic presidential
candidate's appearance on a witness list casts new doubt on his claims he knew nothing about
his son's shady business dealings.
As revenge for Russiagate the Republicans will use the affair to their utmost advantage.
There are only two ways for Joe Biden to prevent Republicans and independent media from
further digging into the affair and all the potentially illegal issues it reveals.
If Joe Biden loses the election the scandal will likely vanish as soon as he retreats
from the public view.
If Joe Biden wins the election the scandal will fester until he resigns.
The second case is especially interesting. Vice President candidate Kamala Harris has been
groomed by Hillary Clinton's inner circle since
2017 :
The Democrats' "Great Freshman Hope," Sen. Kamala Harris, is heading to the Hamptons to meet
with Hillary Clinton's biggest backers.
The California senator is being fêted in Bridgehampton on Saturday at the home of
MWWPR guru Michael Kempner, a staunch Clinton supporter who was one of her national-finance
co-chairs and a led fund-raiser for her 2008 bid for the presidency. He was also listed as
one of the top "bundlers" for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, having raised $3
million.
Should the somewhat demented Joe Biden leave 'for health reasons' soon after he has been
sworn into office Kamala Harris would become President. She then could use the 25th Amendment
to select Hillary Clinton as the new Vice President.
If, after a Biden win in the election, Hillary Clinton supporters in the liberul media stop
censoring the Hunter Biden affair or even start to further expose it we can be sure that such a
scheme is on the verge of being implemented.
Posted by b on November 2, 2020 at 19:07 UTC |
Permalink
Bingo. The Clintons are never too far away from all political shenanigans that go on in the
US. They and their cohorts were called the Southern Mafia for a reason.
A Joe Biden impeachment if guilty of payouts from China would be a victory of our
system of checks and balances. Still not voting for Trump.
Steele Dossier update I read that the primary source for Steele was Ms. Galkina,
basically a nobody creating fiction for pay and not a 'a high ranking Kremlin official'. Does
this mean that the Trump Shills like Don Jr, Hannity, Ingraham, et al will stop calling it
Russian misinformation sent to the Democrats to attack Donald Trump?
It explains why they chose Joe Biden as presidential candidate even though he is clearly not
up to the job. He is to be the expendable Trojan horse through which some very unpalatable to
the public people will gain power they otherwise would not have been able to.
This should worry those who will vote for Biden. What they are voting for and what they
are going to get is not the same thing.
Useful clarity, b, as always.
Not sure I can agree that Republican reps will drag this into the light post election.
My impression was that they didn't go into Ukraine defense at impeachment was that the
campaign finance / money laundering / influence peddling gravy train there, as elsewhere,
probably, was and is bipartisan.
I can buy everything B is saying, but who exactly will investigate President Biden if D's win
both Houses of Congress?
Bill Barr could start an investigation, if one has not already been started, but
government moves slowly so it is hard to see the Trump administration bringing charges before
Biden is sworn in.
But if Hillary wants to throw Biden under the bus after the election, well she could
probably do so.
The best arguments against life extension science are people like Clinton, Biden, and Pelosi.
Imagine them as speaker or senator or Supreme Court justice for the next 1000 years.
Wouldn't the 25th amendment be the desired method of transferring power to Harris? Although
it has always struck me a wee bit odd that the computer repairman called the FBI after making
a copy, which in turn he gave to Rudy Giuliana. Do all computer repairmen have Rudy on speed
dial by any chance? Sadly the weird of the whole scenario is very Clintonian. How long til an
Arkancide or two happens. Can't the Clintons just go away for good?
The democrats will investigate and kick Biden out. The democrats knew all along that this
stuff about Biden was real but they had no chance to win with the other losers. So, the order
was given to the others to drop from the race and let strawman Biden beat Bernie. If Biden
gets elected, they will bring all his dirt up, impeach him and govern from the shadows
through Kamala who has no principles and questionable character (e.g., slept with Willie to
move her career up).
Or maybe Harris poisons Biden to speed things up and invites Micky Mouse to become her vice
president.
Come on B, this is really clumsy, below your standard. We all know that Biden is corrupt,
but we also know that Tronald is even more corrupt, that he is a fascist who has filled every
post in his administration with the most disgusting reactionary you can find in the country.
And that means something. The man belongs to scrap iron. One cannot reject the bad in favor
of the even worse. That is irrational.
Yes, this has been hinted on by my local conservative radio host since Pelosi introduced
legislation re: removing unfit presidents about a month ago.
It was always about removing Biden, if he were elected, not Trump.
Biden has never struck me during his whole campaign of a genuine interest in the
presidency.
It has always seemed more like he was doing it begrudgingly for "the cause."
Contrast this to the emotion Trump exhibited during his 2016 run when he gripped and
nearly ripped his notes in anger after a debate with Hillary Clinton ended. Or how he sat
stone-faced during Obama's speech during a white house correspondence dinner where Obama tore
into Trump and the audience roared with laughter. Trump just stared right back.
These are pieces any sane person can put together with the understanding that these men
are all still subject to egoism and revenge. It is not all elites against us as some
simpletons wish to boil it down to. It is much more subtle and so you must use discernment
and study their tells and what gives their true desires away.
Hillary is so unlikely to have authored the Foreign Affairs article. Staff work. Whose staff?
Uninteresting to pursue. Other than that appearance Hills has been very quiet. Suspiciously
quiet. Could be that Obama or whoever succeeded in shutting her up, that would have been
daunting and just plain hard. Better bet is her health is failing.
In short, Mark Simon took initiative and gave $10,000 to a guy called
Crhistopher Balding , an associate professor at Beijing University and late moved to
Vietnam on Fulbright Scholarship, to prepare and disseminate the "Aspen dossier"
detailing supposed Chinese influence ops targeting the Biden family basing an the
"info/disinformation" from a supposed Swiss investigator Martin Aspen.
After NBC article exposes Martin Aspen is actually an AI-created persona, Jimmy Lai, who
depends on the support from USG to continue his anti-China activities in HK, publicly
distance himself from the whole operation, and his trusted lieutenant Mark Simon, a possible
CIA agent, announced his resignation from Apple Daily after Balding exposed his involvement.
Detail
here
Okay, sleazy and yet very normal (one might say habitual) corruption in a US political
family. But by 2017, Joe Biden was out of office, and there is nothing that suggests that he,
rather than his repulsive son, was profiting before that.
The stake in the Bohai Harvest Partners Investment Fund (2013) does not name Joe Biden as an
investor at all.
This may be why the FBI, the media, and even Glenn Greenwald in his article, say that
there is nothing in this pile of dog crap that implicates Joe Biden at this point.
All very plausible, all very Byzantine and decadent. The "United States of America" is in the
midst of decay and breakup, which will occur no matter who is "elected" or otherwise gains
power, legally or militarily. It is only a question of which "gang in power" -to use Murray
Rothbard's phrase- is running your successor state.
According to The New Yorker, in June 2013, "[Jonathan] Li, Archer, and other business
partners signed a memorandum of understanding to create the fund, which they named BHR
Partners, and, in November, they signed contracts related to the deal. Hunter became an
unpaid member of BHR's board but did not take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after
his father left the White House →".
The Aspen Dossier was peddled by Balding to right wing websites, which then first
published in mid-Sept and now got the momentum.
The notion that the Democrats will allow their party name to be associated with a deposed
Democrat President seems more than far-fetched.
Far more likely is that the "investigation" will drag on long enough to fade from public
view, then quietly pardon everyone.
This Biden to Harris to HRC seems much more like a plot for a fantasy/spy novel.
Meanwhile...we are being distracted by the Huntergate ...an autum of terror in being
prepared in Europe...
At least 150 private military contractors have been transported to Europe on
Pentagon-chartered flights over the last weeks, including from Benghazi, #Libya via #Malta
to Sofia, #Bulgaria
Harris could simply resign some weeks after Clinton II gets the VP, Harris could do so for
any reason but if it was me writing the script I would cook up some mumbo jumbo about "clean
slate", "not yet ready", "for the sake of blah-blah" and so on.
That way Harris can come back and fill the gap between Clinton II and Clinton III (no
prizes for guessing who).
Not that I don't think the US won't be gone long before that can happen or won't be in a
civil war if any of it does or maybe from Biden or the "election" alone.
I agree with many here: looks like a typical political elite family corruption (Roman-style
corruption).
But I have a theory: with Reagan's hegemony (1980-1992), the old Democrat elites were
wiped out. The Democratic Party came near to extinction, the USA almost becoming a
single-party nation. Reagan looked invincible, the consensus he commanded among the American
people incontestable. He easily elected his successor (George H. W. Bush).
The Democrats were reborn, like a Phoenix, thanks to a huge transformation: the rise of
the so-called "Southern Democrats". This newly-born faction, much more conservative, had one
clear leadership: Bill Clinton, from Arkansas.
Bill Clinton then surprisingly won against George H. W. Bush and got extremely lucky: he
got the USSR in tatters, ready for the sack. The ransacking of the Soviet Sphere marked the
only time after the post-war miracle (1945-1974) when the USA registered a trade surplus
(+38%).
This ransacking, in my theory, generated the rise of a new set of families of a new
Democrat elite. All of then are vassals to the Clinton family (as we can deduce from the de
facto fusion between the Clinton Foundation and the DNC), but each got the right to a piece
of the ex-Soviet cake. Victoria Nuland, for example, got the telecommunication industries of
the ex-Yugoslavia through her husband. My guess is the Bidens are part of this new, "Southern
Democrat" elite, hence their casual connections with ex-Soviet states and mafias.
Everything must have been done quickly and hastily, as Bill Clinton wasn't able to elect
his successor (Al Gore). This realization that "time was short" may explain the apparent
amateurish partition of the ex-socialist cake by those families. Hence the laptop
episode.
The Obama phenomenon may be easily explained: the crisis of 2008 prompted Wall Street to
enter the field because they needed the bailout (Bush's Congress blocked the bailout in
November 2008, putting the Texan on his knees) to pass as soon as January 2009. Hilary
Clinton was senator for New York (you cannot be elected in NY without Wall Street's consent),
so it wasn't that she was in any position to rig the DNC at that moment. Penny Pritzker
somehow convinced Wall Street moguls Obama (senator from Illinois, USA's second financial
center) was the better candidate to the task. Even then, Hilary competed with Obama, and
there were primaries, so the process wasn't as smooth as many alt-rightists like to tell us
today. Plus, Hilary was still young, so she had time: she may have calculated Obama would be
left to clean the shit from the crisis and she would reap the economic recovery as his
successor; that Obama survived and easily got reelected is merely one of those windfalls of
destiny.
Anyhow, the fact is that Obama disappeared after his second term and the Clintons came
back to the forefront of the Democratic Party. This is an indication he was more of a detour
on the party's project, the Southern Democrats never really losing grip. I don't think the
Bidens are, therefore, part of Obama's entourage, but of the Clinton's.
- When I read that Hillary Clinton has put out a job application then I almost want Trump to
win the presidential election of 2020.
- There was one person who said that the choice between Clinton and Trump (in 2016) and Biden
and Trump (in 2020) was the choice between having typhoid and having cholera.
Its aim is to use Shanghai FTA to covert Chinese Yuan to dollar to invest overseas.
(Somehow, I personally doubt this kind of funds could be used by rich Chinese tycoons and
corrupt officials to shift their illegal gains out of China.)
Obviously, it looks rather nepotism, but isn't it the fact that lots of relatives of the
American (Chinese, European, Japanes, etc.) politicians have been doing these kind dubious
business deals all the time?
"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall
nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress," Section 2 of the amendment explains.
Penny Pritzker? Where do you come up with this stuff? She's a nasty piece of work all
right but that she moved Wall Street or played kingmaker is just absurd.
Penny couldn't even manage basic South Side real estate swindles without buckets of help.
Including from Obama. Who has a long family pedigree and outranks Pritzkers in every way.
I read that the primary source for Steele was Ms. Galkina, basically a nobody creating
fiction for pay and not a 'a high ranking Kremlin official'. Does this mean that the Trump
Shills like Don Jr, Hannity, Ingraham, et al will stop calling it Russian misinformation
sent to the Democrats to attack Donald Trump?
You might have missed this, but it has been established by U.S. scientists that Russians
are not animals. Russians is a giant fungal mycelium that may form animal mimic fruiting
bodies colloquially known as "Russian individuals". Thus, while it may appear to you that
Galkina is a separate organism, in reality "she" is a mere outgrowth of Russians. Any action
taken by "her" is an action of the entire organism. That is why any time a Russian fruiting
body misbehaves, the sanctions are imposed on the entire mycelium. Hope this helps.
Suddenly , some of the woke liberals and MSM journos start to doubt the corrupt Chinese
billionaire Guo Wengui aka Miles Kwok, a fugitive, and MSM's mostly beloved master of Chinese
"leaker", is working for CCP(!) and begin to expose his undemocratic behavour:
I think Biden was chosen, because no one wanted him, as a 'consensus candidate' against
Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a much more existential threat to the 'establishment' than Donald
Trump. And yeah, sheep dog etc. the point is the ideas behind Sanders - to begin mitigation
of corporate power - is the enemy.
Hillary Clinton? If the plan is to seal the deal for a third party movement to actually
rival the two-party monopoly, then good plan.
Yeah, no doubt they suckered Hunter, then saved the laptop for October while making up a
story for how they got it. I have always felt - I won't say thought - that the whole story
stunk, it was just too convenient, the timing too perfect, the scandal too juicy, and Trump
is a vindictive person, it's payback. Perhaps they enhanced the contents a bit too. If there
is an investigation, it could be interesting.
B's prediction that Joe Biden being pushed out early during his first term as President,
either because of Hunter Biden's scandals or his own worsening dementia, to be replaced by
Kamala Harris as President who would then nominate The Klintonator as her VP, will depend on
Biden winning the Presidency.
The way the election seems to be going - I have seen some news that an Australian news
reporter in the US, monitoring the news polls and speaking to people, is confused because
while the polls predict a Biden win, the majority of the people he talks to (I presume he
travels quite a lot and speaks to people of very different backgrounds and communities) are
voting for Trump - the results may be very close, they will depend on votes coming from US
voters casting votes overseas or mail-in votes, the Electoral College voting may be very
close and I hazard that the final result may not be known until December.
Plenty of time then for both Democrats and Republicans to accuse each other of stalling on
the results, for fighting to break out all around the nation, and cities to try to enforce
lockdowns to the extent of calling in the military. Perhaps when civil war breaks out,
someone will propose some kind of unity government, Congress in its panic will agree and
somehow The Klintonator manages to wangle her way into the Presidency or a position as
Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State.
here is a post from someone at sst - jersey jeffersonian - quoting from a website... i don't
know if or how much of this is true, but it goes with all of this..
"It seems now that Chris Wray's FBI was sitting on the Hunter Biden laptop, too.
And probably, beyond permitting the whole impeachment farago to plow ahead by hiding
evidence supportive of President Trump's actions, or lack thereof, in Ukraine, because
certain activities in which Wray had been involved earlier might come back to haunt him. Here
is a passage quoted from James Kunstler's blog post of this morning on this point:
"...here's a strange Swamp sidelight to all this: CEFC's main exploit during the Biden
hook-up years was the purchase of a 14 percent stake in Russia's oil-and-gas giant, Rosneft,
to help China circumvent US sanctions on Russia's oil sales. Guess who was one of the lawyers
working for Rosneft: Christopher Wray, just before he became FBI director. And guess who has
been sitting on Hunter Biden's laptop since at least December of 2019. Oh, the FBI. And guess
what else: the Rosneft files have since been deleted by Mr. Wray's old law firm, King and
Spalding."
Recall here Biden's negotiations with the head of CEFC, Ho Chiping, to establish a
humongous LPG facility in Louisiana (see the referenced blog post for more information)."
here is the website link as well for the specific quote - The Awful Reckoning
When the last serious dispute about who had won a presidential election occurred, in 1876,
they had four months between the election and the inauguration of the new president to
resolve the matter, and then the dispute was only resolved at the last moment, just before
the inauguration date.
Now, with the inauguration date moved back from March to December, they will have
considerably less time to resolve a dispute.
The Blob will dominate the USA foreign policy, no matter who wins.
Notable quotes:
"... I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to say about China. ..."
"... The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it. ..."
"... Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart. The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ... ..."
"... Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I bet Harris is one as well. ..."
"... I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit. ..."
"... Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers. ..."
"... The rest of the world knows that the US is not agreement capable, it does not matter for Iran one bit what happens on November 3rd. ..."
"... I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it. ..."
"... The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work. The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now, unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era. ..."
"... The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction. ..."
"... Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab. Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will continue, the status quo is preserved..) ..."
"... That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident, clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason. ..."
"... To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was trying so hard. ..."
"... The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time. ..."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to
some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a
stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him.
American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
I also agree that Trump might actually have the support needed for a landslide win, not
so much because of the vilification but because of the arson and looting imo. A lot of
Trump supporters are keeping their heads down atm (and who can blame them) However, now it
is my turn to make a prediction. I predict mass unrest on polling day. it is well accepted
that the majority of the Democrat voters (fraudulent or not) are going to vote by post.
Conversely most Trump supporters are likely to vote in person on the day (or try to at
least)
I expect a concerted attempt to disrupt the polls by people who know that it will
disproportionately affect the Trump vote. I expect violent clashes (with both sides trading
blame) and a result that will please nobody. The worms are not going back into the can.
if I am wrong then I will be big enough to say so on the first appropriate thread on
this site, fair enough?
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and
even read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State, of which an open preview can
be read here. Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read here.
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far
superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success
suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what
any Western source has to say about China.
I just paused by their tavern to see what elixirs of despair or mirth they have on offer
today. Pour a strong drink comrades and scroll through the cellar. Always worth a
visit.
If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as
the Beelzebub? Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 112
Because he's the heel and none of the negative coverage they give him sticks, most often
on purpose. Don't mistake their serious tones and somber pronouncements for genuineness.
It's not. The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate
news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it.
I am aware of the fact that corruption is rife in both parties. I saw the link to the
Biden bus incident, deplorable yes but hardly on the same scale as the massive rioting,
looting and intimidation of the BLM movement, they didn't actually burn down half the
neighborhood did they. Organized voting obstruction will largely be confined to swing
states for obvious reasons. I made my predictions, we will see.
Just to be clear, I don't even live in the US, I am British. If I did live in the US I
wouldn't vote for either party, I'm not a 'lesser of two evils' kind of guy. To be frank I
am viewing events in the US with considerable trepidation, I regard what happens in the US
as a window into the likely future of the UK and the rest of Europe. I fear that a nuclear
war may well occur sometime in the near future, quite possibly by accident owing to the
continual cutting of warning times, mainly by the US. A very powerful nuclear armed country
convulsed by civil unrest is a very dangerous entity, I fear the worst and so should we all
imo.
Anyway thank you for being polite and civilised and for including actual information
with your replies.
OT..I just read this translation from a Russian link...most agreeable as a counterpoise to
Exceptional Nation nuttiness:
"Construction of the industrial complex, where high-speed trains will be produced,
began in the Urals. In five years, Russia will have a domestic rolling stock for the VSM
- high-speed highways. Moreover, the level of localization of production is stated at
80%, which means additional orders for the Russian industry."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him
to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much
of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working
for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart.
The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These
commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and
it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ...
As far as Obama's birth certificate, since his mom was a CIA officer using the Ford
Foundation as cover during the murder of millions of leftists in Indonesia, I am sure she
took time out to make sure he was born on US soil. All that stuff about him growing up on
embassy row in Indonesia while the left was being slaughtered is carefully taken out of the
story. Not his fault but it was quite a slaughter of humans and we know her employer was
deeply involved. Going into the Indonesian villages to do studies. Really, studies and
observations. They used to call it SOG groups.
Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for
president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I
bet Harris is one as well.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable.
Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse
shit.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly
the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.
Because the FBI's evidence cleaner/tamperer division's mandate will be greatly expanded,
as will the powers of the Silicone Valley Tekkies to more comprehensively throttle public
free speech on electronic media, that the deep state's Invisible Hand disapproves of.
Trump is about controlled demolition of the empire NemesisCalling @ 5.
B summarized the style differences very well. But failed to mention the greater problem.
3 votes at polls every four years is not democracy<= no American is in charge of any
thing the USA does.
the layers in the global power stack (each nation state the same):
layer 1: global franchisor sets rules of play; establishes goals <=local nation
state franchisees must obtain to remain in power.
Layer 2: oligarch <= national (wall street beneficiaries who use their wealth to
conform national outcome consistent with global powers).
Layer 3: copyright y patent monopoly power constitute 90% of corporate Assets.
Layer 4: think tank and other private orgs
public<= layer 5: 527 elected government <= a tool to regulate members of
public
Layer 6: Intergov Bureaucracies limit and direct elected power to global goals.
public<= layer 7: the 340,000,000 members of the media regulated public
layer 8: stop and go economic system control
layer 9: media controls info environment & public narrative (many
techniques)
all layers but 5 and 7 are contained within an envelop of privately owned control
freaks.
Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private
media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers.
Article II and amendment 12 clearly deny American people any say in who is to be the P
and VP of the USA.
Agree with Nemesiscalling, since 1947, standing orders from Layer 1<= demo the
American excellence; deny superior economic power to average Americans . standing orders
<=homogenize the world and standardize its governance.
American lifestyle and quality of life is indifferent to who the media puts into the
white house.
by c1ue @ 26 said it best "Anyone against the "right" and "proper" Democrat sellouts to
pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this view that galvanized the
vote against HRC in 2016." the method used by the public layers is reflected here, it is
called divide and conquer.
B reviewed the elements and factors that maintain the division of the masses..
On the absence of a real left in the US ( is all right and more right..)and of a real
program which could include real changes that could make any difference in people´s
lives, on that what matters is political technology and communication based on demonizing
the other candidate which translates in deep polarizing of societies with unexpected
unknown consequences..
" If Trump were re-elected for another four years, it would be a real calamity and
armed conflicts could even break out by the most radical groups, so that the country
could be paralyzed "
"The ideological profile and policy of the United States is that of the president and,
each one, even if they are from the same party, has maintained quite different political
lines throughout history", says Rafael García, professor of International
Relations at the USC. For this reason, he affirms that, in North America, "there is no
strong party structure, but rather that the party acts as an electoral structure and it
is on the candidates of each moment that certain policies are formed."
DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS. So much so that, as the professor explains, "the
ideological configuration of the parties in the 20th century changed radically". On the
one hand, he alludes to the fact that the Democrat, "in historical terms, was the party
of the southern states, when they faced each other in the Civil War; racist states, which
lasted until the 1920s ". Precisely, the political scientist indicates that "it was
shortly before when the change took place, with the Roosevelt presidency, that he decided
to change the configuration of the Democratic party as a result of the crisis of 29".
On the other hand, the Republican party, he points out, "was that of the union, that
of the northern states, championed by Lincoln; the abolitionist party and that of the
blacks ". So how did these changes come about until today? Rafael García
points to "a consequence of the political strategies that the presidents embodied at
all times, not because there was an ideological line behind each party ."
TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE AMERICAN MODEL TO THE EUROPEAN. For Rafael García, the
Spaniards, when speaking of US politics, "make a mistake in translating our political
structures" to those there. In other words, "in Europe the duality between left and
right is widely assumed and we unconsciously transfer it to US policy." "That is a
complete error" , sentence.
And it is that there " there is neither right nor left, there is right and more
right ", affirms the professor. Which means that there does not exist and did not
exist a historical labor-union party as such. In fact, the transmutation that is usually
made from the democratic party to 'social democratic' is not correct . For
García, Biden embodies "a more moderate man than the crazy Trump, but that does
not mean that he has some kind of relationship with a left-wing thought ."
RIGHT AND RIGHT. "A multimillionaire gentleman, absolute representative of the
establishment" (referring to Biden), and "a traditional gentleman, more conservative"
(referring to Trump) ". "Although Biden is a Democrat, who perhaps holds stronger
principles and is hopeful, identifying him with the left is still a long way from
reality," he says. Therefore, it is denied that the Democrats are the American left
and the Republicans the right .
THE CAMPAIGN LACKS PROGRAMMATIC INTEREST. For the USC political scientist, the US
electoral campaign lacks interest: "It is absurd, it seems like a disqualification
competition in which a political or government program is not exposed ." And every
time Spain is also getting closer to that model of disputes.
"We are Americanized, in the sense that the weight of the parties is also
being diluted in Spain in favor of the candidatesThese advisers are responsible
for the growing division that is taking place in Western society ," he says.
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL ADVISORS. In Rafael García's opinion,
the decision margin "is shrinking", that is, "the autonomy capacity of governments to
make decisions is smaller, and they are conditioned ". So, what is the difference, in
practice, in management, between PP and PSOE? "Little thing, in the end, little thing,"
he asserts.
That is why " that little thing can not be said to the voter, but must be mobilized
with a degree of identification, unconditional adherence, so that it can be recognized in
a brand ." And what is this transformation of Spanish politics due to? The professor
is clear about it: " It is a translation of commercial marketing techniques to
politics." Thus, a marketing advisor must "build customer loyalty" and a political
advisor should build voter loyalty .
Now, if there are no significant differences between the two options, how to
achieve it? "Through a demonization of the opposite and the creation of a hostility that
is dangerous, because the divisions to which society is returning are irreconcilable
." In this way, García believes that " it is the work of political advisers
who, apart from the difficulties that exist in societies, which are many, polarize them
when it comes to building and mobilizing a faithful electorate, to the point that they
make no difference what the party says or what the leader says ".
In the United States, as evidenced by this expert, "it does not matter if Trump
does the atrocities he does, or if he said in the previous campaign that he could murder
a person on Fifth Avenue in New York without anything happening to him ." This,
transferred to the Spanish sphere, "assumes that the party can do any outrage: fraud,
embezzlement, illegal financing ...". "That is something we are seeing, whatever party it
is, but for the faithful voter it does not matter, because their party will continue to
be so and will continue to listen to the channel and read the newspaper that supports
it," he says.
THE ELECTORAL RESULT WILL BE EXTENDED OVER TIME. "I have no idea nor do I want to make
forecasts, but I consider that Trump is a calamity and that if he were there for four
more years it would be an absolute calamity ", says Professor García. However,
" there is a state of opinion that fears that the result of these elections will be
complicated and that there will be challenges, so that the end result will be a
diabolical process of recount, county-by-county challenges, repetitions in certain
districts. .. a real madness that can last several months ", he warns, something
that," with this polarization trail, it is not known how it could end. "
" I am referring to the outbreak of armed conflicts; These people have weapons,
radical groups, some of them crazy and who can shoot themselves in a demonstration, doing
outrages as part of the institutional paralysis in which the country can be plunged
", he asserts.
This is how people, like those at SST, who lied about the real difference amongst
Democrats and Republicans in real effective changes of policy, shouting to the four winds
that "the Communists are coming", when they are not, and this way spread hatred and
division amongst the US society as if there was no tomorrow so that to conserve their "tax
cut", could end witnessing the total destruction of the US, not only as "Empire" ( a
process already in march before Corona-fear and 2020 electoral process, a construct of
decades of lying the electorate for the greed of a minority...), but also as a nation
state. All these people who, holding privileged insider knowledege of the funtioning of the
state as former insiders, should be held accountable for their willing and conscious
participation in the build up of the social and economic disastaer to come....
Forecast at the end of the article posted and quoted above:
The future: Institutional paralysis
··· An institutional paralysis like the one that can come
after 3-N "could already occur in 2000, in the elections between George Bush Jr. and Al
Gore, but the latter accepted the results even though they were open to challenge, and
that it avoided institutional collapse".
··· However, "now it does not seem that either of the two
candidates is going to have a gesture of these characteristics, with which, if doubts
already appear, it will not only be in the State, but the final collapse may be extremely
long and with unimaginable consequences ", indicates Professor García. "It seems
to me that the United States has a terrible situation ahead ", he sentenced.
A scene of Game of Thrones which could summarize 2020 US election campaign, that it
was based on throwing dirty to each other....But who has the real "power", not the
"government"?:
@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122
I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the
opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the
disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it.
The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work.
The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was
never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now,
unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era.
The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to
produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from
the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only
way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction.
Trump's ideology will destroy the American Empire. It will collapse under a wave of
hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, shortage of goods and collapsing economic
output.
The manufacturing sector saw 17,000 jobs added after four months of flat activity. This
followed a strong run of an average of 22,000 manufacturing jobs added every month in
2018 and 15,800 per month in 2017. Those gains followed two weak years that saw 7,000
manufacturing jobs lost in 2016 and only 5,800 per month added in 2015.
In the last 30 months of President Obama's term, manufacturing employment grew by
185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump's first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs,
expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase
of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than
under Obama, a 170% advantage
As Trump is going to win (provided the usual conditions pertain, fraud is not over the
normal levels, and the whole sh*t-story doesn't end up in the courts or fought out on the
streets, whereupon no reasoned predictions can be made), speculation about Biden as Prez.
is a waste of time.
The last part of the Pepe piece in b's post, which gives reasons to not vote Biden, my
take.:
Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab.
Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was
from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will
continue, the status quo is preserved..)
Anyway, the ACA was a damp squib, it didn't solve anything, and depending on pov was in
effect a gift to Mega Insurance or was just 'lame' or as often, 'favored some over others'
etc.
Then the Financial Crisis hit. The Obama admin. didn't prevent it (one might argue they
couldn't not sure) and it didn't 'repair' as far as the ppl were concerned. Banks and Some
Big Cos were bailed out - millions of homeowners were tossed to the curb by Banks. Child
poverty, hunger, increased; wages weren't upped, health stats got worse No need to go on -
this provoked tremendous anger. The 2010 elections saw big R gains, 2014 they took the
Senate, iirc.
(Who cared about foreign parts like Ukraine, Syria? is what I'm saying.)
That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was
the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident,
clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click
bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason.
DT's electoral promises were both opportunistic and more profound: like fire-brand
preachers of old, Build The Wall - MAGA - i.e. pledging a return to the past (see, again
the opposite of Barry, who hoped for the future) -- Stop the wars, undo past mistakes (Dems
don't run on anti-war..!), and, most important:
Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions
of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them.
Imho, Trump's record (null or abysmal or whatever depending on pov) is not enough for
rejecting him in favor of loathed "failed" policies of the past - Clinton gang, Biden a
part of it, Obama, etc. (By US voters I mean.)
but see Kiza 8, gottlieb 63, dave 72, Jack, others, >> no difference.
...Bringing the supply chain back to the US and re-industrialising the US isn't going to
happen overnight or even in a couple of quarters. Just like the process to de-industrialise
didn't happen overnight. But that the process has started, it is undeniable, and will only
pick up pace when he wins a second term.
4 new Trafalgar polls came out for 10/29: Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Michigan. Trump
expanded his lead on Biden in Florida and Michigan vs. Trafalgar's earlier October
polls:
FL from +2.3% Trump to +2.7%
MI from +0.6% Trump to +2.5%
Trump did worse in Nevada and AZ: AZ from +4% Trump to +2.5%.
Nevada polled +2.3% Biden
Once again: the question is if Trump outperforms vs. MSM polls. If he repeats anywhere
near his 2016 - he will win.
Trump can only win again if the establishment/deep state is once again exceptionally
overconfident and asleep in the control room. They have numerous ways of swinging the
election at the last hour, from pre-hacked Diebold paperless voting machines to hanging
chads to simply having their operatives scattered around the nation throw ballots away and
fabricate the tallies. Oddly enough this extreme carelessness is still possible. The
establishment/deep state have not yet come to terms with what caused their plans to blow up
in 2016 and really do seriously believe that Russia had something to do with it, even
though they have no idea what Russia might have actually done to wreck their expected
electoral blowout by Clinton. They also think that part of the problem was that Trump
wasn't vilified harshly enough (they wanted the election to at least appear competitive),
and they think they have that covered this time around. It could be that the over-the-top
hysteria from the TDS victims has them overestimating the anti-Trump sentiment, though.
Still, the establishment/deep state screwing up exactly the same way twice in a row
doesn't seem likely. Even so, their profound incompetence continues to astonish, so maybe
we will once again get treated to the delightful spectacle of crowds of middle class faux
left dilettante snowflakes melting down.
It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of
money. My health stock investment has almost doubled during Trump's tenure.
vk @158 - Not acreage - but based (until Andrew Jackson, hardly any principled person's
prez) on PROPERTY VALUE. JUST as in the good ol' UK. Yep - despite NPR folks believing
otherwise (clealry never visited a history book) - the aristo controlled (in what way
really different?) Britain was actually a "democracy":, and was so from Magna Carta on...
Of course it was a, how to say, constrained, constricted "democracy," but then so was the
original one in Athens. Those who count as THE Demos - always been a matter for property
holder concern... So in GB - male, 21 and over and owning a property of a taxable (always
this, huh) value of a certain sum. Ensured that the hoi polloi males over 21 couldn't vote
- and for the exact same reasons, I do not doubt, as the intentions behind the Electoral
College construct by those less than admirable FFs. Gotta prevent the vast masses of the
population - the great unwashed, "the bewildered herd" in Hamilton's verbiage I do believe
- from having the ability to grab (well, they knew all about blood-letting theft of land,
after all, didn't they?) that sacred "property." (Sacred, surely 'cos owned by the
equivalent of the Murican aristos.)
@Down South #159
It shouldn't be surprising. Actual doctors and nurses are, by and large, really great
people. They don't want to turn away anyone.
The poorest in America can't afford health care - even the middle class can't really as
testified to by the millions of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Hospitals thus
were losing large sums of profit treating people who simply could not pay.
Obamacare threw many (not all) of those people onto health insurance company plans by
having the government pay the health insurance premium and then having the existing health
insurance customers pay via increased premiums - all this on top of the ongoing health care
profiteering. That's why Obamacare should really have been called "No Health Insurance
Company or Hospital Left Behind".
The existence of Obamacare also distracts people from the real problem: actual
affordable health care - which every other nation in the world except the US has, entirely
due to national health care.
I've posted this before - I will post it again.
In 2006, I left the semiconductor software industry on my own because I disagreed with
management decisions to outsource all jobs to India rather than change their fundamentally
flawed business model. Semiconductor software companies are the only part of the design
chain that charges by software license rather than per part made - this was great in the
early days of semiconductors but is a disaster when the industry consolidates to 5 large
multinational but US based companies.
In 2007, I experienced a retinal detachment right after my COBRA ended. I paid $35,000
in cash to get that fixed - including a 5 hour total elapsed journey through a hospital
which included a 1 hour surgical room occupancy and 1 hour of recovery time. In the door at
6:30 am and waiting for a taxi at 12:30 pm. The UCSF doctor that attended to me (and did a
great job to be clear) said his fee out of all that was $1200.
The following year, some cells stirred loose by the corrective surgery landed on my
now-attached retina and started reproducing. Instead of coughing up another $35K (or more),
I chose to fly to Australia, consult with the best eye doctor recommended by the Royal
Opthalmological Society of Australia and New Zealand.
That doctor's office was literally a light year more advanced than UCSF - supposedly one of
the premier teaching hospitals in the US. I pay him AU$5000 - US$4000 at the time, plus
another AU$800 for the hospital visit. The Sydney Eye Hospital gave me the choice of
staying a 2nd night (I stayed 1 night because I was at the end of the queue for the day, as
a foreigner), for free, including meals and medications administered on site.
I paid literally 1/7th the price in AU vs. the US - an Australia is not a 3rd world
country. The doctor got paid 3.5x in absolute terms. The service I received was immensely
better. Even including travel costs: flight plus 2 weeks in AU (which I was vacationing),
the overall cost was still 1/5th of my US experience.
That opened my eyes (literally) to just how fucked up the US system is.
@Don Bacon #165
Stock price doesn't bear any short term correlation with profits.
Just look at Tesla, Uber and what not.
Health care sector profits have increased disproportionately since Obamacare:
CFR report on health insurance company profits
Since ACA implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the
S&P 500 by 106 percent.
You're right. The early liberals - specially from the American South - loved to compare
themselves with the Athenian Republic. The rationale is that the existence of slaves
enabled them to enjoy unparalleled freedom. Black slaves were frequently compared with
helots when the problem of slave revolts appeared (with the pro-abolitionists evoking the
figure of Spartacus). The South considered itself freer than the North in the USA - it was
only after their destruction in 1865 that the tide turned and the North became,
retrospectively, the paragon of liberal freedom.
In Europe, England was considered the ultimate free nation. Even American liberals
(including Benjamin Franklin) built up their legitimacy on being of English stock
(Anglo-Saxon race). With time, liberals begun to legitimize their hegemony with a worldwide
racial hierarchy - hence the definition of American democracy as Herrenvolk Democracy
("Master race democracy").
And yes, the original liberals considered the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as their birth
date - not the French Revolution of 1789 (which they condemned as illiberal, or "radical").
The founders of neoliberalism (Hayek, Mises, etc. etc.) put 1870 as the apex of liberalism,
which they tried to revive.
Escobar writes: "In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of
the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy
achievement"
Anyone who actually thinks this is either ignorant or moronic. Biden will absolutely
require Iran to limit their ballistic missiles before "rejoining" that then-altered deal.
Iran will never let this happen. Thus the deal is essentially dead [as far as US
involvement goes, which the other parties should ignore]. MOA notes this as well.
I don't know why though MOA refers to Escobar at all here though. The ignorance
demonstrated in the above quote should be enough to disqualify such a person from any
discussion about Biden, Iran, etc. and to also ignore anything else such a person claims.
You might as well quote a schizophrenic you meet down by the river for his take on Iran and
the JCPOA. Might as well learn sign language and ask the chimps at your local zoo what they
think about it.
You are not the only American who is doing it. They have even developed a term for it -
medical tourism:
With rising healthcare costs in the US and the rise of health tourism destinations that
offer quality and affordable healthcare perked up by a beautiful travel experience,
Americans are scampering to book appointments with healthcare providers far away from
home. Yearly, millions of patients travel from countries lacking healthcare
infrastructure or less advanced in a particular area of medical care to countries that
provide highly-specialized medical care.
Noirette @161: " Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but
criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl,
part of them."
True enough, and as even the bunny claims, this was part of the act. But those who think
Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation
for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public
exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites
because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.
Keep in mind that one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects
of US presidential elections is the "electoral mandate" . Far more important than
specific campaign promises is the general tone of the campaign. If a winning candidate had
campaigned on ending wars, bringing jobs back from abroad, and fighting corruption in
government, this isn't just an indication that the public wants something done about these
issues. First and foremost it forces an acknowledgement that these are indeed major issues
that the public wants to be part of the national discourse that the capitalist mass media
tries to control. Allowing these issues to become part of the national discourse is
diametrically opposed to the interests of the power elites. They do not want these issues
to even be discussed, much less addressed by the state.
So why would they intentionally force these issues into the forefront of national
discourse? That is, after all, what Trump's victory did, despite the establishment's best
efforts to distract with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Racism, sexism and
pussy-grabbing, oh my!" . These issues were already smoldering below the surface due to
Sanders' campaign, so why would the elites want them fanned into flames?
Answer: They didn't. As much as the issues that the winner campaigns on getting elevated
in priority by the "electoral mandate" , the loser's issues get diminished. Trump
was supposed to lose, and lose bigly, and in the process the things he campaigned on were
supposed to be crushed down to objects of ridicule by the corporate mass media. Trump's
resounding defeat was supposed to signal that Americans rejected Trump's "conspiracy
theories" about some fictitious "deep state" that only existed in Trump's
imagination, burying the suspicions that the election fraud committed against Sanders
aroused. Trump being ignominiously trounced was supposed to allow the mass media to say
that Americans unequivocally voiced their opposition to ending war and their support for
intervention in Syria, clearing the way for Clinton's "no fly zone" . Trump being
utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables" , convincing them with finality that there will never again be
good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics, while at the same
time crippling their resistance to the social engineering of "identity politics" ;
social engineering that I should point out is even more ill-conceived and incompetently
executed than the 737MAX MCAS system.
Trump was supposed to lose and take those issues with him to the dustbin of history.
It is important to understand this point because it clarifies who our enemies really are
and helps us to understand how they view the world.
Ancient Athens excluded from power slaves and resident foreigners (metics). Also women in
the families of male citizens, although one could argue that they had virtual
representation through the male citizens in their families. So also for the children in
citizens' families, although they would have full rights once they reached adulthood. The
adult male citizens who had full political rights were about 20 percent of the population
of Attica.
And even the poorest citizens had much more political power than average citizens of
today's so-called democracies have today. They could attend and vote in the Assembly, they
could be chosen by lot to serve in such bodies as the Council and juries, and to serve in
most offices. And for doing all these things there was pay, so that poor citizens had
particular motivation to participate, which they did. Just read Aristophanes. No wonder
most rich Athenians hated the system.
Again, you are mistaken. I am getting tired of correcting you.FoxNews drug their heels
when it came to supporting DJT in 2015 until it was clear that the majority of
conservatives actually wanted DJT as their candidate.
It was at that point that business-smartz kicked in and they had to acknowledge that
they must throw their weight behind the Trump ticket lest they prove themselves the
faux-conservative Rinos they actually were/are.
Business 101, my friend. You wanna keep the advert. revenue coming in, you produce
content your audience actually agrees with.
TBH and AFAIK Tucker Carlson is still the only truly sane conservative on FOx news. The
rest, including Hannity, don't neccessarily mind the endless wars so long as the public
endorses them. They are chameleons without an ethical lodestar guiding their
commentary.
Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying
blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics,
_____________________________________________
The problem is you think the oligarchs are every bit as stupid as you are. It would be
nice if they were, but unfortunately they're not.
First of all lets examine who are these deplorables who you imagine were set up by the
oligarchs to be crushed and demoralized by running Trump as their candidate.
The deplorables are:
-The Americans that own the guns
-The Bible thumping American jihadist
-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the
states weaponry
-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of
tyrants
I could go on but all you have to do is tune into the corporate mass media that caters
to the deplorables to find out who they are and what they are being sold.
But Mr Gruff is just too stupid to figure out why in the world the oligarchs might want
to not antagonize that segment of the population.
The oligarchs would have to have lost their frikken minds to hire trump for the purpose
of giving the deplorables a big "fuck you" as you imagine. The oligarchs are well aware
that they already gave a big fat finger to the deplorables when they engineered the
election of Obama (not to mention the 40 preceding years of marginalizing that segment of
the population) and just maybe it was time to pacify that segment of the population that
was growing larger and a bit restless.
But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a
better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap
themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of
huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to
them.
Amen!!! I don't think that people who forward that narrative fully understand
how damaging this exposure has been to them.
By being exposed they have been shown to exist . This is super critical! No more
is talk of the deep state relegated to the lunatic fringe where they can be easily derided
as "conspiracy theorists"
Whether Trump can drain the swamp or not is to be seen but what is not in dispute is
that they exist.
Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 18:31 utc |
181 How can the blob "return" when they never really left?
To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep
state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must
be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was
trying so hard.
The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless
efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the
likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up
ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time.
It's avoidance of those lower probability mega catastrophes that is the principle reason
of voting trump out with regards to foreign policy. And there are other reasons.
I keep on reading this narrative that there is no difference between Trump and Biden and
no matter who you vote for the blob wins. That the effort to unseat Trump and overturn the
2016 election results, to derail his 2020 campaign is all some elaborate game of 52D chess
that we are too stupid to understand.
Here is my problem with that narrative.
The political scene in the US is split between two factions 1) the US globalists
(Democrats/Establishment Republicans/Deep State/Big Tech/MSM/WallStreet) and on the other
side 2) US Nationalists (Trump/the deplorables).
When Trump was campaigning in 2016 he made it clear that he intended to bring back the
supply chain to the US. All those manufacturing jobs that were outsourced to third world
countries to maximise the profits of the large corporations we're going to be brought back
and the way he intended on doing that was to exit free trade agreements that harmed US
national interest and introduce protectionist policies (tariffs/ low corporate taxes etc)
which would entice/induce/force manufacturers to open factories in the US again.
This horrified the globalists as they have for the past decades been implementing a
controlled disintegration of the US
The great "liberalization" of world commerce began with a series of waves through the
1970s, and moved into high gear with the interest rate hikes of Federal Reserve Chairman
Paul Volcker in 1980-82, the effects of which both annihilated much of the small and medium
sized entrepreneurs, opened the speculative gates into the "Savings and Loan" debacle and
also helped cartelize mineral, food, and financial institutions into ever greater
behemoths. Volcker himself described this process as the "controlled disintegration of the
US economy" upon becoming Fed Chairman in 1978. The raising of interest rates to 20-21% not
only shut down the life blood of much of the US economic base, but also threw the third
world into greater debt slavery, as nations now had to pay usurious interest on US loans.
false solutions to a crisis of global proportions are being promoted in the form of a
"Great Global Reset" which aims at creating a new economic order under the fog of COVID.
This emerging "new order", as it is being promoted by Mark Carney, George Soros, Bill Gates
and other minions of the City of London is shaped by a devout commitment to depopulation,
world government and master-slave systems of social control.
By attempting to tie the new system of "value" to economic practices which are designed
to crush humanity's ability to sustain itself in the form of "reducing carbon footprints",
"sustainable green energy", cap and trade, carbon taxes and green infrastructure bonds,
humanity is being set up to accept a system of governance onto our children and
grandchildren which will subject them to a dystopic world of fascism the likes of which
even Hitler could not have dreamed.
Exiting NAFTA, implementing protectionist measures, lowering corporate taxes, starting a
trade war with China (that is where the majority of the outsourced jobs went) he is trying to
undo the controlled disintegration of the US. That is why the globalists hate him so
much.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best,
for sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives
a shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a
heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I
don't get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical
question. I just don't get it.
An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies
to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept Oct 29 675 380
I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden -- the
last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it
absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden,
leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post,
publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see
the censorship in action and, given the Intercept's denials, decide for yourselves (this is the
kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this
day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would
have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me -- to shorten it, fix
typos, etc -- but it's important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in
unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not "edit" but
completely gut as a condition to publication:
Subscribe
TITLE: THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER'S
EMAILS
Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop,
relating to
Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine , and subsequent articles from other outlets
concerning the Biden family's pursuit of
business opportunities in China , provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union
of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these
stories.
One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the
front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions
raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the
natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists
have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.
After the Post's first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published
numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts
to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy
company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as
well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his
father.
Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the
contents' authenticity . One of Hunter's former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has
stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist
that Hunter along with Joe Biden's brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice
President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of
the published email chains, appeared to confirm the
authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up
questions about it.
Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his
participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal
says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that "text
messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski,
mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don't show either Hunter Biden or James Biden
discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture."
But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated -- so the conclusion that one
had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has
not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of
the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing.
Beyond that, the Journal's columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of
documents and "found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published
by the New York Post," including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to
his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were
negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar
conclusion : while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, "records produced
by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations
about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy," and
"make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his
'family's brand' as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture."
These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, "that the countries that Hunter Biden,
James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe
Biden had previously been involved as vice president." Strassel noted that "a May 2017
'expectations' document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding
another 10% for 'the big guy' -- who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden." And the independent
journalist Matt Taibbi published an
article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden's attempt to replace a
Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma.
All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter
Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President
and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle
influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took
actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son's
business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union
of the nation's most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary
steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.
The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing
them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the
owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump
advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in
interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution)
to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither
Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims.
Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked
a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time
former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its "fact-check," one
that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized
for Twitter's handling of the censorship and reversed the
policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation's
fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as
the election approaches, for almost two weeks.
After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs
have
donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation's media outlets and former
CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story
should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that
took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin
responsibility for the story.
Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept ,
quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security
state claiming that the documents have the "classic trademarks" of a "Russian disinformation"
plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no
evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times
reported that "no
concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation" and the paper
said even the FBI has "acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the
laptop."
The Washington Post on Sunday published
an op-ed -- by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media
outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories
-- that contained this extraordinary proclamation: "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if
they were a foreign intelligence operation -- even if they probably aren't."
Even the letter from the former
intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was
all part of some "Russian disinformation" scheme explicitly admitted that "we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement," though many media outlets omitted that crucial
acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot:
Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by
intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be
discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. "I think we need to be
very, very clear that what he's doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation," said Biden
Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden
emails at Thursday night's debate. Biden's senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on
MSNBC : "if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president
and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation."
The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been
vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter
Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along
with the derogatory nickname "MAGA Haberman." CBS News' Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by
his some in the media simply
for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer,
accusing Erickson of spreading a "smear."
That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive
view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing
statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified
NPR's refusal to cover the story on the ground that "we do not want to waste our time on
stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers' and listeners' time on
stories that are just pure distractions."
To justify her own show's failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl resorted to
an entirely different justification . "It can't be verified," the CBS reporter claimed when
confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program's failure to cover the Hunter
Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the
laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same
phrase : "it can't be verified."
After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as
too complex and obscure for anyone to follow -- a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the
network's media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride , the story
has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on
Friday : "most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed
Hunter Biden emails.... CNN's mentions of "Hunter" peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC's at 24
seconds one day last week."
On Sunday, CNN's Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism
surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC's Elizabeth
Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: "We're not going to do
your work for you." Watch how the U.S.'s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing
their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic
front-runner:
These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday
about this tawdry press spectacle: " The least curious people in the country right now appear
to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian
societies."
All of those excuses and pretexts -- emanating largely from a national media that is all but
explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win -- served for the first week or more after the
Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective
shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not
have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national
press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will
concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it.
The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are
important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and,
when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do
so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the
absolute right to know, including:
whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific
ones);
whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store;
whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did
so;
whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by
his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and,
how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the
Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement -- Yuriy Lutsenko, someone
who had no
experience in law ; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself
had a history of corruption allegations -- was acceptable if Biden's goal really was to
fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal
affairs for some other objective.
Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept's questions,
they have not done so. A statement they released to
other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden "has
never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business
overseas." To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that
anyone discussing this story is "amplifying Russian disinformation," neither Hunter Biden nor
the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents -- which
they and the press continue to label "Russian disinformation" -- are forgeries or whether they
are authentic.
The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by
virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal
scrutiny:
First , the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified -- the
excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others -- is
blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in
partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014
and the
Intercept's Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level
Bolsonaro officials ), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other
outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it
is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden's emails has been verified in ways
quite similar to those.
With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every
last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which
they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough
verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the
materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the
source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm
the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One
investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what
the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of
forgeries are detected.
This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the
world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no
media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no
way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the
material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is
substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process.
The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that
were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the
published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose
authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and
on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately,
including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and
Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the
Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.
Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant?
Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event
in the reporting's authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an
opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if
major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged
materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not
kill the credibility of the reporting.
The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material's
authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite
convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large
archives.
Second , the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published
emails and texts were "Russian disinformation" was, from the start, obviously baseless and
reckless. No evidence -- literally none -- has been presented to suggest involvement by any
Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official
plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible -- when one does not know for certain what the
provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out -- but in journalism, evidence is required
before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of
information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was "Russian
disinformation" was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social
media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA
officials.
Worse is the "disinformation" part of the media's equation. How can these materials
constitute "disinformation" if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from
Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of
evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions
about "Russian disinformation" is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they
instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so
claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were "disinformation," became their
placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these
documents.
Third , the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in
corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious
defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden's aggressive
efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief
Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned
out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an
audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing
$1 billion in aid.
But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently
published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General
Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son's
highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so
important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was?
The standard answer to the question about Biden's motive -- offered both by Biden and his
media defenders -- is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S.
and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently
vigilant in fighting corruption.
"Biden's brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine's
Western benefactors wanted to see as,"
wrote the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a "fact-check." Kessler
also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good
for it. "The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and
Ukraine's corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the
founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky," Kessler claims.
But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not
opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on
the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself
to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing
corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other
countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.
Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption
vigilance were really Biden's goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief
prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable?
Lutsenko, after all, had "no legal background as general prosecutor," was principally known
only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to "resign as
interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and
disorderly," and "was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his
defenders said the sentence was politically motivated."
Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his
motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that's exactly what
Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and
promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden's motive
was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his
acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was
not it.
As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied -- that
firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations
against Burisma -- the evidence does not justify that assertion.
It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden's
motive in demanding Shokhin's termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that
Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published
one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden
when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that "no evidence
has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for
the prosecutor general's dismissal," this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and
Burisma:
[Biden's] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of
criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was
voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament .
Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden , Mr. Biden's younger son, who
at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been
in the sights of the fired prosecutor general .
The Times added: "Mr. Shokhin's office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma's
billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma." By contrast, they said,
Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, "initially continued investigating
Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking
office."
So whether or not it was Biden's intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding
Shokhin's firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced
Lutesenko "cleared [Burisma's founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office."
The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the
view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the
Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many
years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed:
For all the negative press about Shokhin, there's no doubt that there were multiple active
cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by
American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like
"dormant." Here's how Ken Vogel at the New York
Timesput it in May of
2019:
"When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several
investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion
and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative
gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources."
Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during
that time.
"There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14," says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of
the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General's Office, when asked how
many Burisma cases there were.
"There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so
I don't know the exact amount." But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them
technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin.
The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor
Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another "
13 or 14 " cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky.
Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other
pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose
firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing
several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi
concludes, "one can't say there's no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days
of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky's assets]
that got him fired."
And, Taibbi notes, "the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would
exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement --
Yuri Lutsenko -- who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against
corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular." In sum: "it's unquestionable that the
cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin's successor, chosen in consultation with Joe
Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of
$50,000 per month."
The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts,
suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden's son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the
Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew
about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly
revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son's business Ukrainian
associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother
to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press
would want answered, not buried -- regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump
family has.
But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President's misconduct but
that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi's headline put it: "With the
Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story."
The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years -- cooking up
justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get
re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets
based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but
are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.
It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of
separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely
even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign
operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their
eagerness to help Biden win.
But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign,
news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the
contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the
John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it
forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked,
and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the
newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly
reported on their contents.
Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their
overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are
overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic -- large-city, college-educated professionals
-- has vanishingly little Trump support. A
New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of
cultural insularity and homogeniety:
Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most
educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and
suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in
the last two months....It is not just that much of Mr. Biden's strongest support comes
overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does.... [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have
hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median
household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486
million to only $167 million -- accounting for almost his entire financial edge....One Upper
West Side ZIP code -- 10024 -- accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York
City in total delivered $85.6 million for him -- more than he raised in every state other
than California....
The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that
level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was
actually ahead by $53.4 million.
Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely
pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing
standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and
that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post's Executive
Editor Marty Baron, for instance,
issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss
hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt.
That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to
be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the
opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for
instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump's tax returns and --
despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or
hacked by a foreign power? -- the Times reported on its
contents .
When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let
alone the source's motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow
compellingly
explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only
cares about two questions -- (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public
interest? -- but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or
how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them:
The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they
are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more
reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad
at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.
A media outlet that renounces its core function -- pursuing answers to relevant questions
about powerful people -- is one that deserves to lose the public's faith and confidence. And
that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story:
they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they
should be ignored.
As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday : "The partisan
double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left
independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media.
Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear." Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi
summed up
the most important point this way: "The whole point is that the press loses its way when it
cares more about who benefits from information than whether it's true."
Glen, I just paid for a subscription so that I can say this one FACT. The PODESTA EMAILS
WERE NOT THE RESULT OF A HACK.
Please stop reporting this nonsense. The cover story was all part of the plan (approved by
HRC) to shift attention to a Trump-Russia collusion narrative that has always been fiction.
Guccifer 2.0 was created out of this same scheme. The meta data on the files prove that it's
impossible that those emails were hacked, they had to be downloaded on a local device
(thumbdrive most likely).
The FISA Abuse, the spying on Trump, The plan to implicate collusion, the Flynn frameup, the
Impeachment, The Mueller investigation were not the base crimes, those were all part of a cover
up. By you insinuating that the DNC server got hacked (which there is zero evidence for), you
are wittingly or unwittingly complicit in perpetuating the lie that it was. You're missing a
much, much bigger story here. The biden laptop isn't even the tip of the icebeg here.
Ask yourself this; "Why would dozens of high level DOJ, FBI, CIA and Whitehouse officials in
the Obama Administration put their careers on the line and commit literally hundreds of
felonies all in an effort to obstruct/neutralize Trump?" That is first question any true journo
should be asking right now.
I became a fan of yours when I was in law school at UC Hastings in 2003. Your the best, for
sure. But fuck...
I got to be honest...I'm glad the press is ignoring this story. There's just too much at
stake. Biden might be losing his edge, his family might be trading in his name, but who gives a
shit? The alternative is worse by light years.
And yeah, I don't trust the "people" out there to get it right. The "people" are rubes.
Those idiots voted for this piece of shit once before, they'll do it again, in a heartbeat.
More importantly, you really want to do Rudy Giuliani's work for him? I don't know, I don't
get it...why so eager to make the campaign's case for them? It's not a rhetorical question. I
just don't get it.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed Wednesday the
information exposed by former Hunter
Biden business associate
Tony Bobulinski that connects the former Vice President to companies and ventures in China.
But you wouldn't know it by following the main stream press.
Bobulinski's bombshell interview with Fox News host
Tucker Carlson Tuesday, along with Carlson's follow up exclusive on Wednesday, revealed
that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was aware of his son's business questionable overseas
business dealings. It should be a huge story. After all, Joe Biden has publicly denied knowing
about his son's business ventures in China, Ukraine and other parts of the world.
So why isn't this story on the front page of every newspaper and covered by every cable
network?
How is it possible that the majority of main stream media outlets, newspapers and cable
networks had no problem running unsubstantiated stories about President Donald Trump, his
family and his businesses only to find out later – without corrections- that the
information they published was bogus.
Here, there is an eye witness to the Biden family operations: Bobulinski. He has come
forward and shown his credibility. He has verified documents, photos, receipts from Hunter
Biden's hard drive that the FBI had obtained, along with President Trump's friend and personal
lawyer former New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani.
Why hasn't the FBI done anything with this before the election? The bureau has had it for
almost a year. Giuliani then did the only thing he could do – he turned over the
documents to The New York Post. Those documents obtained from Hunter Biden's laptop are the
massive breadcrumbs to a real political scandal.
These documents raise serious questions as to whether or not our possible future president
really is compromised by foreign adversaries, or whether or not he was using his position in
government to profit his family.
Still, it's only crickets from the main stream media. At the same time, big tech giants like
Twitter, Google and Facebook are also working diligently to squash the story and keep the truth
from the American people.
Tucker Carlson had the highest ratings – historic ratings – at Fox News Tuesday
night with more than 7 million viewers tuning in for the Bobulinski story. Yet, the Bobulinski
interview wasn't trending on Twitter, and in fact, it appeared that his story was non-existent
on the other networks.
Not even the Senators, who held a hearing on Wednesday, could get a straight answer from
Twitter's CEO
Jack Dorsey on why his platform banned The New York Post stories.
Sen. Ted Cruz said on Twitter "What @Jack told the Senate, under oath, is false."
"I just tried to tweet the @nypost story alleging
Biden's CCP corruption. Still Blocked."
Censorship in full force. However, this is not like the old
Soviet censorship – this is a bizarre new self-censorship by elitist leftists who
believe they know what's best for the American people.
Think about this – what if this story was about information these news agencies
discovered on Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump. How would they treat it?
Let's start with the most widely discussed and central to the issue of alleged corruption
was Hunter Biden's paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings.
Despite the fact Hunter Biden had no background in energy he was being paid more than $50,000 a
month and in some instances as much as $83,000 a month.
What about the most concerning connection for the Biden's with China's CEFC, an energy giant
that is compared to Goldman Sachs. It is directly connected to the Chinese Communist Party and
according to Bobulinski, as well as senior lawmakers investigating, possible used as leverage
against the Bidens by the communist government.
"Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised" said Bobulinski in Tuesday night's hour
long interview with Carlson. He said he turned over evidence to the FBI and openly spoke about
his alleged meetings with then Vice President Joe Biden. Biden is referred to by his son Hunter
Biden in emails obtained by the FBI and first published by The New York Post as the 'Big Guy'
and or 'the Chairman.'
Bobulinski revealed that he "held a top-secret clearance from the NSA and the DOE. I served
this country for four years in one of the most elite environments in the world, the Naval
Nuclear Power Training Command, and to have a congressmen out there speaking about Russian
disinformation or Joe Biden at a public debate referencing Russian disinformation when he knows
he sat face-to-face with me, I traveled around the world with his son and his brother. To say
that and associate that with my name is absolutely disgusting to me ."
Joe Biden, however, has publicly denied having any financial gain from his son's, Hunter,
business ventures. He said at the second Presidential debate, "I have not taken a penny from
any foreign source ever in my life." However, Biden has refused to answer any questions
regarding the allegations or address some of the accusations against him or his son.
The American public has the right to know if their next president has been compromised by
their families business dealings with the communist Chinese. Moreover, many of the business
ventures his son was connected with were during his tenure as Vice President.
Our nation has been divided but not by President Trump. It's been divided by an army of
bureaucrats, liberal elites, the New Democratic socialists, special interests and more
importantly a biased partisan media.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
For now, Americans will be left in the dark. On Wednesday committee Chairman Sen. Ron
Johnson, R- WI, told The Daily Caller, that Bobulinski will not be called to testify before the
Nov. 3 elections. He said the committee is working to review all the information that has been
provided to the committee by Bobulinski.
The information has to be verified, as it is subject to the same false information to
Congress laws that verbal or written testimony does.
However, a Johnson spokesperson told the Caller that all the material provided by Bobulinski
to the committee is legitimate and verified .
The committee has "also" not come across any "signs" or evidence to suggest the content
Hunter Biden and Bobulinksi content is false , the spokesperson added.
It's tragic to think that if by chance – a small remote chance – that Biden
actually wins the election justice will never be served and our nation will fundamentally
change.
America will be at a crossroads on November 3. The main stream media is doing its part to
ensure that the American people are not informed, so it is up to you to vote your conscience
and seek out the truth.
Col. Leghorn CSA , 9 hours ago
I suggest enabling RICO charges against any media that conspires to hide the truth.
"... If you want a quick rundown of the Burisma op and Hunter's role in it, check out this 2019 report in the Wall Street Journal. This respectable news outlet might not have called what he did there as "corruption" or "graft," but that's exactly what it was: Hunter traded his dad's name and access for money. ..."
What's
truly scandalous about this whole Hunter thing is that it shows just how normalized elite
corruption is in our imperial society and how little anyone at the top cares.
Last week I stepped away from the Internet for 24 hours and came back to find the most
ridiculous thing took place: Twitter decided to just straight up censor a New York Post story that
weaponized Hunter Biden's boring rich kid degenerate life and his corrupt dealings in Ukraine.
This crude attempt at
censorship only inflamed interest in this obvious h
Glenn, was curious for your take on Yasha Levine's piece on the matter. As far as the
censorship angle goes, I think you are both in agreement, but as far as just how big a story
this really is, he seems to be a little more jaded. https://yasha.substack.com/p/yes-hunter-biden-is-corrupt-its-one
It's unclear at this point how much Joe knew about what was going on. For my part, I suspect
he knew but was not actually directing Hunter's activities. I actually also doubt that he has
any idea that a piece of the China deal was being held for him, if indeed it was.
That said, I think it is clear that he knew that Hunter was throwing the Biden name around
to gin up business deals and he didn't tell him to stop it.
I think it's also clear that the media in general is desperate to avoid any mention of the
story...which is, in my mind at least, the best argument to vote for Trump. A lapdog media is
no check on the crazy stuff that happens in DC
If you want a quick rundown of the Burisma op and Hunter's role in it, check out this
2019 report in the Wall Street Journal. This respectable news outlet might not have called what
he did there as "corruption" or "graft," but that's exactly what it was: Hunter traded his
dad's name and access for money.
So it's strange that people have been getting so worked up over this New York Post story.
Even if the emails end up being fake or some details were fudged, it's doesn't change anything
because they're riffing on something real. If Hunter hadn't sold his access to a Ukrainian
oligarch, there would be no story here -- fake emails or no. And that's what's truly scandalous
about this whole Hunter Biden thing: It shows just how normalized elite corruption is in our
imperial society and how little anyone at the top cares about it.
Watching liberals deflect this reality by screaming about some devious foreign plot to
subvert democracy well, it's hard to be shocked or outraged anymore. All you can do now is mock
it and laugh.
-- Yasha Levine
PS: Aside from all the other problems, screaming about "the Russians" every time Hunter's
corruption comes up is yet another example of the xenophobia and racism that's become totally
normalized among our liberal elite.
Each time I read about Hunter's scandal in Ukraine, I have to think of VP Joe Biden and his
family! They all, in this way, traded in VP Biden's name and position! So the real question is,
why is this behavior so widespread amongst these family members?! Honestly...without
cooperation from the VP, would that have happened to the degree it did?!
Let's see...."If you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the one billion
dollars!"
Also, I see that you brushed on the fact that it might be corruption, but it's been
legalized: "But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even
himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption."
So what Levine is saying is that - yeah it's bad, but it's not only legal - it's been going
on for years and across both parties.
from a purely political standpoint, the reason once credible liberal/mainstream sources seek
to suppress/malign right wing and conservative voices is simple: these voices would inform
policy as most americans would embrace those voices. most people want to hear tucker carlson
call looters...looters - especially when no one else is saying it. and want to see fair and
impartial handling of media. so every viewpoint is ignored, or derided...this isnt to say that
righwing voices are always correct - just that they appeal to a deep seated need that is
missing on the left: simplicity. not everything has to be analyzed to death. not everything has
shades of white supremacy. not everything reeks of...the list goes on and on. some things are
just simple. we need safety. we need a good economy. the truth is multiplex and evolving, and
not everything is just because a dark web of college educated journalist elitist say so. trump
and his supporters exist because of msm. they enabled him, they created this massive nationwide
gaslighting of simple straight forward policies and ideas that most people have held peacefully
for decades (like the fact that censorship is indeed bad). and if he wins, it'll be because of
the deeply corrupt media elites. and i hope he wins. they deserve it.
on this article, it looks like hunter did some shady stuff, but as for this story, it lacks
real credibility, and as a consumer of news in america, i'd ask the question why msm ran with
russiagate for 3 years with zero credible evidence but is silent now. the truth is simple. we
don't need to go further.
UPS has found
documents that went missing in transit to Tucker Carlson, putting to rest questions about the
whereabouts of a trove that the Fox News host had called "damning" of presidential candidate
Joe Biden's family.
"After an extensive search, we have found the contents of the package and are arranging
for its return," a UPS spokesman told the
Daily Beast on Thursday. "UPS will always focus first on our customers and will never
stop working to solve issues and make things right."
While the successful search resolved the issue of the documents' whereabouts, questions
remain about how they disappeared from a package sent to Carlson in California from a producer
in New York -- and who, if anyone, was behind it. Without naming the company involved or
specifically saying the papers were purposely targeted and stolen, Carlson suggested on his
show on Wednesday night that the disappearance wasn't coincidental.
"As of tonight, the [shipping] company has no idea and no working theory even about what
happened to this trove of material – documents that are directly relevant to the
presidential campaign just six days from now," Carlson said. The company's executives
"seemed baffled and deeply bothered by this, and so are we."
Carlson described the package as containing confidential documents about the Biden family
and said they were "authentic, real and damning." He said he asked a Fox producer in New
York to send the documents to him in Los Angeles, where he had traveled to interview former
Biden business associated
Tony Bobulinski on Tuesday. The package didn't show up on Tuesday morning, prompting UPS to
begin an exhaustive search.
Mainstream media critics mocked Carlson for saying the documents had disappeared, including
some who suggested that they never existed. HuffPost said Carlson "concocted yet another
conspiracy
theory " to explain the disappearance of documents related to what they called his
"conspiracy theory" about Biden's son, Hunter.
Carlson devoted his entire show on Tuesday night to the Bobulinski interview, which provided
more specific allegations about the Biden family's business dealings in China following an Oct.
14
New York Post report on the ventures. Although Bobulinski provided legal documents, text
messages and recordings to back up his claims, the interview was largely ignored by other
mainstream media outlets.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on
Twitter @velocirapture23
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign is using a vast reserve of donations
from the usual plutocratic suspects to pry even deep-red states away from an incumbent who's
done little to help the working class.
The Biden campaign broke all-time records for TV ad spending over the weekend, leveraging
Wall Street donors' unprecedented largesse in its effort to woo ordinary Americans back into
the establishment fold.
Given how Trump's record bristles with policies so 'pro-business' they can be seen as
anti-working-class, it's a strategy just crazy enough to work. Voters need only be reminded how
the incumbent cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations while printing trillions of dollars to
be diverted directly into the pockets of big banks and big companies during the pandemic. The
media is encouraged to do its part by hyping up Trump's " divisiveness. "
The same corporate-friendly policies that alienated many in Trump's 2016 base have somehow
failed to keep the .01 percent in the Republican camp, and Wall Street has poured $50 million
into the Biden campaign, CNBC reported on Monday, holding up former Goldman Sachs president
Harvey Schwartz as a typical contributor. Schwartz made his largest-ever political donation
earlier this month to the Biden Action Fund, a $100,000 gift that was also one of the biggest
donations the Fund received during that period.
And it's not just Wall Street - aside from hardcore Republican Zionists like casino mogul
Sheldon Adelson and vulture capitalist Paul Singer, the US oligarchy is firmly and vocally in
the Biden camp. Former New York City Republican-turned-Democrat mayor Mike Bloomberg announced
a $15 million ad buy in Texas and Ohio on Monday, two states where Trump won by a healthy
margin in 2016 but where the failed presidential candidate apparently smells weakness. That
hefty sum is in addition to over $100 million Bloomberg spent in the critical swing state of
Florida, where he also raised millions of dollars to pay off the court fees of black and
Hispanic ex-cons - whose votes the businessman believes will reliably land in the Biden camp,
never mind the candidate's history of supporting the kind of laws that probably landed them in
prison in the first place.
Overwhelming support for Biden among the ruling class is also amplified by wealthy
celebrities. From Cher's cringe-inducing ditty " Happiness is just a thing called Joe ,"
recently performed at a Biden benefit concert, to Taylor Swift's insistence that 2020's
election is " more important than I could even possibly say ," to questionable
statements from one-time anti-establishment stalwarts like Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys,
Americans are being cajoled, shamed, and pushed into the voting booth to deliver their support
to candidates who have never cared less about average Americans.
Working class people whose lives have been torn asunder by the coronavirus shutdowns Biden
has essentially pledged to expand aren't left with many options. While Trump resisted calls to
lock down the nation, his self-presentation as an anti-establishment maverick contrasts with
four years spent racking up debt and bombing Middle Eastern civilians. Recent polls suggest
that even the " poor and uneducated " - groups whose support for Trump has long been the
butt of liberal jokes - are defecting.
While a New York Times
analysis on Sunday showed Trump continuing to outperform Biden in low-income areas and
Biden's support remains concentrated in traditional liberal bastions on the East and West
Coasts, it showed middle-class suburban voters bailing out of the " Trump train " in
droves. Meanwhile, wealthy and college-educated voters have coalesced around Biden more firmly
than in the past, with even big-money establishment Republican types drawn to Biden's promise
of a return to the Obama-era status quo.
Where does that leave the poor, or those who lost their middle-class status in the last
crash? Trump's detractors have pointed out the irony of the man surrounded by gold presenting
himself as the people's champion, and the Biden campaign is spending relentlessly to poach
wavering Trump supporters, with ads and opinion
pieces featuring self- described
" Christian Republicans " embracing the Democrat.
Short of voting for a third party - described by the media establishment as something akin
to a war crime, especially for swing state residents - the working class is caught in an
unenviable bind. More than a few must be wondering if voting is merely a long con aimed at
drafting Americans into participating in their own oppression. Driving through rural western
Pennsylvania, a state polls insist Biden has bagged, a bumper crop of Trump signs - more than a
few of them handmade - has blossomed, suggesting the small farmers of the Rust Belt really are
expending their meager resources to re-elect the man with the gold-plated
bathroom . But if this is, indeed, what democracy looks like, it's no wonder the system is
losing support among the younger generation.
If you like this story, share it with a friend! Jojo jordan 1 day ago Sorry Helen but
you lost me where you claimed Trump didn't help the working class. Also, the Big companies got
rich during the pandemic due to Democrat Governors and Mayors shutdowns of small businesses.
Biden is THE definition of swamp creature. Trump is for the people. He's a realist. Reply 10 2
Zogg Jojo jordan 1 day ago Nope, Trump heavily damaged the working class when signed the law
having the corporate taxes halved and not halving the working class taxes. tracie72 1 day ago
"It's one big party, we aren't invited." George Carlin J_P_Franklin 1 day ago "wondering if
voting is merely a long con aimed at drafting Americans into participating in their own
oppression" Democracy is the problem. "Voting only encourages them." - Gore Vidal Juan_More
J_P_Franklin 1 day ago Actually it is the reverse. The more the people vote the more it scares
the politicians. It is usually non-aligned voters that make up the vast majority of those who
do not vote. That way the parties count on the party faithful to get out and vote. With all
those independent voters voting it makes those sure thing seats a lot less sure. Why are you
trying to discourage people from voting. From the number of comments like yours I've seen in
social media there would appear to be move to suppress people from voting. Lastly everyone
should keep in mind, there may not be anything worth voting for but there is always something
to vote against.
Tuesday night, we heard at length and on camera from one of the Biden family's former
business partners. His name is Tony Bobulinski. He's a very successful businessman and a Navy
veteran.
Bobulinski spoke to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" for a full hour. He told us he met two
separate times with Joe Biden himself. Not just with Joe
Biden's son or his brother, but with Joe Biden -- the former vice president and the man now
running for president -- to discuss business deals with the communist government of China .
That's a very serious claim, and whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when
Tony Bobulinski makes it because Bobulinsky is an unusually credible witness. He's not a
partisan, he's not seeking money, he's not seeking publicity. He did not want to come on our
show.
But when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the Biden campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of
participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander
against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came to us. He arrived with heaps of evidence
to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text
messages, e-mails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth
and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour
would come to the same conclusion.
Well, on Wednesday, a
Senate committee confirmed it . The Senate Homeland Security Committee reported that all of
Tony Bobulinski's documents are, in fact, real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries.
This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.
Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden -- who, once again, could be president of the
United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global
opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He
slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that.
That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential
campaign. It's true.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of this
story? Everyone has a version and we'd like to hear it, but we don't know what Joe Biden's
version of the story is, because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden
to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers
have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has
never happened in American history.
Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did
the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere
else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about
QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story.
Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the
media cannot continue in the way that it has.
No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not
because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You've heard
that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like. In a self-governing country,
voters have a right -- an obligation -- to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have
the right to know the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's
lucrative influence-peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched
from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries. This
is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack. It's true, and Tony bobulinski
confirmed it.
Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when
he did, Joe Biden's son introduced Bobulinski this way: "Dad. Here's the individual I told you
about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and the Chinese."
Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden's son texted Tony
Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father, was making key decisions about their business
deals with China.
CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his chairman, he was talking about his dad.
BOBULINSKI: Correct, and what Hunter is referencing there is, he spoke with his father
and his father is giving an emphatic 'no' to the ask that I had, which was putting proper
governance in place around Oneida Holdings.
CARLSON: So, Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the
company. I mean, and it's it's right here in the email.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That
is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own
phone. Typing in that 'I spoke with my chairman,' referencing his father.
All this is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski
provided us, documents that subsequently federal authorities have authenticated as real.
On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be
paid for their deal with the Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting
10%.
BOBULINSKI: In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity, Jim Biden's
referenced as, you know, 10%. It doesn't say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10% for the
big guy held by H. I 1,000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. It's,
that's crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former vice president in person
multiple times.
That was three years ago, and we still don't know where all that money went, because the
media haven't forced Joe Biden to tell us. But Tony, Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe
Biden's brother, Jim, saw his stake in the deal double from 10% to 20%. Was Jim Biden getting
his brother's share again? It might be worth finding out.
We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on
July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million dollar interest-free loan to the Biden family,
"based on their trust on [sic] BD [Biden] family." The e-mail continued, "Should this Chinese
company, CEFC, keep lending more to the family?" And indeed, CEFC was supposed to send another
$5 million dollars to the Bidens' business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to
the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden
directly. And from there, who knows? Again, no one's asked.
Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the
chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14% of a Russian state-owned energy
company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion dollars. It's pretty sleazy. It's pretty amazing,
actually, that this happened and no one noticed.
We're not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial
transactions. This isn't that complicated: Millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist
Party of China went to Joe Biden's family, and not because they're capable businessmen. Jim
Biden's one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware that
ultimately went under.
No, the Bidens were cut in on the world's most lucrative business deals, massive
infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason: Because Joe Biden was a
powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.
Now, if that's not a crime, it's very close to a crime and it's certainly something every
person voting should know about. The Bidens didn't do this once. They did it for decades. So
the question is, how did they get away with it for so long? Tony Bobulinski asked Jim Biden
that question directly. To his credit Jim Biden answered that question honestly.
BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, 'How are you guys getting
away with this?' Like, 'Aren't you concerned?' And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit
and said, 'Plausible deniability.'
CARLSON: He said that out loud.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, he said it directly to me. One on one, in a cabana at the Peninsula
Hotel.
"Plausible deniability." In other words, "we lie." We get away with selling access to the
U.S. government, which we do not own, because we lie about what we're doing. And as we lie, we
try to make those lies plausible. That's why we call it "plausible deniability." That is the
answer that Joe Biden's brother gave when asked directly.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's answer to that question? We wish we
knew.
ForFoxSake!!! 1 hour ago Everything that is happening right now is because Trump was
right about the swamp, the media, and the ruling class families who have been selling out
America for decades. ohhappyday657 1 hour ago Tucker is doing this country a great service. The
FBI doesn't seem to want to engage. Mr. Bobulinski is a patriot and we are lucky he came
forward. The Bidens need to be called out for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Joe should be
impeached for his time as VP. Thank you Tucker. resipsaloquitor ohhappyday657 29 minutes ago
You can smell the desperation on the Trump supporters. The lies, the distortions and the
grasping, pathetic search for the proverbial Hail Mary to salvage the quickly sinking ship. If
Mr. Bobulinski is the best you have the Democrats will 'trump' you with: 227,000 dead
Americans, close to 9 million more infected and an economy in tatters. The day of reckoning is
approaching and a dozen Bobulinskis won't change that. Trump and his unseemly administration
are doomed.
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson did something he'd never done before: he dedicated his
entire show to a single interview. The person he interviewed was Tony Bobulinski, an
experienced international businessman who found himself working with Hunter Biden, James Biden,
and others on a deal between the Biden group and CEFC, a Chinese energy company with ties to
the communist government and the military. Bobulinski powerfully confirms that Joe Biden was
deeply involved in the transaction, which had its beginnings when Joe was still vice
president.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
(As an aside, and separate from the Bobulinski interview, a former CIA operations office
believes it's entirely possible that Biden
was already doing China's bidding in 2012, when the Obama administration gave China free
rein in the South China Sea.)
In case the embedded videos do not play, you can find them here ,
here ,
here ,
and here
.
We've always known that Joe Biden is an odd bird. Just think of the lies, the egotistical
boasting, the offers to fight people, the skinny-dipping, and the way he fondles and sniffs
little girls. He is a genuinely creepy man.
It speaks volumes about Washington, D.C. and the Democrat party that Joe spent 47 years in
the swamp and rose to the second highest office in the land. What we've learned now, though,
irrefutably and without any Russian hokum, is that Joe Biden is also a profoundly corrupt man
who willingly sold out America and her allies to enrich himself and his sleazy, incompetent
family.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
Update (1745ET): President Trump just took a minute away from the campaign trail to weigh in
on the 'coming out' of Miles Taylor, the formerly "anonymous" op-ed writer and self-proclaimed
leader of the internal White House #resistance,
"Who is Miles Taylor?" President Trump wrote, before recounting Taylor's association with
various adversaries of the administration. He added that "they should fire, shame, and punish
everybody associated with this FRAUD on the American people" - a group that would presumably
include some members or former members of his own inner circle, as well as the editors of the
NYT.
A photo of Taylor and Trump has been circulating on Twitter since before Trump published his
tweet, and we imagine Trump's response to the inevitable reporter question will be his usual
"so what?".
Meanwhile, CNN has reportedly decided not to fire Taylor, even though he lied on air to one
of the network's anchors (anderson cooper, clip below) despite being a paid employee of the
company.
It's still unclear what Google's response will be.
* * *
Roughly two years have passed since an anonymous Trump Administration insider
published an op-ed - then later, a whole book - warning Americans how President Trump was a
danger to the nation, primarily due to his "lack of character".
Well, on Wednesday afternoon, with six days left until the big day, the MSM and their
political operative allies, orchestrated the public coming-out of Miles Taylor, a former senior
official within Trump's Homeland Security Department who, before today, was best known as the
first former senior administration official to endorse Joe Biden for president.
In the year since Taylor has left the White House, he has parlayed his national security
bona fides (which were burnished during a stint working for Dick Cheney in the Bush White
House) into a top job working for Google, as well as a lucrative contract to appear as a
talking head on CNN and...did we mention the book deal?
Shortly following a teaser from George Conway, who called his fellow conservative Republican
a "true patriot"....
...Buzzfeed Ben - excuse us, Ben Smith - the former top man at Buzzfeed who left that
struggling media company to take the coveted job as the NYT's media columnist (a position
formerly held by both Brian Stelter and, before him, the legendary American media reporter
David Carr), was the first to confirm Taylor's identity, followed by a tweet from Taylor
acknowledging that it was all true.
Taylor published a statement on his reasoning for "why I'm no longer 'anonymous'" via his
new Medium page, which is strange, considering he now works for CNN, technically. In the
statement, Taylor wrote that Trump "sees personal criticism as subversive" followed by a Teddy
Roosevelt quote condemning those who say the president must not be criticized as "not only
unpatriotic and servile, but...morally treasonable to the American public." Later in the piece,
he quoted Abraham Lincoln.
Though Taylor acknowledged that he has been a life-long Republican, and that he "wanted this
president to succeed", he said Trump is "a man without character", and "his personal defects
have resulted in leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American
lives."
More than two years ago, I published an anonymous opinion piece in The New York Times about
Donald Trump's perilous presidency, while I was serving under him. He responded with a short
but telling tweet: "TREASON?" Trump sees personal criticism as subversive. I take a different
view.
As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about
him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant,
about him than about anyone else." We do not owe the President our silence. We owe him and the
American people the truth. Make no mistake: I am a Republican, and I wanted this President to
succeed. That's why I came into the Administration with John Kelly, and it's why I stayed on as
Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security. But too often in times of crisis, I saw
Donald Trump prove he is a man without character, and his personal defects have resulted in
leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American lives.
I witnessed Trump's inability to do his job over the course of two-and-a-half years.
Everyone saw it, though most were hesitant to speak up for fear of reprisals. So when I left
the Administration I wrote A Warning, a character study of the current Commander in Chief and a
caution to voters that it wasn't as bad as it looked inside the Trump Administration -- it was
worse. While I claim sole authorship of the work, the sentiments expressed within it were
widely held among officials at the highest levels of the federal government. In other words,
Trump's own lieutenants were alarmed by his instability.
Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously. The decision
wasn't easy, I wrestled with it, and I understand why some people consider it questionable to
levy such serious charges against a sitting President under the cover of anonymity. But my
reasoning was straightforward, and I stand by it. Issuing my critiques without attribution
forced the President to answer them directly on their merits or not at all, rather than
creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling. I wanted the attention to be on
the arguments themselves. At the time I asked, "What will he do when there is no person to
attack, only an idea?" We got the answer. He became unhinged. And the ideas stood on their own
two feet. To be clear, writing those works was not about eminence (they were published without
attribution), not about money (I declined a hefty monetary advance and pledged to donate the
bulk of the proceeds), and not about crafting a score-settling "tell all" (my focus was on the
President himself and his character, not denigrating former colleagues). Nevertheless, I made
clear I wasn't afraid to criticize the President under my name. In fact, I pledged to do so.
That is why I've already been vocal throughout the general election. I've tried to convey as
best I can -- based on my own experience -- how Donald Trump has made America less safe, less
certain of its identity and destiny, and less united. He has responded predictably, with
personal attacks meant to obscure the underlying message that he is unfit for the office he
holds. Yet Trump has failed to bury the truth.
Why? Because since the op-ed was published, I've been joined by an unprecedented number of
former colleagues who've chosen to speak out against the man they once served. Donald Trump's
character and record have now been challenged in myriad ways by his own former Chief of Staff,
National Security Advisor, Communications Director, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Director of National Intelligence, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others he
personally appointed. History will also record the names of those souls who had everything to
lose but stood up anyway, including Trump officials Fiona Hill, Michael McKinley, John Mitnick,
Elizabeth Neumann, Bob Shanks, Olivia Troye, Josh Venable, Alexander Vindman, and many more. I
applaud their courage. These are not "Deep Staters" who conspired to thwart their boss. Many of
them were Trump supporters, and all of them are patriots who accepted great personal risks to
speak candidly about a man they've seen retaliate and even incite violence against his
opponents. (I've likewise experienced the cost of condemning the President, as doing so has
taken a considerable toll on my job, daily life, marriage, finances, and personal safety.)
These public servants were not intimidated. And you shouldn't be either. As descendants of
revolutionaries, honest dissent is part of our American character, and we must reject the
culture of political intimidation that's been cultivated by this President. That's why I'm
writing this note -- to urge you to speak out if you haven't.
While I hope a few more Trump officials will quickly find their consciences, your words are
now more important than theirs. It's time to come forward and shine a light on the discord
that's infected our public discourse. You can speak loudest with your vote and persuade others
with your voice. Don't be afraid of open debate. As I've said before, there is no better screen
test for truth than to see it audition next to delusion. This election is a two-part
referendum: first, on the character of a man, and second, on the character of our nation.
That's why I'm also urging fellow Republicans to put country over party, even if that means
supporting Trump's Democratic opponent. Although former Vice President Joe Biden is likely to
pursue progressive reforms that conservatives oppose (and rest assured, we will challenge them
in the loyal opposition), his policy agenda cannot equal the damage done by the current
President to the fabric of our Republic. I believe Joe Biden's decency will bring us back
together where Donald Trump's dishonesty has torn us apart.
Trump has been exactly what we conservatives always said government should NOT be:
expansive, wasteful, arbitrary, unpredictable, and prone to abuses of power. Worse still, as
I've noted previously, he's waged an all-out assault on reason, preferring to enthrone emotion
and impulse in the seat of government. The consequences have been calamitous, and if given four
more years, he will push the limits of his power further than the "high crimes and
misdemeanors" for which he was already impeached.
Trust me. We spent years trying to ameliorate Trump's poor decisions (often unsuccessfully),
many of which will be back with a vengeance in a second term. Recall, this is the man who told
us, "When somebody's president of the United States, the authority is total." I believe more
than ever that Trump unbound will mean a nation undone -- a continued downward slide into
social acrimony, with the United States fading into the background of a world stage it once
commanded, to say nothing of the damage to our democratic institutions.
I was wrong, however, about one major assertion in my original op-ed. The country cannot
rely on well-intentioned, unelected bureaucrats around the President to steer him toward what's
right. He has purged most of them anyway. Nor can they rely on Congress to deliver us from
Trump's wayward whims. The people themselves are the ultimate check on the nation's chief
executive. We alone must determine whether his behavior warrants continuance in office, and we
face a momentous decision, as our choice about Trump's future will affect our future for years
to come. With that in mind, he doesn't deserve a second term in office, and we don't deserve to
live through it.
Removing Trump will not be the end of our woes, unfortunately. While on the road visiting
swing states for the past month, it's become clear to me how far apart Americans have grown
from one another. We've perpetuated the seemingly endless hostility stoked by this divisive
President, so if we really want to restore vibrance to our civic life, the change must begin
with each of us, not just with the occupant of the Oval Office. Fortunately, past generations
have lit the way toward national reconciliation in even harder times.
On the brink of a civil war that literally split our nation in two, Abraham Lincoln called
on the people not to lose sight of one other. He said in his Inaugural Address:
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it
must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every
battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land,
will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the
better angels of our nature.
Heed Lincoln's words. We must return to our founding principles. We must rediscover our
better angels. And we must reconcile with each other, repairing the bonds of affection that
make us fellow Americans.
Mere minutes after Taylor's big coming-out, the online backlash began. Even members of the
'#resistance' slammed Taylor for his involvement in executing Trump's child-separation policy,
and for waiting this long to speak up.
As it turns out, Google execs reportedly misled their own employees when they insisted that
Taylor wasn't involved with the child-separation policy, an issue that ranks as Trump's
paramount sin among denizens of Silicon Valley.
Many also complained about the NYT hyping up the identity of the "anonymous" insider to try
and suggest that he was a top-level staffer, prompting speculation about Rex Tillerson, John
Kelly or even James Mattis. Trump's current chief of staff Mark Meadows,
And journalist Judd Legum with the extended version of that explanation, in which he
denounces "Anonymous" as little more than a grifter, who played a "critical role" in the family
separation policy, now working to parlay his brief time in the Trump Administration into a
quick buck.
Some were incredulous that Taylor left the administration and now works for Google and
CNN.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-18&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1321546046363721728&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fanonymous-author-outs-himself-liberal-media-immediately-slams-him-child-separating&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
With Taylor now outed as a child prison guard, as we have no doubt he will be branded by the
left, we imagine Google will need to make a statement at some point about whether Taylor will
continue on in his role, or be...fired.
play_arrow Unknown User , 58 minutes ago
A typical Neoliberal incapable of comprehending loyalty and ready to sellout anyone for a
dollar.
Everybodys All American , 1 hour ago
This little man operates like a CIA agent. I'd be shocked if that's not the case. He
actually said he believes in Joe Biden's' decency. No one in their right mind is saying that
...
gmrpeabody , 50 minutes ago
Biden's decency..? Now THAT'S funny...
JLee2027 , 1 hour ago
Just another one who betrayed his country for bucks and fame. Hope it was worth it.
Perseus-Reflected , 1 hour ago
Looks like a latte-drinking little b!tch to me.
aspen1880 , 58 minutes ago
he "identifies" with bish
chelydra , 4 minutes ago
The epitome of an effete, preening dandy.
hot sauce technician , 1 hour ago
Everything the biden campaign is doing seems to backfire on it.
LVrunner , 58 minutes ago
Should be giving away puppies soon like Hilary did at this point.
Redhotfill , 1 hour ago
Working for Google, CNN, Book deal yeah Pay Offs! Surprised no Netflx stock options.
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Or a seat on the board
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
The year isnt over yet.
OGAorSAD , 1 hour ago
And we care why? Should be a headline with Section 230 being repealed, and multiple
indictments of Biden's, Clinton's, and Obama's
nope-1004 , 54 minutes ago
Never heard of him.
The fact that he's a documented public liar and democrat makes complete sense though.
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
Hah, little beta cuck didn't get his 15mins so he outs himself to get his 15 mins of
fame.
This is what participation ribbons gives you.
Willie the Pimp , 1 hour ago
What else would you expect from an obvious jizz guzzler? The LGBT have destroyed the
USSA.
pictur3plane , 1 hour ago
SOY BOY NOTHING BURGER.
JRobby , 52 minutes ago
Oh! Look! He shops at Amazon!!!
Pop this prick and dump him in a landfill
Friedrich not Salma , 54 minutes ago
DNC probably asked him to reveal himself to eat up Teevee time and distract from Hunter's
story.
Md4 , 53 minutes ago
Zactly.
Where's Hunter?
Boxed Merlot , 31 minutes ago
...Where's Hunter?...
Chillin with Mr. Corzine? You remember that guy don't you? He's another GS Vice President
and Mr. Obama's prized confidant in his financial wizardry that ripped off his "investors" to
the tune of frn1B and slunk out of the public eye.
Who are these people? Look at the way they dress. Look at the smug arrogant look on their
faces.
They are caught in a bubble and are totally divorced from reality.
It should be requirement of every individual who enters government to spend at least one
year unclogging apartment building sewer stoppages.
Having a basic grasp of reality and a first hand look at where sewage actually goes is
vital to a healthy reality based outlook on life.
Peace
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Scumbags gonna scum.
EnoughBS21 , 56 minutes ago
How's it feel, little traitor? You threw Trump under the bus and now your "new friends"
are tossing you away.
A Mister nobody!
Md4 , 54 minutes ago
And was " anonymous".
Credible?
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Trump has no character and Biden is senile.
So he picks Biden and the whore? She is definitely a character.
I am more equal than others , 1 hour ago
Judging character from afar. It is an amazing skill that has never existed.
novictim , 46 minutes ago
On the scales of justice, Trump is light as a feather while these Leftist
infiltrator-traitors and grifters, China-stooges and bribe takers, are lead weights on the
American Republic. There is no parallel to the corruption that has been revealed about the
Russia-Collusion hoax and now the truth about Biden's sale of US' China-policy in return for
the CCP padding the Biden family nest egg.
Watergate has nothing on these latest scandals. And Trump comes away from all of this like
a shining star.
JmanSilver.Gold , 44 minutes ago
Just another leftwing swamprat.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 46 minutes ago
So this weasel turd creates the problem, whines about it, and then makes a book deal, bags
a CNN job, etc?
Obviously a slimy Democrud.
Teamtc321 , 51 minutes ago
***** shadow man talks about character? Typical Demshelvic POS.
Joe Biden is burning down.
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 1 hour ago
Ahh... Wallet before country, honor and integrity. I see a trend of "Public Service".
Delete his security clearance before he tries to change genders, because politically then you
probably couldn't afterwards.
Hipneck911 , 45 minutes ago
So a minor level DHS obama holdover who is a lifelong democrat-donated to Obamas
campaign-and probably had all of maybe ONE meeting where the President was present. AKA
typical leftist LOSER.
Imagine That , 1 hour ago
Big fuss about a chicken-sh*t nobody, who the world will forget before he changes his silk
panties.
Pvt Joker , 45 minutes ago
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies"
Yeah, Imma say this guy and any one who thinks like him is my enemy.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 47 minutes ago
You had me till Vindman.................... you're an operative .....................
Blaster09 , 55 minutes ago
Another POS!!!
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
Give people enough time, and they will always show you their true colors. Just watch and
listen.
novictim , 42 minutes ago
But the election is on Tuesday. Millions have already voted.
The MSM has betrayed every American in ways unthinkable just a decade ago.
Dindu Nuffins , 45 minutes ago
Not worth changing the news cycle from the laptop. No one cares who this rat is,
undifferentiated as he is from the many others.
October 28, 2020 Tucker Carlson's interview with Tony Bobulinski is must-see TV By
Andrea
Widburg
On Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson did something he'd never done before: he dedicated his
entire show to a single interview. The person he interviewed was Tony Bobulinski, an
experienced international businessman who found himself working with Hunter Biden, James Biden,
and others on a deal between the Biden group and CEFC, a Chinese energy company with ties to
the communist government and the military. Bobulinski powerfully confirms that Joe Biden was
deeply involved in the transaction, which had its beginnings when Joe was still vice
president.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
(As an aside, and separate from the Bobulinski interview, a former CIA operations office
believes it's entirely possible that Biden
was already doing China's bidding in 2012, when the Obama administration gave China free
rein in the South China Sea.)
In case the embedded videos do not play, you can find them here ,
here ,
here ,
and here
.
We've always known that Joe Biden is an odd bird. Just think of the lies, the egotistical
boasting, the offers to fight people, the skinny-dipping, and the way he fondles and sniffs
little girls. He is a genuinely creepy man.
It speaks volumes about Washington, D.C. and the Democrat party that Joe spent 47 years in
the swamp and rose to the second highest office in the land. What we've learned now, though,
irrefutably and without any Russian hokum, is that Joe Biden is also a profoundly corrupt man
who willingly sold out America and her allies to enrich himself and his sleazy, incompetent
family.
Fox News has not yet uploaded (and may never upload) the interview in its entirety. However,
the four videos below bring together almost everything from the interview.
Tucker opened by making the point that he was dedicating his show to the Bobulinski
interview because the rest of the American media are assiduously ignoring the story,
downplaying it, or claiming it's a Russian smear. The leader of the Russian smear approach is,
naturally, Rep. Adam Schiff, a man who has all the hallmarks of a conscienceless psychopath.
Ironically, it was Schiff's smear about Hunter Biden's hard drive that led Bobulinski, a
Democrat, to go public with his story.
If you can't watch the interview, here's a brief overview:
Bobulinksi is a former naval officer with a Q clearance. That's an extremely high clearance
level for people working in the Department of Energy -- and Bobulinski worked in the Navy's
nuclear program. He comes from a military family and is very proud of that legacy.
After leaving the Navy, Bobulinski became an international businessman. His expertise led to
Hunter Biden and his people wooing Bobulinski to give them the business expertise they needed
to get their partnership up and running.
The partnership, SinoHawk, was intended to bring together CEFC and the Biden family. Both
Hunter and James Biden, after all, brought nothing to the table other than their last name and,
with it, the promise that China would have access to political influence at the highest level
of American government.
Bobulinski's name recently became public knowledge when James Gilliar, another businessman
working on SinoHawk, sent an email to Tony Bobulinski, setting out the terms Gilliar had been
negotiating with CEFC. What caught everyone's interest was the statement that Hunter would hold
"10[%] for the Big Guy." Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was the "Big Guy."
At this point, Schiff, the media, and Joe Biden, none of whom ever denied the legitimacy of
the email, claimed that the whole thing was a Russian smear. This unfounded accusation got
Bobulinski's dander up. As a naval officer from a military family and a true patriot, being
smeared as a Russian agent was beyond the pale.
Bobulinski demanded that Schiff retract the insult, and when Schiff failed to do so, he went
public and did a full document dump. Bobulinski had saved everything -- every document, every
email, and every text.
That's the quick background to the interview with Carlson, during which Bobulinski said
that
Hunter and James Biden brought nothing to the deal other than the Biden family name.
What China wanted was the Biden family name.
Joe Biden was involved in the business deal, so much so that he had veto power over
negotiations.
In 2017, Bobulinski met Joe Biden twice when the Biden side of SinoHawk was courting him
to step in and act as CEO.
Bobulinski also spoke at length with James Biden, Joe's brother.
When Bobulinski asked James how they could get away with this kind of deal, which seemed
to be falling into dangerous territory, given that Joe could run again for president, James
announced, "Plausible deniability."
The Biden group stiffed Bobulinski, leaving him out of pocket for all his expenses while
channeling CEFC's money into another entity that did not involve Bobulinski.
If we had a decent media establishment, this story would be on every front page and at the
top of every news hour. Instead, Bobulinski is trying desperately to get Americans to know that
he is not a Russian agent and that Joe Biden was in bed with the communist Chinese government,
starting when he was vice president and continuing after he left the White House. This screen
shot from Memeorandum shows that
none of the legacy media outlets is touching the story:
A collection of confidential documents related to the Biden family mysteriously vanished
from an envelope sent to Fox News host Tucker Carlson , the host said on
Wednesday night.
Carlson's team allegedly received the documents from a source on Monday. At the time,
Carlson was on the West Coast filming an interview with Tony Bobulinski, the former business
partner of Hunter Biden and James Biden. Carlson requested the documents to be sent to the West
Coast.
According to Carlson, the producer shipped the documents overnight to California using a
large national package carrier. He didn't name the company, saying only that it's a "brand name
company."
"The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from our
shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing," Carlson said.
"The documents had disappeared."
The company took the incident seriously and immediately began a search, Carlson said. The
company traced the package from when it was dropped off in New York to the moment when an
employee at a sorting facility reported that the package was opened and empty.
" The company's security team interviewed every employee who touched the envelope we sent.
They searched the plane and the trucks that carried it. They went through the office in New
York where our producers dropped the package off. They combed the entire cavernous sorting
facility. They used pictures of what we had sent so that searchers would know what to look
for," Carlson said.
"They far and beyond, but they found nothing."
"Those documents have vanished," he added.
"As of tonight, the company has no idea and no working theory even about what happened to
this trove of materials, documents that are directly relevant to the presidential campaign
just six days from now."
Executives at the shipping company were "baffled" and "deeply bothered" by the incident,
Carlson said.
Carlson's interview with Bobulinski aired on Tuesday night. In the interview, Bobulinski
opined that Joe Biden
and the Biden family are compromised by China due to the business dealings of Hunter Biden and
James Biden. Joe Biden has not publicly responded to Bobulinski's allegations, but during a
presidential debate on Oct. 22 said he had "not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in
my life."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Bobulinski provided more than 1,700 pages of emails and more than 600 screenshots of text
messages to Senate investigators and handed over to the FBI the smartphones he used during his
business dealings with the Bidens. The documents detailed a failed joint venture between a
billionaire tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and a company owned by Hunter Biden,
James Biden, Bobulinski and two other partners.
While the corporate documents don't mention Biden by name, emails sent between the partners
suggest that either James Biden or Hunter Biden held a 10 percent stake for the former vice
president. In the email, the stake is assigned to "the big guy," who Bobulinski says is Joe
Biden.
_arrow NoDebt , 3 minutes ago
I heard Tucker talk about this earlier tonight and realized we are FULLY controlled now.
Whatever the **** is going on, whether this is true or not doesn't matter. We are just
unwitting participants in some kind of TV reality show now. Everything is meaningless.
lwilland1012 , 5 minutes ago
Please tell me he was smart enough to make copies...
CatInTheHat , 1 minute ago
Ok.
What was IN the documents and from whom?
This is an inside job. Probably a never Trumper at Fox. There are a few.
quanttech , 3 minutes ago
If Trump loses, Fox will go full Dem. Trump will start TrumpTV, and Tucker will need a
job....
btw, Tucker should get the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping us out of Iran for the last 3.5
years.
Nona Yobiznes , 4 minutes ago
This story doesn't make sense. You sent confidential, highly sensitive documents via post?
Because Tucker was on the west coast? You couldn't scan them in? Were they originals, and are
there copies? This doesn't smell right.
icolbowca , 6 minutes ago
Takes a special kind of moron to send something like that via mail...
"... Biden's campaign earlier this month said Biden never had a meeting with an executive at a shady Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while he was the vice president and his son sat on the board of the firm. A report from the New York Post, citing alleged Hunter Biden emails, suggested Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between him, the executive, and Joe Biden. ..."
Delivery giant UPS
confirmed Thursday it found a lost trove of documents that Fox News' Tucker Carlson said would
provide revelations in the ever-growing scandal involving Joe Biden 's son Hunter and his overseas
business dealings.
UPS Senior Public Relations Manager Matthew O'Connor told Business Insider on Thursday
afternoon that the documents are located and are being sent to Carlson.
"After an extensive search, we have found the contents of the package and are arranging
for its return," he said in a statement.
"UPS will always focus first on our customers, and will never stop working to solve issues
and make things right. We work hard to ensure every package is delivered, including essential
goods, precious family belongings and critical healthcare."
It came after Glenn Zaccara, UPS's corporate media relations director, confirmed Carlson
used the company to ship the materials before they were lost.
"The package was reported with missing contents as it moved within our network," Zaccara
said before they were located. "UPS is conducting an urgent investigation."
During his Wednesday night broadcast, Carlson said that a UPS employee notified them that
their package "was open and empty apparently, it had been opened."
"The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from
our shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing," Carlson
also remarked. "The documents had disappeared."
On Tuesday night, Carlson interviewed former Hunter Biden associate Tony Bobulinski, who
claimed that the former Democratic vice president could be compromised by the Chinese Communist
Party due to Hunter and brother James Biden's business dealings in the country.
Joe Biden has not responded to Bobulinski's allegations. Last week during his debate with
President Donald Trump, he said he had "not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my
life."
Biden's campaign earlier this month said Biden never had a meeting with an executive at a
shady Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, while he was the vice president and his son sat
on the board of the firm. A report from the New York Post, citing alleged Hunter Biden emails,
suggested Hunter Biden had arranged a meeting between him, the executive, and Joe Biden.
It's now possible that a special counsel will investigate Joe Biden should he win the
presidency.
"You know, I am not a big fan of special counsels, but if Joe Biden wins the presidency, I
don't see how you avoid one," Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
said . "Otherwise, this is going to be, you know, tucked away, and we will never know
what happened. All this evidence is going to be buried."
UPS did not provide further details about the apparent mishap.
"... Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land ..."
"Former Biden insider Tony Bobulinski allegedly has a recording of Biden family operatives
begging him to stay quiet , or he will "bury" the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's
overseas dealings.
According to The Federalist 's Sean Davis, Bobulinski will play the tape on Fox News'
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Tuesday , when Carlson will devote his show 'entirely' to an
interview with the Biden whistleblower."
"According to a source familiar with the planning, Bobulinski will play recordings of Biden
family operatives begging him to stay quiet and claiming Bobulinski's revelations will "bury"
the reputations of everyone involved in Hunter's overseas deals."
As The Federalist notes:
The Federalist confirmed with sources familiar with the plans that Bobulinski, a retired
Navy lieutenant and Biden associate, will be airing tapes of Biden operatives begging
Bobulinski to remain quiet as former Vice President Joe Biden nears the finish line to the
White House next week.
Bobulinski
flipped on the Bidens following a Senate report which revealed that they received a $5
million interest-free loan from a now-bankrupt Chinese energy company .
According to the former Biden insider, he was introduced to Joe Biden by Hunter, and they
had an hour-long meeting where they discussed the Biden's business plans with the Chinese, with
which he says Joe was "plainly familiar at least at a high level." " Zerohedge
--------------
First of all, Bobulinski is NOT a "retired Navy lieutenant." He is a former Navy
Lieutenant.
Well, folks, it's up to you to watch TC's show tonight if you want to learn about this.
Tucker's show is the most watched news show in the history of cable television, so the pain
should not be too great, pl
I don't watch cable TV so I'll have to depend on the objectivity of observers. I'll be
curious who / what is a "family operative"? are they traceable like a military
chain-of-command?
in related news, we can get a fix on the play between private / public behaviors & the
pace of Justice winding.
Tucker Carlson's show is my favorite news/commentary show. I try not to miss it. Because
of the fact that he seems to try hard to verify his sources--and the people he interviews, I
trust him. He also tries to provide guests from the left in an attempt to be fair.
He's definitely not a Hannity, who is the one who turns many off of FOX (though Hannity
comes right after Tucker).
Hunter Biden is the modern equivalent of the pre-Reformation papacy selling
indulgences. Cash in exchange for unfettered passage into the promised land .
Thank goodness the Federal Judge has allowed the lawsuit by the private citizen and
writer, based on the 1990s allegation, to procede without government interference. I'm sure
nobody will do that to democrats in the future. Meanwhile in the Flynn case the DOJ confirms
that the govenment documents and discovery exhibits are ture and correct. I'm sure Judge
Sullivan will procede expeditiously with granting the unopposed motion to dismiss that
case.
This story interests me because I believe he is the first to leave the sinking ship but
not the last.
There would be no reason for this if he thought Joe would win and the investigation would be
snuffed out.
If Trump wins there will most likely be a new version of "Let's Make A Deal" being aired on
the nightly news.
I am down to one package of popcorn. I need to restock.
Actually, indulgences were more akin to BitCoins. Especially after 1567, when His Holiness
the Pope finally officially banned them... but they had been still produced and sold in large
quantities. In France only Richeliue put a stop to this con.
Serve me my plate a Crow. Maybe.
He is saying now that he is 2nd generation military and that they pissed him off claiming he
was a Russian asset.
That is plausible.
Maybe it is both?
Regardless it seems he has a great deal of proof.
I was convinced during the interview. Bobulinsky seemed pretty convincing in his concern
for his own reputation, having been associated with the Biden "Mafia" in the first place.
It was clear during the interview that he had provided Tucker verification for his
claims.
I am more concerned that this revelation comes too late and that many, many people have
voted early. He referenced some hearings that will be held in Congress. I doubt that will
affect the election, given the slow pace of anything getting done in Congress. I voted early,
but I am not personally concerned because I did NOT vote for Biden; however, I am concerned
that those who voted early for Biden could not now change their votes.
SO, if I understand the situation correctly, Bobulinski was essentially sought after, used
and then screwed by the Bidens, which seems risky on the part of the clan. But I guess if Joe
wins the election, they will have gotten away with it as I can't imagine, in spite of any
damning evidence, the Bidens will suffer the same punishing rectal examination-like scrutiny
and vilification the Trump family's been subjected to.
Col Lang,
Hoping you write about your assessment of B and what he had to say.
I found him to be generally credible. All of his motives for singing largely make sense to
me. I think he's a patriot. Some good supporting evidence. He's sharp. I liked him. He's the
kind of guy I'd enjoy working with.
I don't know anything about the realm of international deal making and finance. I'm
wondering how a Navy O3 works his way to enjoying yachts in Monaco while making $millions. Is
he an Annapolis guy? Tight with the right classmates? Not a lot to be found on him via
Google.
He was no longer in the navy when he was messing around with the Biden familia. He was
probably in the Navy three or four years. He ought to lay off on that. I'll think it over
tonight.
Once Wray's FBI gets done with the Rusty Wallace Noose Case they'll have time to deep dive
the laptop he's had for almost a year.
Col.,
Bobulinski seemed awful polished during that interview. Almost too good to be true. Hunter
being a druggy and Burisma payments being real certainly lend an air to credibility.
Turns out Patrick Ho Hunters partner in CEFC had a FISA warrant on him when he was nabbed
in New York awhile back. His first call was to Hunter to seek legal advice and Hunter
represented him. So them scumbags in the FBI have been sitting on this for awhile and will
use it on Joe (if elected) when needed. Must be modus operandi at the FBI in gathering dirt
on all politicians via FISA's, Hoover is still there.
As with all of us Bobulinski is not lily white but is making an effort to clean his act and
those around him. Lily White always comes in degrees. Not much in the NY Times, Wash Post or
WSJ this morning but the WSJ deserves a little credit with McBurn's editorial.
Bobulinski obviously comes from a military family thus his harping on his Navy creds. Guess
when your in that much sunshine you fall back strongly on anything available.
I don't doubt his credibility and it's good that he at least got on Tucker Carlson to
provide some much needed answers, but he's not a known quantity and I have hard time
imagining his revelations will change minds.
I think the FBI sandbagging the whole affair is what holds back this story getting the
attention it deserves from the public. The president I'm sorry to say has been badly served
by Wray, Haspel, and company. I think he should have replaced them months ago and waiting
until reelection to do it may have been a mistake.
Tuesday night, we heard at length and on camera from one of the Biden family's former
business partners. His name is Tony Bobulinski. He's a very successful businessman and a Navy
veteran.
Bobulinski spoke to "Tucker Carlson Tonight" for a full hour. He told us he met two separate
times with Joe
Biden himself. Not just with Joe Biden's son or his brother, but with Joe Biden -- the
former vice president and the man now running for president -- to discuss business deals with
the communist government of China .
That's a very serious claim, and whatever your political views, it's hard to dismiss it when
Tony Bobulinski makes it because Bobulinsky is an unusually credible witness. He's not a
partisan, he's not seeking money, he's not seeking publicity. He did not want to come on our
show.
But when Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and the Biden campaign accused Tony Bobulinski of
participating in a Russian disinformation effort, he felt he had no choice. That was a slander
against him and against his family. So Bobulinski came to us. He arrived with heaps of evidence
to bolster the story he was telling. He brought contemporaneous audio recordings, text
messages, e-mails, many financial documents.
By the end of the hour, it was very clear to us that Tony Bobulinski was telling the truth
and that Joe Biden was lying. We believe that any honest person who watched the entire hour
would come to the same conclusion.
Well, on Wednesday, a
Senate committee confirmed it . The Senate Homeland Security Committee reported that all of
Tony Bobulinski's documents are, in fact, real. They are authentic. They are not forgeries.
This is not Russian disinformation. It is real.
Bobulinski told a remarkable story. Joe Biden -- who, once again, could be president of the
United States next week, was planning business deals with America's most formidable global
opponent. And when he was caught doing it, Joe Biden lied. And then he went further. He
slandered an innocent man as a traitor to his own country. It is clear that Joe Biden did that.
That's not a partisan talking point uttered in bad faith on behalf of another presidential
campaign. It's true.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's excuse for doing that? What is his version of this
story? Everyone has a version and we'd like to hear it, but we don't know what Joe Biden's
version of the story is, because no one in America's vast media landscape has pressed Joe Biden
to answer the question. Instead, reporters at all levels and their editors and their publishers
have openly collaborated with Joe Biden's political campaign. That is unprecedented. It has
never happened in American history.
Wednesday morning, the big papers completely ignored what Tony Bobulinski had to say. So did
the other television networks. Not a single word about Bobulinski appeared on CNN or anywhere
else. Newsweek decided to cover it, but came to the conclusion that the real story was about
QAnon somehow. This is Soviet-style suppression of information about a legitimate news story.
Days before an election, the ramifications of it are impossible to imagine. But we do know the
media cannot continue in the way that it has.
No one believes the media anymore and no one should. You should be offended by this, not
because the media are liberal, but because this is an attack on our democracy. You've heard
that phrase again and again, but this is what it looks like. In a self-governing country,
voters have a right -- an obligation -- to know who they're voting for. In this case, they have
the right to know the Democratic nominee for president was a willing partner in his family's
lucrative influence-peddling operation, an operation that went on for decades and stretched
from China and Ukraine all the way to Oman, Romania, Luxembourg and many other countries. This
is not speculation once again, and it's not a partisan attack. It's true, and Tony bobulinski
confirmed it.
Bobulinski met with Joe Biden at a hotel bar in Los Angeles in early May of 2017, and when
he did, Joe Biden's son introduced Bobulinski this way: "Dad. Here's the individual I told you
about that's helping us with the business that we're working on and the Chinese."
Now, written documents confirmed this is real. At one point, Joe Biden's son texted Tony
Bobulinski to say that Joe Biden, his father, was making key decisions about their business
deals with China.
CARLSON: When Hunter Biden said his chairman, he was talking about his dad.
BOBULINSKI: Correct, and what Hunter is referencing there is, he spoke with his father
and his father is giving an emphatic 'no' to the ask that I had, which was putting proper
governance in place around Oneida Holdings.
CARLSON: So, Joe Biden is vetoing your plan for putting stricter governance in the
company. I mean, and it's it's right here in the email.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, Tucker, I want to be very careful in front of the American people. That
is not me writing that. That is not me claiming that. That is Hunter Biden writing on his own
phone. Typing in that 'I spoke with my chairman,' referencing his father.
All this is spelled out in the clearest possible language in documents that Bobulinski
provided us, documents that subsequently federal authorities have authenticated as real.
On May 13, 2017, for example, Hunter Biden got an email explaining how his family would be
paid for their deal with the Chinese energy company. His father, Joe Biden, was getting
10%.
BOBULINSKI: In that email, there's a statement where they go through the equity, Jim Biden's
referenced as, you know, 10%. It doesn't say Biden, it says Jim. And then it has 10% for the
big guy held by H. I 1,000% sit here and know that the big guy is referencing Joe Biden. It's,
that's crystal clear to me because I lived it. I met with the former vice president in person
multiple times.
That was three years ago, and we still don't know where all that money went, because the
media haven't forced Joe Biden to tell us. But Tony, Bobulinski did add a telling detail. Joe
Biden's brother, Jim, saw his stake in the deal double from 10% to 20%. Was Jim Biden getting
his brother's share again? It might be worth finding out.
We also know that according to an email from a top Chinese official, this one written on
July 26, 2017, the Chinese proposed a $5 million dollar interest-free loan to the Biden family,
"based on their trust on [sic] BD [Biden] family." The e-mail continued, "Should this Chinese
company, CEFC, keep lending more to the family?" And indeed, CEFC was supposed to send another
$5 million dollars to the Bidens' business ventures. Apparently, that money never made it to
the business. Where did it go? A recent Senate report suggests it went to Hunter Biden
directly. And from there, who knows? Again, no one's asked.
Tony Bobulinski also told us he learned Hunter Biden became the personal attorney to the
chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, just as they were tendering 14% of a Russian state-owned energy
company. That was a deal valued at $9 billion dollars. It's pretty sleazy. It's pretty amazing,
actually, that this happened and no one noticed.
We're not going to spend the next six months leading you through a maze of complex financial
transactions. This isn't that complicated: Millions of dollars linked directly to the Communist
Party of China went to Joe Biden's family, and not because they're capable businessmen. Jim
Biden's one business success appears to have been running a nightclub in Delaware that
ultimately went under.
No, the Bidens were cut in on the world's most lucrative business deals, massive
infrastructure deals in countries around the world for one reason: Because Joe Biden was a
powerful government official willing to leverage his power on behalf of his family.
Now, if that's not a crime, it's very close to a crime and it's certainly something every
person voting should know about. The Bidens didn't do this once. They did it for decades. So
the question is, how did they get away with it for so long? Tony Bobulinski asked Jim Biden
that question directly. To his credit Jim Biden answered that question honestly.
BOBULINSKI: And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying, 'How are you guys getting
away with this?' Like, 'Aren't you concerned?' And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit
and said, 'Plausible deniability.'
CARLSON: He said that out loud.
BOBULINSKI: Yes, he said it directly to me. One on one, in a cabana at the Peninsula
Hotel.
"Plausible deniability." In other words, "we lie." We get away with selling access to the
U.S. government, which we do not own, because we lie about what we're doing. And as we lie, we
try to make those lies plausible. That's why we call it "plausible deniability." That is the
answer that Joe Biden's brother gave when asked directly.
So the question is, what is Joe Biden's answer to that question? We wish we
knew.
ForFoxSake!!! 1 hour ago Everything that is happening right now is because Trump was
right about the swamp, the media, and the ruling class families who have been selling out
America for decades. ohhappyday657 1 hour ago Tucker is doing this country a great service. The
FBI doesn't seem to want to engage. Mr. Bobulinski is a patriot and we are lucky he came
forward. The Bidens need to be called out for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Joe should be
impeached for his time as VP. Thank you Tucker. resipsaloquitor ohhappyday657 29 minutes ago
You can smell the desperation on the Trump supporters. The lies, the distortions and the
grasping, pathetic search for the proverbial Hail Mary to salvage the quickly sinking ship. If
Mr. Bobulinski is the best you have the Democrats will 'trump' you with: 227,000 dead
Americans, close to 9 million more infected and an economy in tatters. The day of reckoning is
approaching and a dozen Bobulinskis won't change that. Trump and his unseemly administration
are doomed.
" ... the former CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, which he said was the partnership between the
CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming and the two Biden family members.
"I remember saying, 'How are you guys getting away with this?' 'Aren't you concerned?'" he
told Carlson.
He claims that Jim Biden chuckled.
"'Plausible Deniability,' he said it directly to me in a cabana at the Peninsula Hotel," he
said.
In the interview, he outlines how an alleged meeting with Joe Biden took place on May 2,
2017.
Fox News first reported text messages that indicated such a meeting. Bobulinski said that
it was the Bidens, not him, who had pushed the meeting.
"They were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to
get me engaged and to take on the CEO role to develop SinoHawk in the U.S. and around the world
in partnership with CEFC," he said.
He went at length into how Joe Biden arrived for a Milken conference, partly held at the
Beverly Hilton Hotel, and how he was introduced by Jim and Hunter Biden to the former vice
president.
"I didn't request to meet with Joe" Biden, he said. "They requested that I meet with Joe
[Biden ]. They were putting their entire family legacy on the line. They knew exactly what they
were doing."" FN
-----------
Bobulinski is a successful international business hustler. I know the type well. The Biden
familia wanted him in this China deal for the purpose of having him hold the reins of this
enterprise even as they looted it for the purpose of quickly enriching the fam.
A TV commentator remarked last night after watching the interview that this defection from
the Biden camp is reflective of an old business truth which can be stated as "don't screw your
partner if he has enough material to sink you."
I am unimpressed with selfless patriotism as Bobu's most basic motivation in sticking it to
Joe, Jimmy and Hunter Biden. A sense of betrayal in a business deal wrecked by the Bidens'
overwhelming greed and their desire to consolidate family riches as fast as they could is a
more plausible. motivation.
This does not mean that Bobu is not telling the truth. His collection of e-mails addressed
to him and incriminating memoranda is most impressive.
IMO, what has been revealed is a truth with regard to the Biden crime family. They are
nouveau riche grifters who will have a much grander stage for their efforts if Joe is elected
as a presidential figurehead. pl
Did Hunter Biden's young business partners bring anything of value to the table, or were
they just name brand ride-alongs too. Archer, Conley, Heinz, etc. Biden was running a very
leaky ship, with such a large but relatively unsophisticated and compromised entourage.
I am, and I'm sure this is not an original observation, because it's as the Col notes,
singularly unimpressed with the entire lot of them. Bobo, Jim B, Hunter B, Duncan Hunter, Joe
B, Bulger's nephew, I've seen more gravitas among bookies, juicemen, and fences, that I grew
up with in NYC. And I mean that. Not a throw away line. And THESE guys will run the show? And
Harris I find singularity creep, artificial, and somehow just down right inappropriate. I
would not select any of them to run a post office.
I got a little tired of the man making so much of his "service to his country." Not that
it isn't worth quite a lot and I respect him for it, but four years... I served six years,
and what I dwell on is how much I loved serving in submarines and the enormous degree that it
contributed to building my character. The degree to which my service benefited my country was
trivial. It benefited me enormously.
Like you, I think he is telling the truth in that interview.
After 4 plus years of the intelligence agencies and MSM looking under every conceivable
rock, you think that there is anything left to find about Trump? You are delusional and
headed for a massive case of buyer's remorse if swiss-cheese-for-brains gets in.
Thank you for asking that question. I was about to ask it myself. My understanding is that
Trump's children are working for him as he is President for little pay. They may be still
handling Trump business accounts; but it seems they work for his White House office and its
many functions--and for his campaign.
I still believe in the American middle class, the people who make American run. These are
the people at his rallies, wearing MAGA hats, and showing up in overflow numbers.
They are not people who are easily swayed by "false prophets."
Trump keeps pointing out how well our economy was doing UNTIL China sent the virus (and, I
DO believe they sent it). He promises the return of that economy.
That is why Biden now is totally into frightening people about COVID and pushing masks and
social distancing. He is afraid that Trump will indeed be able to bring back a good economy.
He doesn't know how to do that, as is clear by this desperate attempt to cover up his shady
dealings with first Ukraine and now China.
Where I live, a large percentage of our population are clearly very tired and bored with
the COVID scare. We still do as our DEMOCRAT Governor, who hails from the People's Republic
of Boulder, Colorado, and the University of Colorado, where Socialist, Marxist, and Ultra
Feminists rule in the Arts and Humanities. We call Boulder "forty square miles surrounded by
reality." Unfortunately, the Boulder/Denver triangle contains the largest voting block. We
used to be able to count on Colorado Springs, but the universities in that area and into
Pueblo have also been taken over by the leftists.
What is also clear is that Biden's real hope was to build his own family dynasty by using
the Presidency as nothing but a cash cow for him and his inept and useless son.
I don't care really what Bobulinski's motives were for coming forward with his documents
and emails, I'm just thankful that he did. I hope it wasn't too late. And I'm thankful he
chose Tucker Carlson's show as the place to do it.
Joe Biden doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb for someone with a JD. To wit: why didn't
he just offer that he's given his son some fatherly advice about business now and then?
Instead, he's repeatedly and categorically denied discussing ANYTHING with his son about his
business dealings, which we now know is provably false. I'm no lawyer but I'd think Joe's
repeated lying infers a tacit admission of guilt. Deniability doesn't seem plausible in this
case.
I'd even go so far as to infer that Joe's gotten away with business dealings of this
sordid sort for SO long that he's become sloppy (e.g., the braggadocio ON VIDEO of
withholding US aid to Ukraine until its solicitor investigating Burisma, which was paying his
son $50-80 thousand per month, was fired.) He obviously has the [justifiable] expectation of
never being held accountable.
Did anyone else clock his comment that he wasn't being paid, not even expenses, for all
these trips. He said he was funding them himself, presumably until the $5M arrived.
Then it didn't but the Bidens got their $5M. The Bidens arrogance just piles onto their
stupidity. Did they really think that kind of operator would take it lying down?
With one foot in Colorado Springs, I'd like to suggest that you may be overstating the
weight of the local colleges in ColSpr's growing Democrat numbers. El Paso county election
results have remained fairly reliably Republican, if not by as sure a margin as once.
Population growth may be more significant mover, the high rate of in-migration to
Colorado, esp Denver. The seven county Greater Denver-Boulder area, with a population of 3.3
million, grew 1.1% last year, and has grown as fast or faster in the previous ten years. In
number, the Denver population has grown faster than anywhere else in the state. In the past
ten years the population of Denver Co alone increased 21%.
Colorado Springs/ El Paso Co. has grown quickly in the same period, but not as much as
Denver. The current population of 720,000 increased 16% from ten years ago. A good part of
this growth has been driven by Denver's growth and skyrocketing housing prices. A house costs
much less in El Paso County.
Too many Denverites are choosing to commute an hour+ from ColSpr to Denver, as seen by the
explosion of new housing at the north end of El Paso County and the now-daily traffic crawl
at rush hour on I-25 between ColSpr and Denver. Just try to get up to the speed limit on that
stretch. The state is adding extra lanes as fast as it can. It appears that Denver attitudes
move in with many of these commuters. Is ColSpr fated to become a bedroom community?
Finally, Colorado appears to be one of the places attracting migrants from the blighted,
overbuilt, overdetermined coasts. Again, newcomers arrive with attitudes from the places they
left.
I am hoping that the open skies and spaces, the particular self-reliance of rural
Colorado, and the more democratic openness to citizen initiatives via the ballot will mellow
their views.
This level of population growth and shifting politics, lacking a concommitant growth in
productivity of local biz and industry, is not viewed with equanimity by older inhabitants of
ColSpr. IMO It would be best if Colorado remained independent, with reasonable political
compromise and collaboration between parties, as before it has been.
Is a comparable dynamic underway north of Denver in your direction?
In reference to Trump's reputation as a grifter, I offer the following sample:
- He paid $2 million in fines and had to close down the Trump Foundation for using it as a
personal piggy bank.
- The Eric Trump Foundation was forced to close for similar grift. It was funneling money
into Trump family businesses and accounts. It's wasn't like the family directly stole money
from kids with cancer, but it ended up doing just that.
- His friend Bannon's recent grift with his Build the Wall Foundation, along with Manafort's
tax and bank fraud convictions, and Cohen's conviction for paying hush money for Trump's
sexual escapades.
- The sham Trump University was forced to close with a $25 million settlement to two class
action lawsuits and a NY civil lawsuit.
None of this sunk Trump. What it did do was inure the American public to the increasing
shittyness of our politician's behavior. Hunter's antics would have caused Joe to withdraw
from public life ten years ago, but today it's just par for the course.
-
TTG
My friend, as I have told you before, you have no real knowledge of practice in the business
world. Nobody says Trump has sold the US for his family's profit.
In the final debate, Joe Biden ensured that mudslinging and innuendo about Donald Trump
substituted for a discussion of what America's actual national interests are towards
Russia.
Final presidential debates have traditionally centered on national security, but the
October 22 showdown between President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden was
almost entirely devoid of any substantive foreign policy discussion. Instead, Biden launched
a fusillade of attacks on Trump about Russia that represented a seamless continuity with the
calumnies that many Democrats have directed at the president ever since he was first
elected.
The election is right around the corner and, as expected, it is not without its share of
bombshells. The most recent bombshells were revealed by the NY
Post , which detailed a web of
emails and transactions allegedly involving Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, China, Ukraine, and
others. Despite the serious nature of these alleged "transactions," Joe Biden has not been
questioned about the troubling information. Of course, from the perspective of the Democratic
establishment, there is no reason for Joe Biden to address these reports.
Specifically, if Biden is elected (and Democrats retain the House and gain control of the
Senate), the establishment could control Biden's future whether or not he is implicated in any
wrongdoing. Therefore, if Biden is implicated, this will only really matter if he loses the
election. As such, to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice, Americans must render judgment
and punish Biden at the polls.
"Thanks to Hunter Biden, there's no way out for his father .
"Even if Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee , is
elected president, damning evidence will continue to emerge that his grifter-son fully embraced
the Washington tradition of shameless influence-peddling.
If nothing else, Hunter is a monument to greed. An
ellipse should be erected in his honor.
But the unresolved and trenchant questions are: how much did Joe Biden know and to what extent was
he involved in the illicit (if not illegal) schemes?"
Joe will never answer. You can take that to his bank.
Biden, the elder, is hoping that he can limp across the electoral finish line by refusing to
respond to those salient questions and by denouncing the incriminating evidence as "malarkey"
and "a bunch of garbage." He scrupulously followed that script during Thursday night's
presidential debate. He committed it to memory (such as it is). He deserves, I suppose, some
credit for following directions.
With a lead in the polls, Biden will now surely retreat to his basement bunker trying
desperately to run out the clock until November 3rd. Does he intend to nap his way through the
scandal? Why not?
Time is on Biden's side. The disturbing revelations of what can only be described as rank
corruption have come too late in the game."
---------------
Teapot Dome, Grant's second term, the Corrupt Bargain, Harding's presidency, these were all
disgraces, stains on the honor of the country. Ah! Sorry! I should not have used the outmoded
and abandoned word, "honor."
"The Resistance" will now begin to have a different cast of characters if Biden wins. Would
Biden seek to use the coercive powers of the federal government and the states to destroy
Resistance mounted against him? In spite of the constant screams of "Dictator!" against him
Trump never did. pl
All the signs point to a Trump win, but I worry about Democrat cheating with the mail-in
ballots. There is a lot coming out about the processes in key states to suggest that the game
is rigged. For example, signature verification appears to be very poor. Counting ballots
filled out after Nov 3rd is another problem in PA and other states.
At any rate, if Biden "wins" of course he will suppress any resistance using every
tyrannical assertion of power that he can. Clearly, the federal bureaucracy will be happy to
assist, as will many of of the states'. However, it doesn't really matter because the lefties
would be more happy to have Harris as POTUS. So if Biden becomes debilitated or caught up in
scandal, he goes away and Harris steps up with someone even more radical as her VP. Win/win
for the Left.
There is honor among these people. That has been clear for some time.
Recently drove past a garden of Biden signs in an ultra-liberal suburb in Allegheny
County, PA.
One sign caught my eye and I turned around to make sure I'd seen what I thought I saw.
I snapped a photo of the sign:
white letters on a burnt-red ground:
"It Hasn't Been Great. Biden Harris 2020"
What does that mean? "Elect me to preside over a nation that has never been anything to
crow about?"
(Not even during the time I was its Vice President, or in its Senate?)
"Elect me to lead a nation that has employed me to govern it for the past 47 years but
that has never been something to be proud of?"
I am really quite frightened by the possibility of a Biden presidency. I am also quite
suspicious that it will really be another Obama presidency while joe is just the front
man.
But even more frightening to me is the possibility that Joe's condition, whatever it may
be, will render him unable to serve out his term and we will be facing a Kamala Harris
presidency.
How in the world did our country get to this point?
It didn't break itself. Who broke it? How and why did they break it? What are we going to
have to do to get it back?
Joseph Sobran: "In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to
teaching Remedial English in college."
We teach remedial math as well. During my undergraduate degree I passed by a class
(classroom building, so many different departments) with an open door and overheard times
tables being taught. I was astonished and figured I must have misheard but did a 180 to
eavesdrop outside the door, just to be sure. My first impression was correct. We will all
only be equal when there are no standards that the least cannot meet.
The country I was born into has been murdered in its sleep. The warning signs have been
apparent for a long time, but alas we did wake up in time. Sometimes when things break, they
cannot be repaired and instead must be replaced.
Don't forget the pollsters are paid for and they like to give their customers something
tasty. It's a kind of self-licking ice cream cone.
Saw a big Bikers for Trump rally here today and a somewhat smaller regular folks for
Trump. Nothing going on for Biden around these parts. And, it seems lawn signs are passe this
year, seeing loads of pickup trucks and cars with flags, 99% for Trump.
Biden's corrupt. His son is a crook. So what else is new? Trump's progeny stole from
children with cancer. Politics is a corrupt business. Neither party has a monopoly on
corruption or, for that matter, on *anything* evil. We're ruled by one party, the corporate
party. The Republicans and the Democrats are two fingers on the same glove. Forget the glove.
Forget the fingers. Watch the hand. It's reaching for our throat.
I hope I'm wrong, but My thinking is that if Biden wins, Antifa becomes the brown shirts
in all behaviours. Their role is to suppress resistance. In that, they will be supported by
intelligence from Facebook, amazon, google and twitter. The FBI will be deployed against any
right wing resistance which will be labelled terrorism and/or extremism. That will inevitably
lead to people migrating to "red" states. That will be followed by federal discrimination
against red states. You already know what happens after that.
I am wondering if antifa is going to try polling place violence, sorry, "protests" at
known conservative polling places to suppress the Trump vote? If you see that, you will know
what's coming.
My prediction is that Trump will win but it will be close enough for the dems/marxists to
claim they won. Look at Biden and the people he draws at his rallies and look at Trump and
his rallies. It is a no contest. The only reason anyone is saying that Biden will win is
because of the blanket media coverage supporting him and the polls, but we all know how
accurate the polls are when (a) they poll more liberals than conservatives (as happened last
time, during Brexit, etc etc), and (b) Trump voters are shouted down and made fun of to such
an extent that they don't want to admit they will vote for him come election day.
The Democrats will try to steal the election with the help of the MSM and the
establishment (all those bureaucrats who have come out against Trump even when he won the
election) and they have laid the groundwork for that. Imagine what happens if/when Trump wins
and CNN/MSNBC/.. and the other presstitutes announce that he has lost. It will happen!
The way the media has played with Biden asking him tough questions about milkshake
flavours etc, the MSM is in the coup attempt - they will be one of the main weapons to steal
the election. And since the Dems have already announced their biased/fake polls suggesting a
large Biden win, they have built up the cover to steal the election. Plus, after all the
votes have been counted on election night, they will keep on saying that votes sent through
mail will help them cross the line - a lot of which will be rigged votes. They will not
accept the result of a Trump win!
Stop Calling It A 'Stutter:' Dozens of Examples Show Biden's Dementia Symptoms
March 6, 2020
Save
Caitlin Johnstone lines up video clips to show how narrative managers are applying the wrong word to the former
vice president's problem.
I
t's
very bizarre and dissonant how there are currently two separate and non-overlapping lines of criticism going on against the
campaign of
establishment-anointed
Democratic
presidential candidate Joe Biden. There are the perfectly accurate criticisms regarding the
right-wing
,
militaristic
policy
positions of the politician Joe Biden used to be, and then there are the equally accurate criticisms of Biden's handlers and
Democratic Party leadership for wheeling out the dementia-addled husk of a man he currently is to run for the world's most
powerful elected office.
These two debates do not interweave, because they are not relevant to one another. It doesn't matter what political positions
a dementia victim once had; what matters is taking care of him and keeping him away from hazards, like sharp objects and
nuclear launch codes. It's impossible to know what actual political convictions still remain held within a mind that can no
longer lucidly string thoughts together anyway.
I hate doing this. I hate repeatedly writing about the obvious and undeniable fact that an old man is exhibiting obvious and
undeniable symptoms of incipient dementia. It isn't fun, and it doesn't feel good. But the alternative is lying down and
allowing the Democratic party and its allied media to gaslight people into believing it's not a thing, as they are doing
currently.
If you do a
live
Twitter search for the word "stutter,"
you will as of this writing see that word being tweeted multiple times per
minute on the social media platform as Democrats scramble to defend Biden from people who are accurately highlighting the
indisputable fact that the former vice president is showing signs of cognitive decline. In my interactions with Biden
supporters over the last 24 hours I've had this irrelevant word suddenly start getting thrown at me, because narrative
managers in
the
mainstream media
and
the
Biden campaign
have been aggressively promoting the talking point that Biden's increasingly frequent neurological
misfirings on the campaign trail are actually the result of a longstanding speech impediment.
This is false. While it is true that Biden has periodically exhibited signs of a stutter, the inability to hold on to his own
train of thought, forgetting where he is and who he's with, grossly incorrect use of language, and inappropriate behavior are
not symptoms of a stutter.
Difficulty starting a word, phrase or sentence
Prolonging a word or sounds within a word
Repetition of a sound, syllable or word
Brief silence for certain syllables or words, or pauses within a word (broken word)
Addition of extra words such as "um" if difficulty moving to the next word is anticipated
Excess tension, tightness, or movement of the face or upper body to produce a word
Anxiety about talking
Limited ability to effectively communicate
Memory loss, which is usually noticed by a spouse or someone else
Difficulty communicating or finding words
Difficulty with visual and spatial abilities, such as getting lost while driving
Difficulty reasoning or problem-solving
Difficulty handling complex tasks
Difficulty with planning and organizing
Difficulty with coordination and motor functions
Confusion and disorientation
Clearly, the symptoms of the speech impediment are very distinct from the symptoms of a degenerative neurological disorder.
What follows are dozens of examples suggesting the latter, most of which were
compiled
by
the Twitter user
@KoenSwinkels
. You
may be absolutely certain that Trump will not hesitate to highlight this growing mountain of evidence should Democratic Party
leadership successfully install Biden as the nominee; in fact both
Trump
and
his
Fox News cheerleaders
are doing so already.
Joe Biden is Jeb Bush plus dementia. Trump will be far less charitable with his symptoms than I am here, and if he's nominated
the president will make certain this story dominates news headlines from the convention until November. Anyone who wants Trump
out of office should fiercely oppose Biden's nomination.
1. "Make sure you have the record player on at night make sure the kids hear words."
Everyone talked about Biden's
bizarre
call
for families to make use of an archaic audio technology in response to a debate question about slavery, and
some criticized his paternalistic suggestion that black Americans need to be taught how to raise their children correctly, but
hardly anyone made a fuss about the fact that his entire answer was also a rambling, incoherent word salad.
It's easy to overlook linguistic peculiarities when they're spoken, so I made a verbatim transcript of Biden's complete
answer, exactly as he spoke it. There are no typos. Read it carefully, resisting the urge to mentally re-word it in order to
make it make sense:
"Well
they have to deal with the -- Look, there is institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved I
started dealing with that. Redlining. Banks. Making sure that we're in a position where -- Look, talk about education. I
propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title 1 schools, triple the amount of money we spend from 15 to 45
billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise that equal raise to getting out -- the sixty-thousand dollar level.
"Number two: make sure that we bring into the help the -- the student, the, the teachers deal with the problems that come from
home. The problems that come from home. We need -- We have one school psychologist for every fifteen hundred kids in America
today. It's crazy. The teachers are reca -- Now, I'm married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every
problem coming to them. We have make sure that every single child does in fact have three, four, and five year-olds go to
school -- school, not daycare. School. We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their
children. It's not that they don't wanna help, they don't want -- they don't know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure
the television, the -- 'scuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the-the-the-the phone, make sure the kids
hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background, will hear four million words fewer spoken by the
time they get there."
Compare this muddle-headed mess, and all the following subsequent examples, to the crisp, forceful way Biden used to speak:
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1235049620767555585&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F03%2F06%2Fstop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the, go, you know the, you know the
thing."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/S5y3XHIyLRM?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
4. "I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see help out, if not vote for
the other Bi- gimme a look though okay?"
This is so sad.
Here
@JoeBiden
says
to the crowd in South Carolina that he is "running for the United States Senate" and that if they don't like him they can
"vote for the other Biden."
I honestly wish he would've retired &
not subjected himself to the rigors of this campaign.
pic.twitter.com/mygFnsrdjC
8. Worked with Deng Xiaoping, who died 23 years ago, on the Paris Climate Accord during the Obama administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/MMGI18VaVOQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
9. "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BujyWqv_dRU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
10. Whatever the hell this is.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uIjYuIeEbAo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
11. We'll increase healthcare premiums and make sure care is not quality, only affordable.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8UY_8fXdvIY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
12. "Look, fat, look, here's the deal."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fbEJpr4A9mQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
13. "My deceased son was the Attorney General of the United States."
Here's a transcript of
an
answer Biden gave
to a question at a town hall. Read through it, resisting the urge to mentally revise it into
something more coherent:
"And so I was
saying that, and what they turned around and said, Joe Biden said, in effect, they said, that Joe Biden said that what he was
told, that what, that what the white supremacists argue, that we have no problem, that our, our, our basic English
jurisprudential system is not the problem. The problem is those countries like Africa and Asia and those places, they're the
reason why we have all these problems. So they turn it around to make it sound like that, and by the way, the title of the
article is, was, is the Washington Post 'The Deceptively (indecipherable) of Joe Biden Singles, Signals What Is Coming' and
that is that's a whole bunch of lies. The generic point I'm making here is that, what has happened is that, I know we're going
to get in to, whomever the nominee is of the Democratic Party, is going to have a plethora of lies told about him or her, and
misrepresentations and this went on the internet, this edited article, it got retweeted by some press people and then they
realized it was edited to make it look like something not white supremacists, see, Biden's acknowledging that the problem
here is that that all those folks, all those minority folks are the problem. And so, in essence. And so they corrected, they
corrected. You're going to see a lot more of it. You're going to see a lot more of not only my statements being taken out of
context, and lied about, or altered, you're going to see whomever the Democratic nominee is because that's how this guy
operates. Now. Whether or not I can win?"
16. "We choose truth over facts."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/15RjcRJ3Z70?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
17. "150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability."
This would be about half the population of the United States. Pretty sure that would've made bigger headlines.
18. Confusing Theresa May with Margaret Thatcher.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-6&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1124878887018684416&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F03%2F06%2Fstop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
19. Confusing Angela Merkel with Margaret Thatcher.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kt4Ds7jspdQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
20. "You're a lying dog-faced pony soldier."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TwVrg6UtxXQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
21. Rambling confused gibberish, including saying Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated in the late
1970s.
22. Fix the problem of violence against women by "punching at it and punching at it and punching at it."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9OYYNWBt1Sw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
23. Implementing a childcare tax credit would "put 720 million women back in the workforce."
This would be more than double the entire U.S. population.
24. Thought he was in Vermont when he was in New Hampshire.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/-1jqVXAbq2Y?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
25. Confused New Hampshire and Nevada.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-7&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1227704869114519553&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F03%2F06%2Fstop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
26. Said he was vice president during the Parkland shooting.
Biden left the office of the vice presidency in January 2017. The Parkland shooting was February 2018.
27. Said 1976 when he meant 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/CEvcYOkT-jE?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
28. Said he's looking forward to "appointing the first African American woman to the United States Senate."
Biden apparently received instructions from his team to tell debate viewers to
text
"Joe"
to
30330,
but these directions were too complicated for him. He wound up
sending
viewers to a random empty URL
which was subsequently bought up by a Buttigieg supporter.
30. Made, then dropped, claim that he was arrested in South Africa while trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-10&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1232879522523029504&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F03%2F06%2Fstop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
31. "Clipping coupons at the stock market."
34. Claimed he had the support of the "only" African American woman that had ever been elected to the senate, while the other
one was standing on the stage with him.
That's it for now. Let me know if I missed any good ones; I'll probably keep this updated with all the latest neurological
misfirings until this discussion goes mainstream like it should already be.
Before commenting please read Robert
Parry's
Comment
Policy
.
Allegations
unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other
commenters or our writers will not be published. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is
manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than
300 words.
RNC's national spokesperson Liz Harrington battled CNN's Christiane Amanpour for
refusing to engage with allegations of corruption against Joe Biden and his family after years
of hyping unverified Trump-Russia allegations.
"Why don't you want to report this? This is one of the most powerful families in
Washington," she asked. "And you're okay with our interests being sold out to profit Joe Biden
and his family, while we're suffering during a pandemic from communist China?"
Blaming Russia seems to be today's version of the dog ate my homework.
ariadnatheo, 1 day ago
I am disappointed that Russia once again interfered in the US elections without using
Novichok.
TrishArch, 1 day ago
Always Russia's Fault. Little wonder no one listens to biden.
The_Celotajs, 1 day ago
Like Russian President Vladimir Putin once said, Russia has no need to interfere in the
United States Elections when they have the Democrats doing it to themselves.
brianeg, 15 hours ago
There was of course an obvious Russian connection and that was the $3.5 million given by the
wife of the Mayor of Moscow to Hunter. Was this a birthday present or what?
Doodle_Dandy, 1 day ago
One wonders when Masha and the Bear will get the blame?
Former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski is going to turn over his electronic
devices and business records to the FBI and appear Friday before two Senate committees
investigating accusations centered on content from a laptop linked to Hunter.
"Tony Bobulinski will announce that he will turn his electronic devices and records of
business dealings with Hunter and Jim Biden over to the FBI"
Bobulinski, a retired Navy lieutenant and CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, will hold a briefing in
Nashville, Tennessee, as he attends Thursday night's debate as a guest of President Donald
Trump, Roberts also reported.
And both the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Finance
Committee will hear testimony from Bobulinski in their investigations into a purported
pay-for-play scheme that some have alleged also benefited former Vice President Joe Biden.
Committee Chairmen Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, issued the
following statement Thursday, announcing Bobulinski's cooperation Friday:
"As part of the committees' efforts to validate the authenticity of recently publicly
released emails involving the Biden family's international financial entanglements, we sent
letters to five individuals identified in the emails. Those letters were sent [Wednesday],
and the deadline is Oct. 23, 2020. So far, the committees have received a response only from
Mr. Tony Bobulinski, who appears to be willing to fully cooperate with our investigation.
"In fact, Mr. Bobulinski has already agreed to appear for an informal interview by the
committees tomorrow, Friday, Oct. 23, 2020."
Ted Crus: "This whole issue is not about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden by all appearances has
led a troubled and challenging life. This whole inquiry is about Joe Biden who wants to be
President and whether Joe Biden was personally corrupt," Cruz said. "One of the most striking
things is what Joe Biden isn't saying... Biden has not denied that he personally met with the
Ukrainian oligarch he repeatedly swore he never met.
Former Vice President Joe Biden used his son Hunter Biden as a "bag man" and got 50% of the
"bribe money" from foreign entities, Rudy Giuliani told Newsmax TV .
Appearing Tuesday on "Greg Kelly Reports,"
Giuliani, who says he is in possession of a copy of a hard drive purportedly belonging to
Hunter Biden, said the current Democrat presidential nominee could have used several "flunkies"
as a "bag man" rather than his own son, but instead involved Hunter in a purported bribery
scheme with Chinese businesses.
"Ten percent of the money that was being whacked up, that was $10 million a year, and then
50% of the profits with three Chinese Communists, one of whom was a Chinese intelligence
operative -- that 10% of that was going to H. for 'the big guy,'" Giuliani said.
"The big guy" has been identified by a Fox News source as Joe Biden, and Giuliani said his
team has identified Joe Biden by other means as well.
Pressed by host Greg Kelly for more revelations, Giuliani demurred, saying he has only been
able to look through about half the hard drive so far.
Giuliani said the hard drive -- which he noted has never been denied as authentic by Joe or
Hunter Biden -- contains evidence of about "five major federal crimes" and "$30-40 million"
going to the Biden family as bribes.
The hard drive is said to have come from a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop by a man
described by the owner of the shop as Hunter Biden. It was never picked up, and the original
drive was given to the FBI.
In one purported email, Hunter Biden complains he receives no respect for his work, but
tells his family he will not make them pay him "half your salary" like "Pop" did.
"This is not about Hunter," Giuliani said, but about what a criminal and "horrible father"
Joe Biden is.
"These are major bribes in which he sold out the United States to China."
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable
homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch.
1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom
Ch. 277, Frontier 615 orFind More Cable Systems – Click
Here.
"... The "real issue" is the elite culture that produced and supports Biden. Looking at the family, you can tell it's just a bunch of degenerate mobster politicians. They're not even good at what they do. Who's behind them? Who is pushing Joe forward? ..."
"... It's a vampire squid of globo-homo kleptocracy and militant neoliberalism. Unfortunately the only other contender is our ziostooge DJT. ..."
"... I wouldn't call it the "elite culture" but one created by the CIA/FBI. They know who's doing what to whom and for how long and they've got the pictures, videos and confessions to prove it. If those agencies aren't shutdown or cleaned up, it won't matter who we elect...they will control them. ..."
"... It's a "culture" because it involves thousands of people: bureaucrats, journalists, politicians, attorneys, businessmen, bankers, and religious leaders. There is a conspiracy, but most of these people instictively know what to do and don't require orders. This basic class of people has been in power since Woodrow Wilson was put in the WH by Baruch and House. ..."
"... The politicians are like the Intel Agencies' zoo animals. ..."
A few days ago, the MSM and their political allies in the Democratic Party celebrated the
release of a "compromising" photo
appearing to show former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani with his hands down his pants. Giuliani
claimed that he was merely retucking in his shirt after removing some recording equipment, but
nevertheless, the whole news cycle played out in full view of the public as social media giants
like Twitter and Facebook looked the other way, allowing the photo, and links to news stories
covering the controversy (orchestrated by "Borat" prankster Sasha Baron Cohen) to circulate
widely.
However, just days later, a Chinese digital media company has published footage showing a
man who looks identical to Hunter Biden engaging in a sex fetish act with an unidentifiable
woman (along with a photo purporting to show what appears to be the same man engaging in sex
with a Ukrainian prostitute). But instead of allowing discussion and links to the video to
circulate, Twitter has scrubbed all links and photos related to the video and story, and is
suspending accounts that appear to be trying to spread the video or screenshots from the
footage.
Some background: Late Saturday afternoon, a mysterious link surfaced on Reddit purporting to
be the vaunted Hunter Biden sex tape - or at least, one of the Hunter Biden sex tapes (whispers
about more footage have so far gone unsubstantiated).
In it, a naked Hunter Biden can be seen, smoking crack, and laying with an unidentified
woman, possibly a prostitute. The woman's face is blurred out, making it impossible to tell
whether or not she appeared to be underage.
Footage of the sex act is preceded by footage of Guo Wengui at the national press club
raging over a Chinese takeover of the US, "9/11 times a thousand," he says, before
transitioning to a screed slamming Western politicians who collaborate with the CCP, and
warning about the dangers of American kleptocrats falling sway to CCP "influence" (blackmail
etc).
During the opening minutes if the video, Hunter can be heard complimenting the woman on her
technique. "That's so professional," Hunter exclaims. "You can't even find that on there," he
laughs as he gestures toward something off camera.
A few minutes in, the man who is allegedly Hunter Biden can be seen firing up a crack
pipe.
The reaction on Twitter was swift. Users who tried to share the link and photos were quickly
blocked (even though Twitter famously allows porn and nudity). Some cracked jokes about Hunter
Biden receiving what appeared to be a 'footjob', while shrugging off the video as simply
evidence that Biden has been victimized by revenge porn.
Others simply noted the disparity in treatment between the Hunter Biden story and the
"Borat" revelations about Giuliani, and wondered aloud how Twitter might be handling this if
those photos were of Donald Trump Jr., not Hunter Biden.
Of course, twitter didn't simply ignore the Giuliani photo; the news became one of the top
trending topics (thanks to the fact that Twitter's user-base skews toward young leftists).
At any rate, the group that released the footage and the above-mentioned screenshot are
promising to release more compromising material, while the MSM and Big Tech rallies to Hunter
Biden's defense.
rtb61 , 2 hours ago
It is not like you were not warned before hand and could have investigated how Biden stole
the primary through postal votes, when Gabbard by proposing new legislation to block that
electoral fraud. The corporate Democrats are utter ****e, worse than the Republicans and the
Libertarians are way better than the Republicans and of course in the USA the Greens are by
far the best of them all (what a real political party should look and of course be like and
just corruptly and ruthlessly attacked by the corporate Democrats showing how truly evil the
corporate Demcrats are, denying Americans democracy).
Krink26 , 3 hours ago
What a train wreck. The real issue is his father. He sold out the second highest seat in
the land. And he'd do it all again if he gets into the top spot.
TBT or not TBT , 3 hours ago
His dad had the presidential level judgement to bring this mess of a person on Air Force 2
diplomatic missions to corrupt countries to be the point man for family deal making. Stellar
judgement!
Propaganda Phil , 1 hour ago
What? You don't want to see pics of Hunter smoking crack in the White House?
Didymus , 3 hours ago
The "real issue" is the elite culture that produced and supports Biden. Looking at the
family, you can tell it's just a bunch of degenerate mobster politicians. They're not even
good at what they do. Who's behind them? Who is pushing Joe forward?
It's a vampire squid of globo-homo kleptocracy and militant neoliberalism. Unfortunately
the only other contender is our ziostooge DJT.
Gerrilea , 3 hours ago
I wouldn't call it the "elite culture" but one created by the CIA/FBI. They know who's
doing what to whom and for how long and they've got the pictures, videos and confessions to
prove it. If those agencies aren't shutdown or cleaned up, it won't matter who we
elect...they will control them.
Didymus , 2 hours ago
It's a "culture" because it involves thousands of people: bureaucrats, journalists,
politicians, attorneys, businessmen, bankers, and religious leaders. There is a conspiracy,
but most of these people instictively know what to do and don't require orders. This basic
class of people has been in power since Woodrow Wilson was put in the WH by Baruch and
House.
palmereldritch , 1 hour ago
The politicians are like the Intel Agencies' zoo animals.
is a game and tech journalist from the US. Aside from writing for RT, he hosts the podcast
Micah and The Hatman, and is an independent comic book writer. Follow Micah at @MindofMicahC
It's safe to say that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president and current
presidential candidate Joe Biden, is having a rough time. After the contents of his laptop,
including details of his international business dealings, came into the public domain, it
transpired that the computer had been the
subject of a subpoena in a money-laundering investigation. Now, former business partners
are beginning to turn on him, and one of them has said that he's turning "
everything " over to the FBI and the Senate. Another one claimed that Biden was
consulted with regard to Hunter's foreign deals.
During the second and final presidential debate, Biden made a key mistake when it came to
addressing these issues. Instead of simply stating that he had no comment to make, he decided
to
blame Russia for the fact that Hunter's emails had been leaked from the laptop's hard
drive. Ah yes. So we're back to that old 'reliable' narrative. I'm assuming that Joe may have
missed the embarrassment that was the Mueller
investigation .
Maybe Biden doesn't like Russia. Whether he does or doesn't is inconsequential. It is a very
bad idea to blame his problems on a foreign power. In fact, it's not the proper behavior of
someone who wants to be president. Here's the truth. Hunter Biden's dealings across the pond
likely had some issues. It's hard to say exactly what these might be, because there's an
ongoing investigation. I don't think that Biden is so dumb that he doesn't realize that this
hurts his chances of the presidency. However, there is a big lack of responsibility here.
Blaming what's happening on anyone except Hunter is a bit silly. I'd even argue that it's
incredibly irresponsible.
What's even more obvious is the desperation. Biden and the Democrats in general want this
story, whatever it is, to be squashed. It's why you have seen so little coverage on
left-leaning TV networks. If Donald Trump Jr was in a similar situation it would be a story on
every single one of them, and likely the subject of a Don Lemon lecture or five.
What Biden may not realize is that when voters see something being blamed on Russia, they
tend to roll their eyes. It invokes the image of Boris and Natasha grabbing a laptop in the
hopes of finally grabbing the moose and squirrel. It's cartoonish. And what happens if the
worst-case scenario for Biden comes true and his son is indicted for something? Well, at that
point it's more than just a ' Russian disinformation campaign' . It's very real
indeed.
And this is where Biden could end up with plenty of egg on his face. If he and his son are
in trouble, then no amount of blaming another country is going to change that. And it wouldn't
surprise me if this becomes a major factor in the upcoming election. Why would you vote for
someone who can't, or won't, take responsibility for what is going on with their own
family?
What Biden needs to do at this point is come clean on what his level of involvement was, and
simply be a dad to his son instead of a politician. Then again, Biden has been a politician
longer than he's been a father, so it's hard saying which hat he plans on wearing for the next
two weeks.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
MakeAmericaFree 1 day ago The world is witness
to the blatant corruption and deceit at the highest levels of American government. Trump has
tried to clean things up and he has a lot more left to do. We should wish him well in those
efforts. I am starting to think Attorney General William Barr has capitulated though. Where are
all the indictments, Mr. Barr? Reply 14 ariadnatheo MakeAmericaFree 1 day ago Barr? The CIA
offspring? He does what he is told, not necessarily by his official boss SJMan333 1 day ago If
Joe is running against another regular Republican politician, Hunter Biden's corruption would
have been a non-issue. The US politics is a cesspool of corruption, money laundering, sex and
all forms of moral decay. Each politician is in it for self-serving purposes. Position, power,
money, etc etc. A big section of naive Americans believe their politicians are there to serve
the people's interests. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have a tacit understanding NOT
to cross a red line. They will never accuse their opponents of corruption. 'You make your
money, I make mine.' is their omerta. They put up huge shows of debating with each other in
public purportedly in defense of the people's welfare and benefits. Behind closed door, they
celebrate their loots from the nation's tax money and illegal brides from businesses in
camaraderie together. I don't like Trump. But his exposure of the alleged crimes of the Biden
family is something to be applauded, even he's doing it for self-serving purposes. DukeLeo 1
day ago Joe Biden is using Hillary's methods. Not wise. You don't use the same fraud twice.
shadow1369 DukeLeo 1 day ago Well the CIA have used the same lies for 75 years. White Elk
shadow1369 1 day ago Must be a bit worn out by now. Reply 2 shadow1369 White Elk 1 day ago You
would think so, you would also think that everybody would have seen through them by now, but
not at all. The CIA orchestrated coup in Kiev used exactly the same methods as the one they
orchestrated in Iran in 1953. The details of Operation Ajax are now publicly available, but few
bother to look into it. allan Kaplan White Elk 1 day ago Not worn out but perfected! Lois
Winters 1 day ago I am not surprised at anything Biden says after seeing his performance in
these debates. He is obviously a tired old man and relies on sheafs of notes with the same old
so called empathic statements to the citizens of America. It is a wonder that he's a
presidential candidate at all. After all the original candidates finally were eliminated, no
one but these two want this thankless job. allan Kaplan 1 day ago Now that the shameless "mind
managers" the msm propagandists are in the opens, we, the people (an old cliche) must start
making noises of holding these anti-American mouth pieces accountable. Compel to change the FCC
Rules to take away their broadcasting licensees, penalized those self proclaimed journalists of
zero integrities, jailed most of them, and never again allow such ego bloated nincompoops ever
to come near the radio and TV stations and banned them from entering any newspaper offices as
well. Other punitive measures must be enacted to deface and disregard these paid mouths of fake
news and disinformation msm Complex! I'm starting a business of manufacturing toilet bowls and
the pubic urinals with the faces impregnated into the ceramic of all those who exploited
American freedom of speech to advance their personal careers and that would certainly include
almost all the politicians and the tech giants etc. What do you think as a statement to test
the real FREE SPEECH?
there has been no gov accountability in the USA for any party since Abe
ponchoramic , 19 minutes ago
Only people who are genuinely interested in the skulduggery will understand the reality of
any political situation. The rest of the public will just scratch & sniff their way
through.
General public sentiment: It's politics, they're all the same. Bunch of liars. Lalala.
The Democrat party is an existential threat to the United States of America
Cheap Chinese Crap , 3 hours ago
And, no, I don't feel bad for R. Hunter Biden, nor is he a victim.
He is a WLLLING PARTICIPANT in his father's vast corruption schemes and lived mega-large
while the living was good.
The Devil doesn't steal souls. They are sold by their owners.
He could have walked away but he didn't.
And it makes me wonder how corrupt his brother was since that was Joe's fair-haired boy
until he died from spending too much time on a cell phone.
Make_Mine_A_Double , 2 hours ago
Yeahhhh, might have to revisit the autopsy and death certificate on that one.
Though Hunter didn't waste any time bangin' deceased bros wifey - what a fambly.
Anno Domini , 3 hours ago
The Hunter sex stuff merely illustrates that there is mega Kompromat on the Bidens. It
gets worse.
Here, just 2 weeks after DJT wins the White House, old Joe is recorded telling Ukraine's
leader to clean up the evidence BEFORE Trump gets wind of it. This is it. Pure guilt on
display-- it's always the coverup.
Means nothing without INDICTMENTS! Get off your keister and do something useful for once
in your life, Barr, you sad Swamp sack of garbage!
Totally_Disillusioned , 3 hours ago
The Bidens are so owned by the Chinese CCP it's almost unfathomable...and they are so
stupid.
aspnaz , 2 hours ago
Worrying about Russians while the CCP are infesting the country.
Totally_Disillusioned , 3 hours ago
Hunter is free and 21 yrs old and can engage in any sexual perversions with a consenting
adult. What he can't do however is sell his father's political influence to foreign govts.
That's treason.
quanttech , 3 hours ago
correct, and all the sex stuff takes the focus away from the financial crimes.
...For years, I watched one betrayal after another, as politicians like Joe Biden sold
out American Workers at every turn -- shattering the lives of millions of American families
while THEIR families raked in millions of dollars...
Excerpted from the book: 'Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party Is Reshaping
the World'
In 2018 the well-connected
Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin pointed out that China had been building networks of influence in
the United States over many years, and that the U.S. government "is preparing for the
possibility that the Chinese government will decide to weaponize" them to get what it wants.
(Although Beijing is not known to use Russian-style "active measures" in the West, deploying
them is only a matter of political calculation.)
One of the CCP's most audacious penetration operations, Chinagate in 1996, saw a top
intelligence operative meeting a naive President Clinton in the White House, along with
donations to the Clinton campaign made through people with ties to the Chinese military.
Beijing has been working to gain influence in the U.S. Congress since the 1970s. Through the
activities of the CCP's International Liaison Department, and Party-linked bodies like the
China Association for International Friendly Contact, China has made some influential friends.
Nevertheless, Congress has for the most part remained skeptical of China, although its voice
has been muted at times by the influence of "pro-China" members. The president, the White
House, the bureaucracy, think tanks, and business lobby groups have all been targeted by
Beijing, to good effect.
Democratic Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden gestures as he speaks during the
final presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Jim
Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Until recently, almost all players in Washington D.C. and beyond were convinced by the
"peaceful rise of China" trope, and the value of "constructive engagement." The common belief
was that as China developed economically, it would naturally morph into a liberal state. This
view was not without foundation, because the more liberal factions within the CCP did struggle
with the hardliners, but in the U.S. it reinforced a kind of institutional naivety that was
exploited by Beijing. Many of those who stuck to this view even after the evidence pointed
firmly to the contrary had a strong personal investment in defending Beijing.
The billionaire businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was a late entrant in
the contest to become the 2020 Democratic Party candidate for U.S. president. He is the most
Beijing-friendly of all aspirants. With extensive investments in China, he opposes the tariff
war and often speaks up for the CCP regime.
Former Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg addresses his staff and the media
after announcing that he will be ending his campaign, in New York City, on March 4, 2020.
(Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
His media company has suppressed stories critical of CCP leaders, and Bloomberg himself
claimed in 2019 that "Xi Jinping is not a dictator" because he has to satisfy his
constituency.
The
Washington Post 's Josh Rogin argued that "his [Bloomberg's] misreading of the Chinese
government's character and ambitions could be devastating for U.S. national security and
foreign policy. He would be advocating for a naive policy of engagement and wishful thinking
that has already been tried and failed."
In May 2019 Joe Biden distinguished himself from all of the other candidates for the
Democratic Party's presidential nomination by ridiculing the idea that China is a strategic
threat to the United States. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man," he told a
campaign crowd in Iowa City. Biden had for years adopted a soft approach to China. When
President Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was taking a tougher position towards
China's adventurism in Asia, Vice President Biden was urging caution. Biden had formed a warm
personal relationship with Xi Jinping when Xi was vice president and president-in-waiting.
Hunter Biden (R)
with then President Barack Obama (L) and Vice President Joe Biden during a college basketball
game at the Verizon Center in Washington on Jan. 30, 2010. (Mitchell Layton/Getty Images)
In his second term, Obama replaced Clinton as secretary of state with the more accommodating
John Kerry. The dynamics help to explain why Obama's 2012 "pivot to Asia" was a damp squib. The
United States stood back while China annexed islands and features in the South China Sea and
built military bases on them, something Xi had promised Obama he would not do. Breaking the
promise has given China an enormous strategic advantage.
Joe Biden cleaves to the belief, now abandoned by many China scholars and most Washington
politicians, that engagement with China will entice it into being a responsible stakeholder.
The University of Pennsylvania's D.C. think tank -- named, for him, the Penn Biden Center for
Diplomacy and Global Engagement -- aims to address threats to the liberal international order,
yet China is absent from the threats identified on its website
: Russia, climate change and terrorism. Biden has spoken about China's violation of human
rights but still clings to the idea of China's "peaceful rise."
So does it matter if Joe Biden has a different view of China? It does, because there is
evidence that the CCP has been currying his favor by awarding business deals that have enriched
his son, Hunter Biden. One account of this is given by Peter Schweizer in his 2019 book "Secret
Empires." Some of his key claims were subsequently challenged
and Schweizer refined them in an op-ed in the
New York Times (famous for fact-checking). In short, when Vice President Biden travelled to
China in December 2013 on an official trip, his son flew with him on Airforce Two. While Biden
senior was engaging in soft diplomacy with China's leaders, Hunter was having other kinds of
meetings. Then, "less than two weeks after the trip, Hunter's firm which he founded with two
other businessmen [including John Kerry's stepson] in June 2013, finalized a deal to open a
fund, BHR Partners, whose largest shareholder is the government-run Bank of China, even though
he had scant background in private equity."
The Bank of China is owned by the state and controlled by the CCP. Hunter Biden's exact role
in the company is disputed, but one expert has said that his share in it would be worth around
$20 million.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
However, the point here is not the ethics of the Bidens (as the news media have framed it)
but the way in which the CCP can influence senior politicians. This "corruption by proxy," in
which top leaders keep their hands clean while their family members exploit their association
to make fortunes, has been perfected by the "red aristocracy" in Beijing .
Cover of the book "Hidden Hand" by Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg.
In the crucial years 2014 and 2015, Beijing was aggressively expanding into the South China
Sea while Obama, Kerry, and Biden were sitting on their hands...
Exactly correct and some of the biggest enemies the USA has are inside the fence .
They include most MSM , "higher education ' , climate change con men , and all levels of
government
that are infiltrated or bought .
The intel agencies see the political gong show as theatre to be ignored unless they stage
a coup like the one on Trump .
Oldwood , 1 hour ago
Globalism is not nationalism. It pervades all economies, all borders.
This election is NOT a choice between democrat and republican. It is a war to retain
America as a constitutional sovereign republic versus capitulation to a globalist regime
comprised of unelected elitist organizations unaccountable to anyone. A illusory democracy
will remain, where voting will be simply a certification of indoctrinated themes and agendas,
and contradictory voices will be expunged as threats to peace and "harmony ", if acknowledged
at all.
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
In his second term, Obama replaced Clinton as secretary of state with the more
accommodating John Kerry.
Because there are some thing so distasteful even a Clinton won't do them?
Sinophile , 35 minutes ago
Neolib: Russia, Russia, Russia.....
Neocon: China, China, China.....
Redpilled: DC, DC,DC.....
Only one of the three admits the truth.
Russia did not destroy America.
China did not destroy America.
Washington DC destroyed Amerika.
Handful of Dust , 57 minutes ago
Allegedly, Bloomberg himself is in some of those videos of Pedo Parties with underage
Chinese girls.
The FBI will crucify a soccer Mom for trying to get her baby daughter into college, yet
ignores widespread pedophilia of some of our top politicians and their sons.
Soloamber , 1 hour ago
Biden was in political power the entire time millions of USA jobs were sent to China .
Pay back is a bitch especially when your kid gets rich from pay to play .
Whiskey Tango Texas , 1 minute ago
An anti-CCP group called "The New Federal State of China" is now releasing Hunter Biden
sex tape footage in order to show the depth of CCP infiltration and how compromised / owned
the Bidens are specifically.
Two China-bashing neocons getting an excerpt of drivel from their book printed in Falun
Gong's propaganda megaphone The Epoch Times - what an amazing coincidence.
Well, I suppose weekend Tyler must have bills to pay like anyone else...
East Indian , 1 hour ago
You may expose the hidden hand or any other part of anatomy, but people of America do not
seem to care or notice; if they ever notice, then that story is disappeared by the tech
giants; and if the story escapes black out, then a counter-story breaks, whereby America will
be caught doing the same things in China...
The time for taking a firm stand is approaching. Whosoever takes a firm stand will
survive...
Parrotile , 1 hour ago
Big drama! The Chinese are copying US decades-old policy!
Yes, Non-Communist China is certainly reshaping the World, despite the US's efforts to
stop them (which includes the US -made "China Virus" - NO credible evidence that there was
any "leak" from the Wuhan facility, but ZeroHedge just keeps on trotting out the anti-China
rhetoric to keep the Republican cretinocracy happy!)
America drops record quantities of munitions on those who don't bend the knee to their
"rulers", whilst China has the One Belt, One Road program (and by fortifying the Spratley
Island chain, has shown that they are very aware of how the US goaded Japan into the Pearl
Harbour incident.
China provides added value via trade, the US indulges in frank piracy.
When the end comes (and it will), may your God help you, since you may rest assured that
the rest of the civilised World will be cheering in the streets (and rightly so).
(This is the first in a series of articles exploring Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz's
business dealings with Chinese entities. Additional reporting and research have been provided
by RedState's Scott
Hounsell . Links to additional pieces are at the bottom.)
A nearly 60-page intelligence report dated October 2 and provided to RedState late
Wednesday, October 21 details the relationship between multiple Chinese State-Owned Entities
(SOE's) and companies owned by Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz (stepson of former Secretary of State
John Kerry), Devon Archer, James Bulger, and suspected Chinese intelligence asset Michael Lin.
Despite what Hunter Biden's attorney claimed in 2019 , Hunter started traveling to China
shortly before the Big Guy became Vice President and signed contracts with SOE's while the Big
Guy was Vice President.
According to Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Peking University HSBC School of
Business Shenzhen – who notes that he did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016 and will not
be voting for him this year – who reviewed the report before publication:
Lost among the salacious revelations about laptop provenance is the more mundane reality
of influence and money of major United States political figures. Ill-informed accusations of
Russian hacking and disinformation face the documented reality of a major Chinese state
financial partnership with the children of major political figures. A report by an Asian
research firm raises worrying questions about the financial links between China and Hunter
Biden.
Beginning just before Joe Biden's ascendancy to the Vice Presidency, Hunter Biden was
traveling to Beijing meeting with Chinese financial institutions and political figures would
ultimately become his investors. Finalized in 2013, the investment partnership included money
from the Chinese government, social security, and major state-owned banks a veritable who's
who of Chinese state finance.
It is not simply the state money that should cause concern but the structures and deals
that took place. Most investment in specific projects came from state-owned entities and
flowed into state-backed projects or enterprises.
According to the report Hunter Biden made incredible profits for essentially doing nothing,
including a tidy sum off of a copper mine in the Congo and another healthy bundle for allowing
the Bank of China to allocate its share of an IPO in Hong Kong to his venture capital firm,
BHR. So he's either the world's savviest investor or there are some
shenanigans/influence-peddling going on.
These activities were directed by people at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist
Party, according to the report.
The entire arrangement speaks to Chinese state interests. Meetings were held at locations
that in China speak to the welcoming of foreign dignitaries or state to state relations. The
Chinese organizations surrounding Hunter Biden are known intelligence and influence
operatives to the United States government. The innocuous names like Chinese People's
Institute for Foreign Affairs exist to " carry out government-directed policies and
cooperative initiatives with influential foreigners without being perceived as a formal part
of the Chinese government."
Balding, an American who lived in China for nine years, says of the report's veracity:
I did not write the report and I am not responsible for the report. I have gone over the
report with a fine-tooth comb and can find nothing factually wrong with the report.
Everything is cited and documented. Arguably the only weakness is that we do not have
internal emails between Chinese players or the Chinese and Bidens that would make explicit
what the links clearly imply.
Hunter Biden still owns a 10% share of BHR, (conservatively) estimated value $50
million
Hunter Biden served on the board of Heinz and Archer's Rosemont Realty, a large US-based
commercial real estate firm that was then sold to a Chinese company
A Chinese company affiliated with Hunter Biden acquired electric vehicle technology and
assets from two US companies that were in bankruptcy and which had defaulted on
government-backed loans
Suspected Chinese intelligence asset – and Hunter Biden business partner and
frequent travel partner – Michael Lin had official meetings with Joe Biden while he was
Vice President
Balding says this information is easily discoverable, that "there is no secret method for
discovering this data other than actually looking," and that knowing how the Chinese government
operates, the links between Beijing and the Bidens are very worrisome:
Having lived in China for nine years throughout the Xi regime's construction of
concentration camps and having witnessed first hand their use of influence and intelligence
operations, the Biden links worry me profoundly.
Whether Joe Biden personally knew the details, a very untenable position, it is simply
political malpractice to not be aware of the details of these financial arrangements. These
documentable financial links simply cannot be wished away.
Arizona Republican Rep. Paul Gosar has called for defunding National Public Radio after the
outlet officially refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal (while happily peddling
anti-Trump rumors for years) - calling it a ' waste of
time. '
"It's time to defund @NPR. This is appalling. #DefundNPR," Gosar tweeted on Thursday.
Gosar joins a growing chorus of conservative voices who are furious over the outlet's
decision to censor perhaps the biggest political bombshell in decades .
NPR public editor Kelly McBride
published an inquiry on its website Thursday from a listener who did not understand why the
outlet was ignoring the story.
"Someone please explain why NPR has apparently not reported on the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden story in the last
week or so that Joe did know about Hunter's business connections in Europe that Joe had
previously denied having knowledge?" listener Carolyn Abbott asked.
McBride responded in saying there are "many, many red flags" in an investigation carried out
by the New York Post, which last week published reports that were sourced from the alleged
laptop hard drive. NPR then went on to repeat claims that Russia is attempting to interfere in
the election.
" Even if Russia can't be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump
associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not
been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no
forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their
report have not been altered," McBride said, adding: "But the biggest reason you haven't heard
much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don't amount to much."
Her response included a statement from NPR managing editor Terence Samuel.
" We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories , and we don't want
to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions. And quite
frankly, that's where we ended up, this was a politically driven event and we decided to treat
it that way," Samuel said.
The claims that the reports are part of a Russian disinformation plot were dismissed by
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.
The FBI, meanwhile, did not dispute Ratcliffe's statements earlier this week.
FBI Assistant Director Jill C. Tyson sent a letter to Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of
the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to Johnson's request for more information
about the emails, reports around which have alleged that Hunter Biden tried to introduce a
Ukrainian businessman to his father when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration. The law enforcement agency
said it has "nothing to add at this time" to Ratcliffe's statement.
A number of conservatives and allies of President Donald Trump criticized NPR following its
decision to publish the inquiry .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
" Wow. Foreign corruption from a major party is not considered news for taxpayer-funded
#fakenews NPR, " wrote the America First PAC on
Twitter in response.
It came as Twitter and Facebook also announced they would either block or limit the reach of
the NY Post's reports. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany's account and a Trump
campaign account were also blocked. The Senate Judiciary Committee, as a result, voted to issue
subpoenas on Thursday to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear
before the committee after raising concerns about censorship and election interference.
Biden's campaign has
denied that he ever met with a Ukrainian gas company official, which was allegedly revealed
in a trove of emails that purportedly were found on a laptop hard drive belonging to his son,
Hunter, who sat on the company's board while his father was the vice president. The NY Post
also obtained a hard drive containing the emails from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Other allegations have surfaced in recent reports over the days,
including from a former Hunter Biden associate who confirmed the legitimacy of an
email.
"The Attorney General of Delaware's office indicated that the FBI has 'ongoing
investigations regarding the veracity of this entire story.' And it would be unsurprising for
an investigation of a disinformation action involving Rudy Giuliani and those assisting him to
involve questions about money laundering, especially since there are other documented inquiries
into his dealings," the campaign said.
TheFederalistPapers , 22 minutes ago
I work way too hard to fund these ****ers. NPR is owned by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) and sneak a peek at their Board of Directors https://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/leadership/board
"... There is no fool like an old American fool. Like Joe Biden, for instance. In the last presidential "debate" he called Xi Jinping and Putin "thugs." What does this tell you about the state of American diplomacy? ..."
I'm not even a US American but I recall deep my embarrassment when watching the vulgar
Hillary Clinton handling herself in the presence of Sergey Lavrov – around the time of
the excruciating "reset" event.
And today you guys have Pompeo for Christ sake! How can you stand the shame – where
do you get these people?
There is no fool like an old American fool. Like Joe Biden, for instance. In the last
presidential "debate" he called Xi Jinping and Putin "thugs." What does this tell you about
the state of American diplomacy?
Sure, Joe is trying to win cheap political points by catering to the abysmally ignorant
and savagely russophobic average American voters. But at what political cost to the country
he represents! And what exactly does this old American fool want to do when he says that
Russia and China will "pay a price."
What can America do to the world's supreme military power (Russia) and to the world's
supreme economic power (China)? Particularly now that these two superpowers are working
together.
How senile and stupid has Biden become! He stopped developing intellectually about 50
years ago. And now he never will.
The senility may be new but joe biden has always been stupid. One of the only people on
the planet that can stick both of his feet in his mouth at the same time.
A far more civil debate saw Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden make multiple
unforced errors, doubling down on 'Russiagate' and the Obama administration policies that
President Donald Trump got elected by criticizing.
Thursday night's second and last presidential debate in Tennessee went far more smoothly
than the previous one. There was still plenty of emotional manipulation to go around, however.
On at least three occasions, Biden changed the subject to start waxing worried about American
families and how they were coping with the pandemic, economy, health insurance and so on. No
doubt, these were focus-grouped by the best political consultants, but those are bold words
coming from someone who spent almost half a century in the corridors of power.
Trump would not let Biden forget that, either, repeatedly hammering Barack Obama's
vice-president for having years to implement all these hopes and dreams he was promising, but
failing to do so. When confronted with his record, Biden's excuse was "we made
mistakes."
"Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake," says a maxim attributed to
Napoleon Bonaparte. Over the course of the night, Biden made several.
Masks and Covid-19
shutdowns
Biden's first blunder was to admit he would shut down the country due to the Covid-19
pandemic, however much he tried to qualify it. Democrats have blamed Trump personally for every
single coronavirus death, but Biden's plan to deal with the virus amounted to what the Trump
administration was doing now, only with national mask mandates, lockdowns, and throwing money
at the problem.
Circling back to coronavirus relief later in the night – and trying to make it about
race – Welker blamed the president for the inaction of Congress. Trump used the
opportunity to argue that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has been holding up the
aid. When Biden claimed that Pelosi's HEROES Act is just waiting for Trump's approval, Trump
countered that it was a partisan "bailout" that would reward Democrats for lockdowns and
rob US taxpayers to pay illegal immigrants, among other things.
Promise of amnesty
Biden's response? When immigration was brought up, he promised amnesty and "path to
citizenship" to 11 million illegal immigrants within the first 100 days of his
administration, the very issue Trump ran against in 2016!
Under fire by Trump about his role in the 1994 crime bill – another "mistake"
– Biden made an emotional argument for decriminalizing drug abuse and abolishing
"minimum mandatories" (that is, mandatory minimums) in sentencing.
We should fundamentally change the system, and that's what we're going to do.
No doubt the Democrats will scramble to "clarify" what Biden must have really
meant by that, just as they did when he told an activist back in July he was "absolutely" in
favor of redirecting funding away from police.
Green New Deal
Leaning into "climate change, global warming" as "an existential threat to
humanity," Biden again pitched a program of creating millions of jobs by retrofitting the
US to green energy – including net zero carbon emissions by 2025 or 2035, he wasn't
exactly sure himself.
Trump called it the "Green New Deal" in all but name and mocked the idea of
rebuilding millions of homes with "tiny, small windows, crazy!"
Biden then literally committed to eliminating the oil industry, throwing out all his
previous careful equivocating on the subject.
"I would transition from the oil industry, yes. Because the oil industry pollutes,
significantly," he said. "It has to be replaced with renewable energy, over
time."
Perhaps the worst blunder was Biden insisting that "the character of the country is on
the ballot." In his universe, informed by mainstream media coverage, Trump is the Bad
Orange Man that can do no right and he is the one to restore "decency" to America.
"He called Mexican rapists, banned Muslims because they're Muslims," Biden insisted
at one point. He also said Russia was "paying bounties to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan." None of that is true.
At least he didn't repeat the "fine people" lie this time, though he fumbled around
with 'Poor Boys' (presumably the "Proud Boys" ) and called Trump "a dog whistle about
as big as a foghorn."
Making this about character, however, allowed Trump to bring up Biden's son Hunter and his
shady business dealings overseas – a scandal the mainstream media has worked overtime to
suppress. Biden's response was to claim Hunter did nothing wrong, citing media reports,
impeachment witnesses and "50 former national intelligence folks" who "said this is a
Russian plant."
"You mean the laptop is another Russia-Russia-Russia?" Trump asked, having brought up
the 'Russiagate' hoax earlier in
the evening as an example of how his campaign and presidency were unfairly targeted by
Democrats.
"That's exactly –" Biden started saying, as Trump cut him off with "Here we
go again with Russia!"
Trump has the uncanny ability to force people's true opinions and feelings out in the open.
And so, months of Biden's carefully worded statements and cagey qualifiers simply vanished on
Thursday evening, and he told America how he really feels.
That's actually understandable, considering that Biden is trying to ride the coattails of
Barack Obama, four years after the fact. He kept doubling down on the policies from when he was
VP, as if Americans are solidly behind them and Trump's 2016 election was a glitch that
shouldn't have happened.
Biden, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media may believe that now, but within two
years of Obama's election Americans had elected a Republican Congress, and Trump came out of
nowhere to defeat two powerful political dynasties – the Bushes and the Clintons –
campaigning against Obama's legacy.
Trump even told Biden at one point that the only reason he got involved in politics was
"because of you." Biden didn't get it. And thereby hangs a tale.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Nebojsa Malic
is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
Former Vice President Joe Biden sided with his top donor, the one-time credit card giant
MBNA Corp., against consumers on bankruptcy reform during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Starting in 1996, when Biden was seeking a fifth term representing Delaware in the U.S.
Senate, MBNA's top leadership began donating heavily to his campaign coffers. From 1996 to
2006, individuals employed by the company gave more than $212,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The sum was
large enough to make the company Biden's largest campaign contributor throughout his nearly
40-year career in public office.
The money would not have drawn interest, let alone controversy, if not for the manner and
timing of the contributions. In total, more than $63,000 went to Biden between April and
October 1996. The total was by far the
largest given to any Democrat by MBNA that cycle.
As Byron York detailed in a widely publicized The American Spectator exposé --
titled, "The Senator from MBNA" -- in 1998, the donations arrived in what looked to a be a
coordinated pattern.
On April 16 MBNA executive vice-president and chief technology officer Ronald Davies sent
in $1,000. Kenneth Boehl, another top executive, also sent in $1,000 on the 16th. And senior
vice-president Gregg Bacchieri. And William Daiger, another executive vice-president. And
David Spartin, the vice-chairman and company spokesman. The next day, April 17, vice-chairman
and chief financial officer Scot Kaufman sent $1,000, as did Bruce Hammonds, MBNA's
vice-chairman and chief operating officer. And John Hewes, senior executive vice-president of
MBNA's credit division. And vice-chairman and chief administrative officer Lance Weaver. On
April 18, MBNA general counsel John Scheflen sent in $1,000. On April 20, group president
David Nelms sent in $1,000, as did vice-chairman Vernon Wright. On April 22, John Cochran
sent in $1,000. So did senior executive vice-president Peter Dimsey. And finally, on April
26, Charles Cawley sent in his $1,000.
York noted a similar pattern emerged after Biden had won his primary campaign that August
and was preparing for the general election against a little known Republican. A review of
Biden's campaign finance filings from the time by Breitbart News
shows the money flowed mainly in $1,000 increments, the maximum then allowed by Federal
Election Commission guidelines.
Since Biden had sworn off political action committees in his bid to pass campaign finance
reform, MBNA would have only been able to donate through individuals under its employ. Luckily,
as the Wilmington News-Journal reported in 1995, the company already had a protocol in
place for exactly such a purpose.
"MBNA Corp. crashed onto the political money scene in 1994 by distributing more than $1
million in campaign contributions, much of it raised through carefully worded memos advising
its top executives to give to the bank's favorite candidates in Delaware and in key races
across the country," the article states.
The memos raised eyebrows among campaign finance experts, as they seemed to skirt the limits
in place on how much corporations could donate to candidates. MBNA defended its conduct,
claiming it had not violated any federal laws or forced its employees to donate against their
will. The latter, however, was viewed skeptically, as MBNA had not only requested proof of
contributions, but also reasons for refusing to donate.
"The memos were from John W. Scheflen, MBNA's general counsel," the News-Journalreported . "He kept records of
the contributions and requested confirmation. Instructions read in boldface: 'Please send me a
copy of each of your checks.'"
According to the paper, Scheflen requested in a follow-up memo "to know in writing who
wasn't giving: 'If you do not plan to make any suggested contributions, I would appreciate it
if you would so note.'"
Biden's 1996 campaign appears to be the first time MBNA made a concerted effort to see him
reelected. Despite having relocated its headquarters to Delaware in 1982, MBNA or its employees
did not donate to Biden's campaigns in 1990 or 1984, according to FEC filings .
Campaign filings dating back to Biden's 1972 and 1978 races were not readily available, as the
FEC has archived reports from more than 40-years-ago.
Even more interesting is that Biden was one of the few Democrats that MBNA favored with its
donation. From 1992 until its sale to Bank of America, MBNA and its employees never donated
less than 73 percent of their contributions to Republicans. The company's employees gave more
than $575,000 to see President George W. Bush elected in both 2000 and 2004.
Starting in 2000, when Biden took a keener interest in bankruptcy reform, MBNA's employees
began contributing to him regardless of whether he was on the ballot or not. That year, Biden
received more than $69,000 from MBNA, even though he was not seeking reelection for another two
years. Similarly, MBNA contributed more than $49,000 to Biden in 2004, albeit he was not on the
ballot again until 2008.
Although it is impossible to tell what impact the money had on Biden's views -- especially
as he supported efforts to tighten student loan bankruptcy laws throughout the 1970s and 1980s
-- it is clear that after 1996 he championed MBNA's legislative agenda with vigor.
In 1999, Biden was one of the lead
backers of an initial bankruptcy reform package that held many of the provisions that would
eventually end up in the 2005 bill. The legislation was a top priority for MBNA and a
conglomerate of other credit card and banking interests.
Biden, along with a cadre of business-friendly Democrats and Senate Republicans, labored to
pass the bill in the face of opposition from liberals and consumer advocates. Among those on
the opposing side was then-Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, a bankruptcy expert who
argued the measure favored companies like MNBA over working families.
After an intense back and forth, Biden's side prevailed and the bill passed in late 2000. It
was not signed into law, though, as President Bill Clinton opted to pocket veto the measure on
his way out of office.
Biden and allies were not dispirited, instead seizing the opportunity presented by the
incoming-Republican president to pass a bill more favorable to banking interests. They
ultimately succeeded in 2005 after MNBA and financial institutions bankrolled an intense
lobbying campaign.
The following year, the law's results were evident when bankruptcy filings fell by more than
70 percent across the country.
For all practical purposes Biden work as a well paid lobbyist for China.
Notable quotes:
"... So Navalny was "poisoned by Putin" and sent to a Berlin hospital so that conclusion could be defined ? USSR was so incompetent with bio-weapons it cannot create a lethal organophosphate poison yet US/Uk can develop VX which worked definitively on King Jong-Un's half-brother ! ..."
So Navalny was "poisoned by Putin" and sent to a Berlin hospital so that conclusion could
be defined ? USSR was so incompetent with bio-weapons it cannot create a lethal
organophosphate poison yet US/Uk can develop VX which worked definitively on King Jong-Un's
half-brother !
Then again China can develop effective bio-weapons which expose the E=West and especially
NATO armed forces as unprepared, incompetent, ineffectual and in Chinese terms "paper
tigers"
So more and more sanctions on Russia and more and more orders for PPE and other goodies
from China.
Russia is Post-Communist but China is VERY VERY Communist.
Putin apparently "interferes in US elections" but China simply buys up one of the parties
and owns the candidate and his family
During the years that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. was helping the credit card industry win
passage of a law making it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection, his son
had a consulting agreement that lasted five years with one of the largest companies pushing
for the changes...
It was a savage piece of legislation, and Joe Biden even worked to block an amendment that
would have offered bankruptcy protection to people with medical debt. The bill also blocked
people from discharging private student loan debt under bankruptcy. Total student loan debt
was under $400 billion in 2005; it surged in the wake of the law's passage and is now over
$1.5 trillion.
The bank was MBNA. I know from personal experience that MBNA charged a late penalty on
online payments for their credit card on the last day due, illegally calling the payment late
even though the Federal Reserve Bank has a rule that if you make payment before the cut-off
time on the last date due, your payment must be considered as processed that date. MBNA also
kept funds that should have been transferred to the state's Abandoned Property Fund, to boost
its bottom line while its criminal owners were trying to sell the bank to Bank of
America.
l. Joe Biden's compromising partnership with the Communist Part}' of China runs
via Yang Jiechi (CPC's Central Foreign Affairs Commission). YANG met frequently
with BIDEN during his tenure at the Chinese embassy in Washington.
2. Hunter Biden's 2013 Bohai Harvest Rosemont investment partnership was set-up
by Ministry' of Foreign Affairs institutions designed to garner influence with foreign
leaders during YANG's tenure as Foreign Minister.
3. HUNTER has a direct line to the Politburo, according to SOURCE A, a senior
finance professional in China.
4. Michael Lin brokered the BHR partnership and partners with MOFA foreign
influence organizations.
5. LIN is a POI for his work on behalf of China, as confirmed by SOURCE В and
SOURCE С (at two separate national intelligence agencies).
6. BHR is a state managed operation. Leading shareholder in BHR is a Bank of China
and BHR's partners are SOEs that funnel revenue/assets to BHR.
7. HUNTER continues to hold 10% in BHR. He visited China in 2010 and met with
major Chinese government financial companies that would later back BHR.
8. HUNTER's BHR stake (purchased for $400,000) is now likely be worth approx.
$50 million (fees and capital appreciation based on BHR's $6.5 billion AUM).
9. HUNTER also did business with Chinese tycoons linked with the Chinese military
and against the interests of US national security.
10. BIDEN's foreign policy stance towards China (formerly hawkish), has since turned
positive despite China's country's rising geopolitical assertiveness.
Hunter, Ivanka, and especially Kushner are essentially apples from the same goverment
corruption tree. The problem is much deeper the Biden Family of Trump family.
Former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski has confirmed that an email published
in the
New York Post 's bombshell exposé is indeed genuine - something the Biden camp
hasn't disputed, and that the "Big Guy" described in one of those emails is none other than Joe
Biden himself . Bobulinski also says Joe Biden was lying when he said he and Hunter never
discussed business dealings.
"My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not
any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and
offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post,
which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine .'
-New York Post
Bobulinski issued the statement late Wednesday, affirming that, contrary to Joe Biden's
claims that he never discussed business dealings with Hunter, the former Veep actually profited
from his son's dealings, which were undertaken with the full support of the Biden family.
Bobulinski claims cash and equity positions and 10% stakes in dealings were set aside for "
the big guy ," - aka Joe Biden .
Bobulinski said: "I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about
business" - "I've seen firsthand that that's not true."
" I've seen firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business, they
said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line."
According to Bobulinski, he was the CEO of Sinohawk Holding, a holding company partnership
between now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. and the Biden family. He said the Chinese weren't in
partnership for any kind of commercial purpose: they were there to pay for "influence" in the
US.
"I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were
looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to
use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came
from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening"
In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Joe Biden has labeled Hunter Biden's emails
as a "smear" campaign against him, and Democrats like Adam Schiff have accused these reports of
being linked to a Russian intelligence operation, even though intelligence officials have said
there's no evidence that this is true.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Here is Bobulinski's statement in full ( emphasis ours ):
My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate ; they are not
any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and
offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post
which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine .
This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to
my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and
individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce
those items to both Committees in the immediate future.
I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career
Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our
country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security
clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take
great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political
person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.
If the media and big tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I
would be irrelevant in this story . Given my long standing service and devotion to this great
country, I could no longer allow my family's name to be associated or tied to Russian
disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.
After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around
the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands
down, we live in the greatest country in the world.
What I am outlining is fact . I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of
Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman
Ye and the Biden family . I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and
Hunter Biden. The reference to "the Big Guy" in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in
fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other "JB" referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe's
brother.
Hunter Biden called his dad 'the Big Guy' or 'my Chairman,' and frequently referenced
asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing .
I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I've seen
firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business, they said they were
putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were
looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to
use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came
from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me -- it made me realize the
Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even
though they told me they hadn't and wouldn't do that to their partners.
I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can
go back to being irrelevant -- and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those
questions for them.
I don't have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew
concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to
make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist
controlled China.
God Bless America!!!!
All of which will likely be "muted" in tonight's highly anticipated debate.
Truther , 2 hours ago
So, a presidential candidate with 47 years of non-accomplishments, turns out to be a
CCP minion...
jumpnjon , 2 hours ago
And the amazing thing is they can't see how idiotic they are. Or they are just plain
EVIL.
FreeMoney , 2 hours ago
It is TDS or NPC "orange man bad."
No Democrat is voting FOR Biden. He is obviously corrupt and sun downing.
Trump is partially trying to wreck the existing system by eliminating regulation, and
unwinding bad trade or military support deals. He shoots holes in just about every
international organization that the lefties all love unconditionally, UN? WHO? NATO? WTO?
while openly discussing tearing apart the lefties favorite charity of open boarders,
unlimited welfare, and permanent communist voter block creation.
Democrats are voting against Trump.
Deck , 1 hour ago
The blind delusion and hypocrisy of trumptards never ends.
Which one of you MAGA-bots want to talk about Ivanka getting sweet business deals in
China when she flew there on your dime?
Which one of you wants to talk about trumps deals there, or Kushner's cushy job where
he has influenced policy that has harmed your families and communities?
Which one of you wants to talk about Trump's Chinese dealing or the taxes he pays
there, or that he sells EOs and state department favors at $250,000 a pop out of Mara
Lago?
Non of you care about these things, because both sides do them. The only reason you're
talking about this you want YOUR corrupt guy in there, but the reality is showing
favoritism to kids is as old as time, in politics and in the private sector.
Leroy Whitby , 1 hour ago
In the Biden family, they are both stupid and evil. They are nowhere near as smart as
the Obamas or Clintons. The Clintons are just evil. They have heard right and wrong at
church and otherwise, and chose to sell out their nation...
HellKitty , 1 hour ago
I am still having a hard time to understand why Biden Jr, left his MacBook (not only
one, but 3!) at the repair shop and never picked them up. I wish some criminal
psychologist stand up and explain that irrational behaviour.
Stormtrooper , 53 minutes ago
He was probably high on crack-cocaine when he dropped them off and couldn't remember
where he took them
AutoLode , 52 minutes ago
If hunter is making millions upon millions can't he buy a new MacBook Pro or dozens of
them if he's prone to spilling stuff on them
and none of his partners are smart enough to tell him to not let go of his hard drives
?
weird
CallingDrFraudschi , 1 hour ago
In order to make an equivalent analogy, you'd have to figure out a way to become
business partners with people in Ukraine and in China and make a personal profit from
leveraging your political connections all the while selling away the livelihoods of the
Americans you purport to support.
Whilst you may not like the way Trump files & "pays" taxes, it's all legal within
the tax code framework here in the US. Selling out your country for millions to Ukraine
& China however IS NOT.
That's treason and sedition!
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 1 hour ago
A WWE wrestling match. If you pretend it is anything else you are deluded.
Trump gets 4 more years, unless he demands more in exchange for putting up with the
abuse that Deep State is prepared to pay. Hence the delay in releasing final election
results. For now, it has to appear that it could go either way.
You think Deep State did not already know what the Bidens and the rest of the Obama
crew were up to in 2008-16? Of course they did... the extra grift they collect is part of
the reward system for doing as they are told.
DefinitelyNotAFed , 2 hours ago
The Clintons are more corrupt than the Biden's. So far, there is no evidence of human
trafficking of the kind the Clintons were/are involved in.
The Biden's real crime is being dumber and getting caught in their treasonous
corruption.
Pandelis , 43 minutes ago
Bobby Kennedy knew what he was up to and still continued on his fight. John might not
have known the full extent of what he was up against, but Bobby certainly did because he
saw what happened to his brother etc. It is a long subject it seems to me you are not as
tuned in as you think you are... there is plenty out there to read and learn the truth
from.
On trump's minions "communications logged, travel, meeting logged" ... for what??
anybody cares or able to check on them ... get real.
do they have a security clearance ... ever ask WHY was not able to obtain one?
without a security clearance and to have the power of the White House beyond you is
really corrupt to me ... a bag of money is nothing, here we are talking billions and
trillions
Ex-Oligarch , 1 hour ago
There's nothing "dirty" about exposing your competitor's misdeeds.
It is "fighting dirty" to accuse your competitor of things he didn't actually do .
There doesn't seem to be much dispute that the emails are genuine.
Also, the media seems to be starting up a counter-narrative that Trump should be
focusing on policy disputes rather than Biden's corruption. But Biden himself has been
avoiding policy issues because his party is split between far-left extremists and
moderates, and he can't afford to alienate either one. He has flip-flopped over and over
trying to appease both constituencies. Instead, his strategy has been to present a choice
of personalities, in the hope that the public is so fatigued from the constant hostility
directed towards Trump and the president's rough style that they will opt for him
instead, regardless of his policy positions.
knightowl77 , 1 hour ago
Except that the media was FINE with the Dems investigating Trump for 4 years for his
Alleged misdeeds.....the misdeeds that were actually done by Klinton & Hiden.
They even impeached Trump for allegedly doing what Biden actually did in the
Ukraine...This FARCE has gone on long enough, and It ALL must be exposed to the public
Now!
For 4 years they have accused Trump of everything that they themselves have actually
done. ENOUGH!
FreedomWriter , 43 minutes ago
That's a pretty weak strategy for Creepy Joe. Do you think it will stand up when his
son is arrested for CP possession, sexual assault, corruption, and human trafficking?
But then again, we are talking about Dem voters here.
gordo , 59 minutes ago
Hunter's laptop reveals
Joe Biden gets a 10-50% cut of the loot
Hunter banged his 14 year old niece Natalie while smoking his crack pipe and texted Joe
about it.
Joe Biden gets a cut of the Burisma loot
Joe Biden gets a cut of the Chinese loot
The CCP has all the dirt on Joe that makes Epstein look like amateur hour.|
Lesley Stahl "DISCREDITED HERSELF" She repeatedly cited the Senate GOP Report on Biden corruption
@realDonaldTrump : "Do you think it's OK for the mayor of Moscow's
wife to give him millions?" Lesley falsely says "no real evidence of that" It's in the VERY report she cites! 225K views 0:02
/ 2:14 1.4K 11.3K 25K
NPR covered the fake Steele Dossier. But won't cover the real Hunter Biden emails. "Journalism." Quote Tweet NPR Public Editor
@NPRpubliceditor · 12h Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's
newsletter https:// tinyurl.com/y67vlzj2 Show this thread
THREAD. Lesley Stahl's completely ignorant and partisan and indefensible performance in this interview is an embarrassment to
journalists, while also very typical of journalists. Quote Tweet Byron York @ByronYork · 10h In '60 Minutes' interview, Trump
says the Obama administration 'spied on my campaign.' Leslie Stahl tells him, 'There's no real evidence of that.' 1/3 https://
facebook.com/153080620724/p osts/10165668067695725 Show this thread 1.3K 9.5K 21.2K
How would you like to run for president against an incumbent who did so well on foreign policy that the debates don't even need
to include that topic? That's actually happening. 349 6K 20.8K
Last night, Hunter Biden's business partner went *on the record* about corrupt foreign business deals involving the Democrat nominee
for President of the United States. How many mentions did the story get on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS this morning? ZERO. 2K
10K 20.1K
"Chinese Energy Firm Gives Biden Crime Family $5 Million "Interest-Free" Loan Through
Investment Vehicle Described as 'Consulting Fees' to Hunter Biden."
That Hunter must be a brilliant guy! He's being paid a fortune to sit on boards and
provide consulting to a number of institutions all over the world!
Enraged , 10 hours ago
An email dated May 15, 2017 sent from Jim, Joe's brother, to Hunter and his team revealed
the list of key domestic contacts for phase one target projects in the Biden family business:
Harris, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.;
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo;
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio; former Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe.
So, Joe... all of those incriminating emails on your son's laptop aren't proof of
"profiting off your family name", huh?
The lying never ceases with these wretches. It's all they know how to do.
Their father in hell awaits them all.
HANGTHEOWL , 2 hours ago
They know to just keep lying,,the media will cover for them and so will the
government,,,both sides will,,even though they will make it seem like they are doing
something about it,,,,,
snatchpounder , 2 hours ago
Yes the Biden crime family has years of experience yet Boobus Americanus will dutifully
line up and vote for the demented old crook.
radical-extremist , 2 hours ago
Because they know they're protected by the Democrat Media Complex.
Reaper , 3 hours ago
Hunter was his father's bagman.
Bay of Pigs , 2 hours ago
Joe's denial isn't going to work. Why?
Evidence, that's why.
markar , 1 hour ago
Hunter used daddie's name to bilk the poor Sioux tribe out of $60 mill in a fraudulent
bond deal. His partner Cooney took the fall and is now in prison for it. He's spilling the
beans. The other partner in the scam, Devon Archer lost his appeal and is going to prison in
Jan for the same crime. Where's Hunter?
BOOM! Rudy Giuliani Drops a Bomb -- Joe Biden Broke the Law by NOT Notifying Officials of
Hunter's Naked Crack Smoking and Sexual Abuse of Minors (VIDEO
In a Tuesday interview, former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that there was no basis
"whatsoever" to claims that his son, Hunter, profited off the family name .
When asked local Wisconsin TV station WISN if there was any legitimacy to comments by Sen.
Ron Johnson (R-WI) that Hunter " together with other Biden family members, profited off the
Biden name ," the former Vice President replied " None whatsoever, " adding (without finishing
the sentence) " This is the same garbage Rudy Giuliani, Trump's henchman... "
"It's the last ditch effort in this desperate campaign to smear me and my family."
Except, Hunter admitted he profited off his family name!
"If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of
Burisma?" asked ABC News ' Amy Robach in an October 15, 2019 interview.
"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," said Hunter. " I don't think that
there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden ," he
added, " because my dad was Vice President of the United States. "
"There's literally nothing, as a young man or as a full-grown adult that -- my father in
some way hasn't had influence over."
What's more, the former President of Poland and Burisma board member Aleksander Kwasniewski
said last
November that Hunter was picked to sit on the company's board because of his name .
"I understand that if someone asks me to be part of some project it's not only because I'm
so good, it's also because I am Kwasniewski and I am a former president of Poland. ... Being
Biden is not bad. It's a good name ," he said.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Let's also not glaze over the fact that both Joe and Hunter said that Joe had 'no knowledge'
of Hunter's international business dealings, while recently released emails from Hunter's
laptop prove that Hunter 'introduced' Joe to a top Burisma executive - a meeting Biden's camp
says never happened. Joe also met with a
CCP-linked delegation of Chinese investors arranged by Hunter and his business partners,
according to emails released by imprisoned ex-Hunter business associate, Bevan Cooney.
Banana Republican , 3 hours ago
I'll tell ya Joe -- it's not Hunter we're after. It's you.
And you're about to meet your well-deserved demise.
ALLLIVESSPLATTER , 3 hours ago
Isn't that what they said about Hillary.
Banana Republican , 3 hours ago
Good point. Then again, we don't hear much from her these days.
Awakened Saxon , 3 hours ago
Still alive. Still rich. Still unpunished. Still out of prison.
She won.
Joeman34 , 3 hours ago
BS, the fact that she never realized her ultimate dream of becoming President is proof
she lost. Fine, she's rich and she's not in prison where she should be. At least history
isn't tainted by another Clinton presidency. I still hold out hope her, and Bill's, day
of reckoning will come. It's just taking a lot longer than it should.
BorisTheBlade , 2 hours ago
Losing power for power-hungry people is a very punishment. She imagined herself first
female president and got her desire crushed. That must've hurt quite a bit, not that I
sympathize given how many people she crushed.
Biden's global pay for play schemes using his drug addict son as bagman spanned Ukraine,
Romania, Poland, Kazakhstan, and the grand daddy of all, China makes him a national security
risk. The fact he's this close to being president is a sad commentary on how far the country
has fallen into the abyss.
DefendYourBase4 , 51 minutes ago
what is sad is the FBI do nothing. The FBI is a criminal organization as far as i am
concerned, and they are not to be taken seriously. ive already had multiple visits with them
and i laugh in their face
markar , 1 hour ago
Joe Biden was the architect of a 1986 crime bill that specifically targeted Blacks with
very stiff sentences for small amounts of crack cocaine. Biden is the spawn of the KKK and a
long time racist. Look up his vile comments over the years including recently. That BLM
supports this scumbag is proof they care little about the well being of Black people.
Things just took a very dark turn in the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
While the alleged crack, cronyism, corruption was enough to spark the biggest media
suppression in history, and no denials whatsoever from the Biden camp, the bombshell that Rudy
Giuliani just dropped, if true, is egregious to say the least (not just with regard Hunter
Biden but the law enforcement authorities who have allegedly had this information since before
Trump's impeachment but done nothing about it).
In an interview this evening with Newsmax TV, former NYC Mayor and current attorney to
President Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani announces he has turned over Hunter Biden's laptop
hard-drive to Delaware State Police due to pictures of underage girls and inappropriate text
messages.
In one of the texts, Hunter Biden allegedly says to his sister-in-law (also his lover) that
he face-timed a 14-year-old girl while naked and doing crack - "she told my therapist that I
was sexually inappropriate."
Giuliani adds, "this would be with regard an unnamed 14 year old girl," adding that "this is
supported by numerous pictures of underage girls."
Watch the full interview below (the above exchange begins around 5:20):
https://www.youtube.com/embed/coFx3ZDXWrg
Furthermore,
JustTheNews' John Solomon reports that former New York Police Department commissioner
Bernard Kerik joined him when he delivered photographs and text messages to the New Castle
County Police Department.
"I told them other details about what appears to be an inappropriate sexual relationship,"
he said in an interview. "They told me it would be investigated."
Law enforcement officials in Delaware told
Just the News that Giuliani's concerns have been forwarded to the state Department of
Justice.
"The FBI has had this for a long time," Giuliani said.
"No indication they did anything about this, so I went to the local police and said, 'What
are you going to do about this?'"
Perhaps the most damning statement from Giuliani, with regard the election, was the former
mayor alleging that:
"I will tell you the evidence I gave them states it was reported to Joe Biden. What did he
do about it?"
Before this is wholly dismissed as yet more Russian disinformation or 'Giuliani' lies, we
remind readers that
we previously reported that Hunter Biden's alleged laptop contents included a curious piece
of evidence - a photograph of an FBI subpoena which bears the signature of the agency's top
child porn investigator, special agent Joshua Wilson.
FBI agent Wilson's identity was confirmed by both
Western Journal and
Business Insider , the latter of which compared his signature to a 2012 criminal complaint
and concluded that it "clearly matches the unreversed signature on the subpoena published by
the New York Post ."
As BI notes:
It's unclear whether the FBI employs more than one agent named Joshua Wilson. But the
available evidence seems to show **the Joshua Wilson who signed the subpoena for Hunter
Biden's laptop, and the Joshua Wilson who investigates child pornography for the FBI, are the
same person**. This raises the possibility, not explored by the Post, that the FBI issued the
subpoena for reasons unrelated to Hunter Biden's role in Ukraine and Burisma.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
So why is the FBI's top child porn lawyer involved in the Hunter Biden laptop case? OANN 's
Chanel Rion says she's seen the contents of the hard drive, which includes "Drugs, underage
obsessions, power deals," which make "Anthony Weiner's down under selfie addiction look normal
. "
All of which now makes some sense, given Giuliani's alleged findings, and raises a stunning
question: if there is/was incriminating child porn on Hunter's computer, what has the FBI been
doing about it?
"... I always thought the Steele Dossier was poor trade craft; way too over the top. An example being jumping around on a bed and urinating on multiple prostitutes. It puzzled me why they would tell such far out stories. Why stretch credulity?. SWMBO's response was that such behavior is so ubiquitous and frequent among democrat elites that they just assume everyone is doing it. To them it's not far out in the least, it's just a typical Saturday night. I begin to think that she is on to something. ..."
A Bidengate summary from the Daily Mail"Documents appear to show Hunter Biden's
signature on $85 receipt for repair of laptops left at Delaware store at center of email
scandal - while other paperwork reveals FBI's contact with owner
A receipt from The Mac Shop in Wilmington, Delaware appears to show Hunter Biden's
signature for work on three laptops for $85
It has not been verified yet if that signature is actually Biden's
FBI paperwork also shows that shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac received a subpoena to
testify before the US District Court in Delaware in December 2019
Last week the New York Post published a report saying e-mails obtained from the laptop
show Joe Biden allegedly was in on his son Hunter's business deals
House Intel chair Adam Schiff said the 'smear' on Biden 'comes from the Kremlin'
DNI John Ratcliffe said the laptop is not a Russian disinformation campaign
Biden's campaign says the Democratic nominee engaged in no wrongdoing "
-------------
Well, pilgrims, he sure looks comfy in the tub. I still wonder who took the pictures. Was it
the gal in California who later sued him over paternity of her child/fetus, whatever.
Did he take the pictures himself? Interestingly, the Bidens have not denied the implicit
charge of corruption, bribery, etc., etc. that is the mass of incriminating e-mail traffic on
the hard drive. And then, there are the disgusting sex videos. Does anyone think that these
were faked?
SWMBO says that the Bidens have set a new standard for depraved and addled stupidity. As
usual, she is right. pl
It's interesting that Bidens, Epsteins, Clintons, Hollywood types, Weiners, et al engage
in all of the sordid behaviors that they accused Trump of in the "Steele Dossier" (and then
some).
I always thought the Steele Dossier was poor trade craft; way too over the top. An
example being jumping around on a bed and urinating on multiple prostitutes. It puzzled me
why they would tell such far out stories. Why stretch credulity?. SWMBO's response was that
such behavior is so ubiquitous and frequent among democrat elites that they just assume
everyone is doing it. To them it's not far out in the least, it's just a typical Saturday
night. I begin to think that she is on to something.
Rudy Guiliani and Steve Bannon stated this morning that more information will be
forthcoming within 24-48 hours. The Q folks are thinking that it will be released on Thurs
morning for maximum effect at the later in the evening debate. The Admiral who oversaw the
Bin Laden raid has endorsed Joe Biden in spite of being a pro life and 2nd amendment
advocate. Things are getting interesting to say the least.
Another oxymoron, like "government worker" - "intelligence" officials.
Self important parasites....oh wait....selfless patriots who "risk their lives every day" for
America.
The Bidens are not involved, one Biden is. Joe Biden is not responsible for his son's
idiocy. I do believe he has massive addiction issues but I need a lot more proof that he took
all 3 of his computers in for work and the bill was only $85.00. I need the name of that
repair shop it is much more expensive where I live.
"Don't worry about investors," [James Biden] said, according to the executive,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation.
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden."
End quote
Anybody claiming Politico is a Russian disinformation operation?
While I hope and pray for a Trump victory, I am not so sure that he will be able to
overcome systematic rigging. What is your opinion on the level of rigging that is going
on?
All sorts of worms from all over the place are crawling up and endorsing the slime ridden
corrupt Bidens. Who knows what sort of pressure must have been put on them to do that. And if
that is so, can you imagine the level of pressure the democrat machine must have put on those
who are in charge of conducting the election? Look at the commission on presidential debates
for God's sake. Absolutely, no hint of neutrality there!
The media is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes just like in the last election. The
polls are all for democrats, again, just like the last election. Methinks the difference this
time might just be the magnitude of vote rigging that the democrats will do. How much more
will that be versus the last time? Enough to swing the election?
BillWade:
That's the same (Obama) Admiral who said that Trump should be gone:
"......then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office -- Republican, Democrat or
independent -- the sooner, the better."
Like the other retired brass and "intelligence" officials, just more swamp creatures wailing
about an "outsider" disturbing their little world of endless losing wars and a foreign policy
of bending over.
NancyK, Which is worse, voting for someone with dementia or voting for someone pretending
to have dementia?
I haven't heard anything about Joe's brother or sister-in-law having a drug problem, have
you? Maybe they just have a pay to play problem, any thoughts?
Hillary certainly looked wonderful in her Chinese cut clothing in the 2016 debates. Joe's
got those nice 3 Red Flags going for him on his campaign poster, maybe he should wear a rice
farmer's hat to the upcoming debate, no?
I decided to vote today instead of Nov 5th as you had recommended. Did I do the right
thing?
You think Joe is innocent of all that has been done by his family? You think druggy Hunter
deserved to get a senior vice president position at MBNA straight after graduating from
college at $100k a year or that seat at Burisma at $50k a month? Do you think he deserved all
of that not because of his dad's influence but because he was so smart and because he
graduated from yale? If you believe all of that, you must be smoking some strong stuff.
Here is something you can read to improve your knowledge. This is not how a normal cv
looks like, for sure.
Brats like Hunter don't get these amazing deals because they are smart or create value for
their employers because of their work. He got these deals because it is a way of paying off
his father, the guy who then bats for these employers in the senate or the white house.
@ NancyK.. true - biden senior is not responsible for biden junior... however it seems
junior got the gig thanks daddys connections and willingness to fire the prosecutor so that
junior could continue to have the job! that is the part you appear to be turning a blind eye
to.... senior has major dirt on him due all this.. either you think it is a made up russian
propaganda set up, or you think it isn't... there is enough info at present to show that it
isn't a set up, but that daddy was using his position as vp unscrupulously or criminal
depending on how you want to filter it.. the fact the media want to push it under the carpet
with whatever excuse they provide, doesn't change any of it..
14 House seats in California GOP districts flipped a few weeks after the GOP "won" on
election night. It took that long for all the third party "harvested votes" to go through the
government employee union dominated election office verification procedures.
This election when the GOP turned tables and did their own "vote-harvesting" the Democrat
AG and Secy of State cried foul, sent the GOP a cease and desist letter to stop or face fines
and punishment. GOP said go pound sand. And the Dems had to back down since the law was too
vague to even be enforced.
Unfortunately this means the Democrats in this state will only double down on their "vote
harvesting". As if winning or losing California matters - except in the House. One guesses,
after the 2020 census California will lose a few House seats anyway, due to the state's
outflow of population and the reluctance of illegals to participate in the census in the
first place.
Don't forget, it was "term limits" that led to this one-party, one agenda domination of
this state. Never ever think "term limits" is an answer for anything.
Term limits only created a huge power vacuum, and in swooped the Democrat back public
sector unions running a steady string of revolving door talking head flunkies out of the
public sector union world, who immediately passed super-majority legislation that only
solidified their permanent domination. It happened so fast since 2000, few in the state knew
what hit them.
In 2016, they added "vote- harvesting" - allowing third parties to help fill out and
collect mail-in ballots and drop them off by the car loads, which technically must be checked
and verified, but in such volumes as to overwhelm the election offices - Cloward-Pivens on
steroids- a favorite technique of Barry Soetoro.
Is this 50 former Intel officials or 50 former national security parasites? Real Intel
officials should keep quite after retirement. National security parasites go to politics and
lobbying. One telling sign that a particular parson is a "national security parasite" is his
desire to play "Russian card"
From comments: "Did the 50 former intelligence officials find the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction yet?"
Hours before Politico
reported the existence of a letter signed by '50 former senior intelligence officials' who say
the Hunter Biden laptop scandal "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information
operation" - providing "no new evidence," while they remain "deeply suspicious that the Russian
government played a significant role in this case," Tucker Carlson obliterated their (literal)
conspiracy theory .
According to the Fox News host, he's seen 'nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop ,' adding " No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information ."
" This is not a Russian hoax. We are not speculating ."
TUCKER: "This afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop. No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information. This is not a
Russian hoax. We are not speculating." pic.twitter.com/cl2ktdmdVc
Meanwhile, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who believes Hunter dropped off three
MacBook Pros for data recovery has a signed work order bearing Hunter's signature . When
compared to the signature on a document in his paternity suit, while one looks more formal than
the other, they are a match.
Going back to the '50 former senior intelligence officials' and their latest Russia
fixation, one has to wonder - do they think Putin was able to compromise Biden's
former business associate , Bevan Cooney, who gave investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
his gmail password - revealing that Hunter and his partners were engaged in an
influence-peddling operation for rich Chinese who wanted access to the Obama
administration?
Did Putin further hack Joe Biden in 2011 to make him take a meeting with a Chinese
delegation with ties to the CCP - arranged by Hunter's group, two years they secured a massive
investment of Chinese money?
The implications boggle the mind.
Here's the clarifying sentences from the '50 former senior intelligence officials' that
exposes the utter farce of it all:
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence , they said their national
security experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a
significant role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the
Kremlin's hand at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
And then there's the fact that no one from the Biden campaign has yet to deny any of the
'facts' in the emails. lay_arrow jin187 , 2 hours ago
Totally ridiculous. This ******** beating around the bush for both sides pisses me off.
Dump all the laptop contents on Wikileaks if it's real. Let the people sort it out. If you
say it's not real, prove it. If Biden wants me to believe it's not real, then stand behind a
podium, and say clear as day into a pile of cameras that's it's all a forgery, and that
you've done nothing wrong.
Instead we have Giuliani swearing he has a smoking gun, but as far as I can tell he's just
pointing his finger underneath his shirt. Biden on the other hand, keep using weasel words to
imply it's fake, but never denies it outright. It's almost like he's trying to hedge his bet
that no one will manage to prove it's real before he gets into office, and makes it
disappear.
Roacheforque , 7 hours ago
To play the "Russian Card" yet again should be beyond embarrassing. An insult to the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80. And so it's harmful to the left wingnut
derangeables. Like Assad's chemical weapons and Saddam's WMDs, it is now code for pure
********. Not even code, just more like a signal.
A signal that say's "guilty as charged - we got nothin' but lies and BS over here".
East Indian , 4 hours ago
An insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.
They know their supporters wont find this insulting.
Kayman , 4 hours ago
@vulvishka.
538 ? North Korea has better propaganda.
Don't forget to go all in, like you did with Hillary.
Antedeluvian , 2 hours ago
Unfortunately, some very bright people are sucked into the conspiracy theory. I know one.
Very bright lawyer. She says, "I still think there is substantive evidence of Russian
collusion." I can point to a sky criss-crossed with chemtrails (when you see these
"contrails" crossing at the same altitude, this is one sure clue these are not from regular
passenger jet traffic) and she refuses to look up. She KNOWS I am an idiot (a PhD scientist
idiot at that) because I get news and analysis on the web from sites that just want to sell
me tee shirts and coffee mugs (well, she is partly right there!) whereas she gets her news
from MSNBC, a venerable and trustworthy news source.
4DegreesOfSeparation , 6 hours ago
More Than 50 Former Intel Officials Say Hunter Biden Smear Smells Like Russia
"If we are right," the group wrote in a letter, "this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote."
DescendantofthePatriots , 7 hours ago
That ****, James Clapper, signed his name at the top of this list.
Known liar, saboteur, and sneak.
The cognitive dissonance in our country is astounding. The fact that they would take these
people's opinion over hard fact is astounding.
No wonder why we're sliding down the steep, slippery slope.
strych10 , 8 hours ago
So... let me get this straight.
50, that's 10 times five, fifty former intelligence officials are going with a convoluted
narrative about a ludicrously complicated Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign
involving planted laptops and at least half a dozen patsies when the two words "crack
cocaine" explain the entire thing?
I'm not sure what's more terrifying; That these people think everyone else is dumb enough
to believe this or that they're actually retired intelligence officials
.
Who the actual **** is running this ****show? The bastard child of Barney Fife and
Inspector Clouseau?
Seriously, "Pink Panther Disinformation Operation" is more believable at this point.
Someone Else , 9 hours ago
This needs to get out, because a FAVORITE method of the Deep State, Democrats and the
media (but I repeat myself) is to parade some sort of a stupid letter with a bunch of
signature hoping to look impressive but that really don't mean a damn thing.
Notre Dame graduates against the Supreme Court nominee, Intelligence agents alleging
collusion, former State Department operatives against Trump. Its grandstanding that has been
overdone.
moneybots , 8 hours ago
The letter by 50 former intelligence officials is itself, disinformation.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
Remember when Weiner's attorney turned over Huma's home laptop to SDNY/FBI with all of
Shillary's emails, and the FBI sat on it for a month and then Comey deep sixed them without
even looking at them?
So now the FBI subpeona'd Hunter's laptop and burried it? Deja vu all over again.
enough of this , 8 hours ago
The FBI and DOJ constantly hide behind self-serving excuses to refuse the release of
documents and, when forced to do so, they release heavily redacted files. They offer up the
usual pretexts to fend off public disclosure such as: the information you seek cannot be
disclosed because it involves an ongoing investigation, or the information you seek involves
national security, or our methods and sources will be jeopardized if the information you seek
is divulged to the public. But it seems the ones who would be most harmed by public
disclosure are the corrupt FBI and DOJ officials themselves
Cobra Commander , 7 hours ago
A short 4 years ago the FBI and CIA were all concerned about "Kompromat" the Ruskies might
have on Candidate Trump; concerned enough to spy on his campaign and open a
counter-intelligence operation.
There are troves of Kompromat material, actual emails and video, on Joe, Hunter, and the
whole Biden family; not made-up DNC-funded dossiers claiming a Russian consulate in
Miami.
Now when it's Candidate Biden, everyone be all like, "Meh."
Cobra!
The Fonz...before shark jump , 5 hours ago
we gotta listen to the 50 former intelligence agents...you know the ones that had lone
superpower status in the early 90s and then pissed it all away with 9/11 and infinity wars in
middle east hahahahah ok buddy lol... histories D students....
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 7 hours ago
Signed by James Clapper and John Brennan;
You mean, the 2 Bozos who under the threat of perjury said there was NO evidence of
Russian Collusion and the Trump campaign................. and 2 hours later called Trump
'Putin's puppet' on CNN.............
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information
published by The New York Post that allegedly came from Hunter Biden's laptop
is not part of a "Russian disinformation campaign."
Ratcliffe's comments came after Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the House Intelligence Committee
chairman, said the scandal surrounding the Bidens and a Ukrainian gas company is a "smear"
coming "from the Kremlin."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign," Ratcliffe said
in an interview with Fox Business . "Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn't
believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no
intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress."
Ratcliffe said the FBI is now in possession of the laptop. He said the FBI's investigation
is "not centered around Russian disinformation."
Issues have been raised concerning the chain of custody of the laptop since two allies of
President Trump were involved, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former White House
strategist Steve Bannon. But besides speculation from Schiff and the media, nothing ties the
laptop to Moscow.
The first email published by the Post last week purports Hunter Biden introduced his
father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive of the Ukrainian company Burisma
Holdings in 2015. Joe Biden has previously said that he never spoke with Hunter about his
overseas business dealings.
Rudy Giuliani talks about "sensitive" material on the laptop of Hunter Biden including
"numerous pictures" of underage girls and an alleged text message exchange he had with his
father where he admits to a relationship with a 14-year-old girl and creating an unsafe
environment for his children.
The former New York City mayor said he turned the laptop over to police in Delaware with
Bernard Kerik because he felt "uncomfortable" with it in his possession in an interview Monday
with Newsmax TV's Greg Kelly.
Giuliani narrated the text message in which Hunter talks about his former sister-in-law and
lover with the elder Biden:
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
She told my therapist that I was sexually inappropriate. (Giuliani: This would be with an
unnamed 14-year-old girl.)
When she says that I Facetime naked with [the unnamed 14-year-old girl] and the reason I
can't have her out to see me is because I walk around naked smoking crack talking... girls on
face time. When she was pressed she said that [the unnamed 14-year-old girl] never said
anything like that but the bottom line is that I created and caused a very unsafe environment
for the kids.
"This is supported by numerous pictures of underage girls," Giuliani said after reading the
message.
"Bernie Kerik and I turned it over to the Delaware State Police because I'm very
uncomfortable with this. And I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that these underage girls
were not protected," he said.
Giuliani later said that this is not about Hunter Biden but exposing Joe Biden as
incompetent. "This is not about Hunter," Giuliani said, but about what a criminal and "horrible
father" Joe Biden is. Related Videos
When Bevan Cooney -- the former "junior" business partner to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer
-- went to jail in 2019, investigative reporter and New York Times bestselling author Peter
Schweizer thought he'd never gain access to the damning emails Cooney had promised. That all
changed three weeks ago when Schweizer was given complete access to Cooney's gmail
account.
POLL: Did you watch any of the 2020 Presidential Town Halls last night?
Schweizer joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Tuesday to describe just some of the
business deals revealed within these emails -- like Hunter working with an alleged Russian
criminal and with Chinese communists to secure their assets, or to secure one-on-one time with
his dad, then-Vice President Joe Biden. And all of this new information is completely separate
from the emails allegedly discovered on
Hunter Biden's laptop recently reported by the
New York Post.
"So, I want to make this clear. This [Cooney's emails] has nothing to do with what's on the
laptop It didn't come from [Rudy] Giuliani. It didn't come from anybody else, right?" Glenn
asked Schweizer.
That's absolutely correct," Schweizer confirmed.
He briefly explained how Cooney, a former Los Angeles nightclub owner, is currently serving
a prison sentence for his involvement in a fraudulent business bond scheme with Biden and
Archer. From prison, Cooney gave Schweizer written permission to access his Gmail account.
"This is really important," he noted. "We're not looking at printouts. Not looking at PDFs.
We're actually in his Gmail accounts themselves, sifting through these emails. And there's a
shocking amount of information about deals involving China, involving Russia, involving
all sorts of things they were trying to pull off ."
Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:
Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer told FNC's Sean Hannity
on Friday that evidence will be released before the election proving that Hunter Biden and
Russian oligarch Elena Baturina have more of a relationship than previously admitted.
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
HANNITY: All right. So, we can bifurcate for people. This is all separate from what The New
York Post was reporting this week. This is separate from what we knew earlier, and it's
separate from Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley's report that they put out, 87 pages, which
talked about, well, Russian oligarchs, Kazakh oligarchs, the $3.5 million payment with the
former first lady of Moscow, Chinese nationals, $100,000 shopping spree, Russian nationals,
Kazakhs nationals, Ukrainian nationals.
How much money are we talking about here, and were all three of them involved in all of
these endeavors?
SCHWEIZER: Well, it kind of jumps around, but let me just make clear, these are all
separate emails from The New York Post and what the Senate did, but they all reinforce the
same.
I mean, to take, for example, Ms. Baturina, the Russian oligarch links to organized crime
that the Senate sent $3.5 million based on Treasury Department documents, we will be rolling
out a story in a couple of days demonstrating that their relationship, meaning Hunter and
Devon Archer's relationship with Elena Baturina goes way back and they were performing a
number of banking and other financial services for her, services that they had trouble doing,
by the way, because several banks did not want to work with her because the money was seen as
dirty.
HANNITY: So, literally, these nationals were allowed access to Biden inside the White
House according to these emails. I guess my next question is if both of Hunter's business
partners are convicted, how did he go scot-free?
SCHWEIZER: Well, that's the question, Sean. There was a trial in 2016, and we actually,
I've gone through the notes of that trial, and what it demonstrates is that Hunter Biden's
fingerprints are all over this. He has named repeatedly in the court trials, but he was never
charged by the prosecutors in New York.
A top Republican senator acknowledged the possibility that the FBI investigated whether
there was child pornography on a laptop and hard drive that allegedly belonged to Hunter
Biden.
Journalist Maria Bartiromo asked Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, about
a Business Insider report that described faint handwriting on a subpoena served last
year to a Delaware business that was given a water-damaged MacBook Pro to repair but was never
retrieved and a hard drive with its contents. The hardware purportedly contained data about
foreign business dealings and other matters related to the son of former Vice President Joe
Biden.
The subpoena appeared to show the FBI agent who served it was someone named
"Joshua Wilson." There was a Joshua Wilson, according to a Star-Ledger report published
last year , who was an FBI agent based in New Jersey who spent nearly five years
investigating child pornography, but it remains unclear if this is the same Wilson and what
exactly the bureau was investigating.
Bartiromo twice asked Johnson, a lead congressional investigator, if he knows of any
connection on her Fox News program, Sunday Morning Futures .
"I think you just made the connection. Again, this is what the FBI, I think, has to come
clean about," the Wisconsin Republican said in his first reply. Johnson was
alluding to his letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray about the laptop sent last
week.
Pressed a second time after his initial response, the senator said he could not comment any
further.
"I don't want to speculate, other than to say that -- what I said publicly before. Our
report uncovered so many troubling connections, so many things that need to be investigated,
that I really think we're just scratching the surface," Johnson said. "And, yes, I have heard
all kinds of things that I think will probably be revealed over the next few days."
Republicans, including President Trump, have repeatedly raised the younger Biden's foreign
business ventures as being ripe for corruption that could stem all the way to his father, who
is now running for president. Joe Biden called the reporting on the emails and photos that
purportedly come from his son's laptop, a story that was
broken by the New York Post last week , a
"smear campaign." Still, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have disputed the
validity of the data that has generated a wave of headlines in recent days.
John Paul Mac Isaac, the computer store owner in Delaware who claims he copied the hard
drive of the laptop that he later gave to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, Robert Costello,
told reporters last week he "did not see" child pornography on the hardware.
In two bombshell reports, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge of the New York Post have
leveled damning allegations of Hunter Biden' s murky financial dealings with Ukrainian and
Chinese oligarchs. As expected, $50,000 remuneration paid by Burisma Holdings of Ukraine
annually for Hunter's "consultancy job" was only the tip of the iceberg. Hunter was paid
millions of dollars bribes that sustained his "rockstar lifestyle" over the years.
Although it was the
first report [1] published on Thursday, October 14, and titled "Smoking-gun email reveals
how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad" that gained most attention on the
mainstream media, it was the
second report [2] published on Friday, October 15, in which the authors have furnished
documentary evidence of Hunter Biden's dealings, amounting to millions of dollars and stakes in
equities and profits of a private Chinese oil company doing business in Africa, with a Chinese
billionaire Ye Jianming that raises serious questions whether the loyalty of the Biden campaign
to the American electorate has been compromised due to Hunter Biden's illicit financial
transactions with the representatives of the Chinese government.
Image on the right: CEFC's founder Ye Jianming. Photo: SCMP/Handout
It's noteworthy that the name of Ye Jianming came up in the Johnson-Grassley report released
last month, too.
"The Suspicious Activity Reports of the Treasury Department flagged millions of dollars in
transactions from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, a Russian oligarch named Yelena
Baturina, and a Chinese businessmen with ties to Beijing's communist government," the Senate
report said.
The Johnson-Grassley report further alleged:
"Hunter Biden had business associations with Ye Jianming, Gongwen, and other Chinese
nationals linked to the communist government and the People's Liberation Army. Those
associations resulted in millions of dollars in cash flow."
Corroborating the Senate investigation, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge noted in the
second report of the New York Post:
"Another email -- sent by Biden as part of an Aug. 2, 2017, chain -- involved a deal he
struck with the since-vanished chairman of CEFC, Ye Jianming, for half-ownership of a holding
company that was expected to provide Biden with more than $10 million a year 'for
introductions alone.'
"'The chairman changed that deal after we me[t] in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND
LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent [sic] owned by ME and 50% owned
by him,' Biden wrote.
"A photo dated Aug. 1, 2017, shows a handwritten flowchart of the ownership of 'Hudson
West' split 50/50 between two entities ultimately controlled by Hunter Biden and someone
identified as 'Chairman.'
"According to a report on Biden's overseas business dealings released last month by Sens.
Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a company called Hudson West III opened a
line of credit in September 2017.
"Biden's email was sent to Gongwen Dong, whom the Wall Street Journal in October 2018 tied
to the purchase by Ye-linked companies of two luxury Manhattan apartments that cost a total
on $83 million.
"The documents obtained by The Post also include an 'Attorney Engagement Letter' executed
in September 2017 in which one of Ye's top lieutenants, former Hong Kong government official
Chi Ping Patrick Ho, agreed to pay Biden a $1 million retainer for 'Counsel to matters
related to US law and advice pertaining to the hiring and legal analysis of any US Law Firm
or Lawyer.'
"In December 2018, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Ho in two schemes to pay $3 million
in bribes to high-ranking government officials in Africa for oil rights in Chad and lucrative
business deals in Uganda. Ho served a three-year prison sentence and was deported to Hong
Kong in June."
"Ye Jianming had made inroads with Joe Biden's brother James Biden, as well as Hunter
Biden, as the Chinese tycoon sought to build influence in the United States. In early 2018,
Hunter Biden was paid $1 million to represent Ye's aide while he was facing the federal
bribery charges in the United States.
"In August 2017, a subsidiary of Ye's company wired $5 million into the bank account of a
US company called Hudson West III, which over the next 13 months sent $4.79 million marked as
consulting fees to Hunter Biden's firm, the report said. Over the same period, Hunter Biden's
firm wired some $1.4 million to a firm associated with his uncle and aunt, James and Sara
Biden."
Ironically, it was the mainstream media that first broke the story of the illicit financial
transactions between the Biden family and Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming in December 2018,
though that was a year before Joe Biden was chosen as the Democratic presidential candidate in
April.
Giving a detailed biographical account of Ye Jianming from his rapid ascent to a sudden fall
from grace in 2017, as the FBI closed in on the Chinese billionaire's company and aides, a
December 2018 New
York Times report [4] revealed:
"Ye Jianming, a fast-rising Chinese oil tycoon, ventured to places only the most
politically connected Chinese companies dared to go. But what he wanted was access to the
corridors of power in Washington -- and he set out to get it.
"Soon, he was meeting with the family of Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was then the vice
president. He dined with R. James Woolsey Jr., a former Central Intelligence Agency director
and later a senior adviser to President Trump. He bestowed lavish funding on universities and
think tanks with direct access to top Washington leaders, looking for the benefits access can
bring.
"'This is a guy who courted and maintained networks with the People's Liberation Army and
took the strategy of 'friends in high places,' said Jude Blanchette, a senior adviser and
China head at Crumpton Group, a business intelligence firm.
"He seemed to have the blessings of Beijing. State banks offered CEFC billions of dollars
in loans. The company also hired a large number of former military officers, whom Mr. Ye told
visitors he prized for their organizational skills. He was deputy secretary of a Chinese
military organization from 2003 to 2005 that congressional researchers called a front for the
People's Liberation Army unit that has 'dual roles of intelligence collection and conducting
People's Republic of China propaganda.'
"From 2009 to 2017, CEFC's revenue jumped from $48 million to $37 billion. [a time period
incidentally coinciding with Joe Biden's vice presidency.]
"'It's been clear for some time that this is not just a Chinese commercial company, that
they had some intelligence ties,' Mr. Martin Hala, an academic based in Prague, said. 'People
from the U.S. intelligence agencies should have known something was going on.'
"Five years ago, CEFC approached Bobby Ray Inman, a retired admiral and national security
adviser to President Jimmy Carter, about setting up a joint venture, Mr. Inman said in an
interview. The company promised it would pay him $1 million a year, without specifying what
business they would go into. He turned down the offer.
"On a 2015 trip to the United States Ye met with Alan Greenspan, the former Federal
Reserve chairman, to discuss the economy, according to CEFC.
"CEFC also donated at least $350,000 to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security,
a politically connected think tank, according to court testimony. The think tank counts
Robert C. McFarlane, the Reagan-era national security adviser, as its president and Mr.
Woolsey, a Clinton-era C.I.A. director, as its co-chairman.
"Mr. Ye also further loosened CEFC's purse strings, donating as much as $100,000 to the
Clinton Foundation. Outside the Beltway, a CEFC foundation donated at least $500,000 to a
Columbia University research center.
"CEFC also organized forums in Hong Kong and Washington that brought together retired
American and Chinese military officers, among other events.
"By 2015, Mr. Ye had begun working on perhaps his most politically connected quarry yet:
the family of Mr. Biden, the vice president.
"An aide to Mr. Ye met the vice president's second son, Hunter Biden, in Washington. Mr.
Ye then met privately with Hunter Biden at a hotel in Miami in May 2017. Mr. Ye proposed a
partnership to invest in American infrastructure and energy deals.
"During this period, the vice president's son was managing Rosemont Seneca Partners, an
investment firm he formed with Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry, the former secretary
of state.
"The trial and conviction in New York in December 2018 of one of his top lieutenants,
Patrick Ho, showed that company officials used bribery to win oil and energy contracts in
Africa.
"In 2017, as American authorities closed in on Mr. Ye's company, the first call made by
one of his emissaries in custody was to Mr. Biden's brother.
"James Biden, a financier and brother of the former vice president, was in a hotel lobby
in November 2017 when he got a surprise call on his cellphone. The call was from Patrick Ho,
Mr. Ye's lieutenant. Mr. Ho, 69, was in trouble.
"In a brief interview, James Biden said he had been surprised by Mr. Ho's call. He said he
believed it had been meant for Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son. James Biden
said he had passed on his nephew's contact information.
"'There is nothing else I have to say,' James Biden said. 'I don't want to be dragged into
this anymore.'
"Federal agents who had monitored CEFC's rise since at least the summer of 2016 had sprung
into action, arresting Mr. Ho in New York on allegations that he had bribed African officials
in Chad and Uganda.
"Mr. Ye, meanwhile, has disappeared into the custody of the Chinese authorities. He was
last seen in February, 2018, when his private jet touched down in the Chinese city of
Hangzhou. CEFC is struggling under $15 billion in debt, and was dissolved early this
year."
After reading all this revelatory information regarding suspicious financial transactions
between prominent former officials of the US government and the "disappeared" Chinese
billionaire, it becomes abundantly clear that Ye Jianming, most likely a pseudonym, was a
frontman for the Chinese government who was sent on a clandestine mission to nurture business
relations with the Beltway elites, and later made to disappear after his cover was blown once
his aides were charged with criminal offenses in the US courts.
China is known to follow the economic model of "state capitalism," in which although small
and medium enterprises are permitted to operate freely by common citizens, large industrial and
extraction companies, especially a multi-billion dollar corporation the size of CEFC, are run
by the Communist Party stalwarts masquerading as business executives.
In addition, China is alleged to practice "debt-trap diplomacy" for buying entire
governments through extending financial grants and loans, and what better way to buy the rival
government of the United States than by financing the Biden campaign through bestowing
financial largesse on the profligate son of the former vice president and current presidential
candidate.
Notwithstanding, in a tit-for-tat response to the New York Post's explosive report alleging
Hunter Biden introduced a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm he was working for to his
vice president dad, the Daily Beast
came up with a scoop [5] on Friday, October 16, that the hard disks in which Hunter's
emails were found were provided to Rudy Giuliani by a Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui on behalf
of dissident members of the Chinese Communist Party.
According to the report,
"Weeks before the New York Post began publishing what it claimed were the contents of Hunter
Biden's hard drive, a Sept. 25 segment on a YouTube channel run by a Chinese dissident
streamer, who is linked to billionaire and Steve Bannon-backer Guo Wengui, broadcast a bizarre
conspiracy theory.
"According to the streamer, Chinese politburo officials had 'sent three hard disks of
evidence' to the Justice Department and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi containing damaging
information about Joe Biden as well as the origins of the coronavirus in a bid to undermine the
rule of Chinese President Xi Jinping
"While Guo's ties to Steve Bannon have long been known -- Bannon was arrested for defrauding
donors in August on a 152-foot-long yacht reportedly owned by Guo -- the billionaire appears to
have also joined forces with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani in the former New York
mayor's relentless anti-Biden dirt-digging crusade."
Besides posting pictures of Rudy Giuliani and Guo Wengui "cavorting and smoking cigars
together" and leveling unsubstantiated allegations that Giuliani has stakes in Guo's fashion
lineup, the Daily Beast hasn't challenged the authenticity of Hunter's emails but only
questioned the source of origin of hard disks containing irrefutable evidence of the Biden
family's murky financial dealings and made a paradoxical claim that dissident members of
Chinese Communist Party are trying to sabotage Joe Biden's electoral campaign on Trump's
behalf.
Nevertheless, the report raises startling questions that why Chinese dissidents would form
"a government-in-exile" in the United States and allegedly support the Trump campaign against
Joe Biden's bid for the presidency unless the Biden campaign had received financial support
from the government of People's Republic of China whom the Chinese dissidents want to
subvert.
The report further alleges:
"Guo Wengui has been in the Trumpworld orbit pretty much from the beginning, paying the
$200,000 initiation fee to become a member of the president's Florida golf resort Mar-a-Lago,
which Trump has dubbed the 'Southern White House.' But Guo's membership soon became a
headache for the administration in the run-up to Trump's first summit meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in 2017, due to Guo's fugitive status in China.
"At one point, Trump had reportedly considered deporting Guo after the Chinese government
called for his extradition in a letter delivered to Trump by casino mogul Steve Wynn in 2017.
After presenting the letter during a policy meeting, the president reportedly said, 'We need
to get this criminal out of the country,' only for aides to remind him that Guo was a
Mar-a-Lago member, eventually talking him out of the decision and ensuring the deportation
was scuttled
"Guo has framed himself as a stalwart critic of the CCP and China's corrupt elite, but his
efforts have divided China's exile community. Guo has enthusiastically attacked other critics
of Beijing as jealous poseurs, including most recently a Texas Christian pastor and Tiananmen
protester named Bob Fu -- who was imprisoned in China for his faith before escaping to the
U.S. -- whom Guo accuses of being a secret agent for the CCP. Fu has lobbed the same charge
back at Guo and his followers."
Instead of debunking Trump's witty remarks following the publishing of Hunter Biden's emails
that "the Biden family treated the vice presidency as a for-profit corporation," the
information contained in the Daily Beast article lends further credence to the investigative
reporting by Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge for the New York Post exposing Hunter
Biden's sleazy financial dealings with Ukrainian and Chinese oligarchs.
In an
exclusive report [6] for the Breitbart New on Friday, October 16, Peter Schweizer and
Seamus Bruner allege that newly obtained emails from a former business associate of Hunter
Biden's inner-circle reveal that Hunter and his colleagues used their access to the Obama
administration to peddle influence to potential Chinese clients and investors -- including
securing a private, off-the-books meeting with the former vice president.
The never-before-revealed emails, unconnected to the Hunter Biden emails being released by
the New York Post, were provided to Schweizer by Bevan Cooney, a one-time Hunter Biden and
Devon Archer business associate. Cooney is currently in prison serving a sentence for his
involvement in a 2016 bond fraud investment scheme.
Cooney believes he was the "fall guy" for an investment scheme in which Hunter and business
associate Devon Archer avoided responsibility. He reached out to Schweizer after the journalist
published a book "Secret Empires" in 2018. Archer was initially spared jail and handed a second
trial, however, a federal appeals court reinstated Archer's fraud conviction in the case last
week.
The report notes:
"On November 5, 2011, one of Archer's business contacts forwarded him an email teasing an
opportunity to gain 'potentially outstanding new clients' by helping to arrange White House
meetings for a group of Chinese executives and government officials.
"The group was the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the delegation included Chinese
billionaires, Chinese Communist Party loyalists, and at least one 'respected diplomat' from
Beijing. Despite its benign name, CEC has been called 'a second foreign ministry' for the
People's Republic of China -- a communist government that closely controls most businesses in
its country. CEC was established in 2006 by a group of businessmen and Chinese government
diplomats.
"CEC's leadership boasts numerous senior members of the Chinese Communist Party, including
Wang Zhongyu (vice chairman of the 10th CPPCC National Committee and deputy secretary of the
Party group), Ma Weihua (director of multiple Chinese Communist Party offices), and Jiang
Xipei (member of the Chinese Communist Party and representative of the 16th National
Congress), among others.
"'I know it is political season and people are hesitant but a group like this does not
come along every day,' an intermediary named Mohamed A. Khashoggi wrote on behalf of the CEC
to an associate of Hunter Biden and Devon Archer. 'A tour of the white house and a meeting
with a member of the chief of staff's office and John Kerry would be great.'
"The email boasted of CEC's wealthy membership: CEC's current membership includes 50
preeminent figures such as: Liu Chuanzhi, Chairman of the CEC, Legend Holdings and Lenovo
Group; Wu Jinglian, Zhang Weiying, and Zhou Qiren, China's esteemed economists; Wu Jianmin,
respected diplomat; Long Yongtu, representative of China's globalization; Wang Shi (Vanke);
Ma Weihua (China Merchants Bank); Jack Ma (Alibaba Group); Guo Guangchang (Fosun Group); Wang
Jianlin, (Wanda Group); Niu Gensheng (LAONIU Foundation); Li Shufu (Geely); Li Dongsheng (TCL
Corporation); Feng Lun (Vantone) and etc.
"The gross income of the CEC members' companies allegedly 'totaled more than RMB 1.5
trillion, together accounting for roughly 4% of China's GDP.' The overture to Hunter Biden's
associates described the Chinese CEC members variously as
'industrial elites,' 'highly influential,' and among 'the most important private sector
individuals in China today,' dubbed as the China Inc.
"Hunter Biden and Devon Archer apparently delivered for the Chinese Communist
Party-connected industrial elites within ten days The Obama-Biden Administration archives
reveal that this Chinese delegation did indeed visit the White House on November 14, 2011,
and enjoyed high-level access.
"The visitor logs list Jeff Zients, the deputy director of Obama's Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), as the host of the CEC delegation. Obama had tasked Zients with
restructuring and ultimately consolidating the various export-import agencies under the
Commerce Department -- an effort in which the Chinese delegation would have a keen
interest.
"Curiously, the Obama-Biden visitor logs do not mention any meeting with Vice President
Joe Biden. But the Vice President's off-the-books meeting was revealed by one of the core
founders of the CEC. In an obscure document listing the CEC members' biographies, CEC
Secretary General Maggie Cheng alleges that she facilitated the CEC delegation meetings in
Washington in 2011 and boasts of the Washington establishment figures that CEC met with. The
first name she dropped was that of Vice President Joe Biden."
Schweizer suggests that the meeting may have opened the door for Hunter and Devon Archer
down the road -- as just two years later they formed the Chinese government-funded Bohai
Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund which saw Chinese money pour into it for investments in
CEC-linked businesses.
According to the report,
"One of BHR's first major portfolio investments was a ride-sharing company like Uber
called Didi Dache -- now called Didi Chuxing Technology Co. That company is closely connected
to Liu Chuanzhi, the chairman of the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the founder of Legend
Holdings -- the parent company of Lenovo, one of the world's largest computer companies. Liu
is a former Chinese Communist Party delegate and was a leader of the 2011 CEC delegation to
the White House. His daughter was the President of Didi."
The report adds:
"Liu has long been involved in CCP politics, including serving as a representative to the
9th, 10th, and 11th sessions of the National People's Congress of the PRC and as a
representative to the 16th and 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Liu was
the Vice Chairman of the 8th and 9th Executive Committee of All-China Federation of Industry
and Commerce (ACFIC), an organization known to be affiliated with the Chinese United
Front."
After reading the names of these high-profile Chinese business and political elites visiting
the White House and cultivating personal friendships and commercial relationships in the
highest echelons of the Obama-Biden administration, one wonders whether the latter devised
trade and economic policies serving the interests of the American masses or took care of
financial stakes of global power elites.
With his anti-globalist and protectionist agenda, Trump represents a paradigm shift in the
global economic order. Trump withdrawing the United States from multilateral treaties,
restructuring trade agreements and initiating a trade war against China are a revolution
against globalization and free trade of which China is the new beneficiary with its strong
manufacturing base and massive export potential.
Thus, it's only natural for the Chinese government to be "anti-Trump", while supporting his
neoliberal Democratic rivals, who favor globalization and free trade, in the upcoming US
presidential elections.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is
a regular contributor to Global Research.
Why the ginormous teleprompter far from the podium? Why, so it would look like he is
speaking unaided in media coverage! This is the only occurrence that I could find that showed
this little helper for his enfeebled mind. Shss! Need to keep it a secret.
I wonder if will be used if he takes the Oath of Office in January.
The uncomfortable but inescapable conclusion is that Joe Biden does not have to know any
facts, does not have to recall any statistics or memorize any dialogue – he only needs
to be able to read. And he is far from the only one to abandon the off-the-cuff speech for
the science of the teleprompter and other tricks which sharply reduce the chances you will be
stuck for words, or say something foolish. George 'Dubya' Bush was quite well-known for using
electronic aids to remotely coach his public speaking, from the eerie pre-delivery of his
D-Day speech (which has been erased from the internet, as far as I can make out, although
there were once examples of what the White House claims was an 'echo'. They could not explain
how the 'echo' was heard in the microphone before Bush spoke the same words a half-second
later) to the mysterious bulge in the back of his suit jacket during his debates with John
Kerry.
If you watch Bush's remarks during his uncharacteristically-eloquent speech in France on
the anniversary of D-Day, he speaks oddly, in short phrases which are probably meant to imply
deep emotion, but more likely represent the longest sentence he could deliver without needing
further prompting. He has no other aids to speaking; the paper he is seen smoothing out at
the beginning is merely his introductory remarks and routine courtesies to guests and his
host. He never refers to it again once he begins his speech, and occasionally pauses with his
head cocked as if he is listening.
You can't hear anything in this audio except the voice of Bush himself, but there was once
no shortage of audio records in which another voice can be heard speaking before Bush.
Ironically, Bush toadies left over from his administration were among those who most loudly
and derisively referred to Obama as 'President Teleprompter'.
In
footage published on Monday, the conservative media watchdog shared around eight minutes of
an interview with a man identified as Ritesh Lakhkar, said to be a technical program manager at
Google's Cloud service, who accused the company of putting its thumb on the digital scales for
the Democrats.
"The wind is blowing toward Democrats, because GOP equals Trump and Trump equals GOP.
Everybody hates it, even though GOP may have good traits, no one wants to acknowledge them
right now," Lakhkar said when asked whether Google favors either political party.
Project Veritas @Project_Veritas BREAKING:
@Google Program Manager Confirms Election Interference In Favor of
@JoeBiden Google search "skewed by owners and drivers of the algorithm" "Plain and simple
trying to play god"
While Lakhar – whose LinkedIn page states he's worked at Google since
May 2018 – did not specify exactly how the company gives an edge to certain political
viewpoints, he suggested the platform is selling favorable coverage to the highest bidder.
"It's skewed by the owners or the drivers of the algorithm. Like, if I say 'Hey Google,
here's another two billion dollars, feed this data set of whenever Joe Biden is searched,
you'll get these results,'" he went on, blasting Big Tech firms for "playing god and
taking away freedom of speech on both sides."
Lakhkar complained of a suffocating, overly-political atmosphere at Google, where he said
"your opinion matters more than your work," recalling a dramatic response to Donald
Trump's 2016 election win at the company. Several media reports have documented employees'
appalled reactions to the victory, including
internal company footage of a meeting soon after the election, where co-founder Sergey Brin
is heard comparing Trump's win to the rise of fascism in Europe.
"When Trump won the first time, people were crying in the corridors of Google. There were
protests, there were marches. There were like, I guess, group therapy sessions for employees
organized by HR," he said.
I guess that's one of the reasons I feel suffocated [at Google]. Because on one side
you have this unprofessional attitude, and on the other side you have this ultra-leftist
attitude. Your entire existence is questioned.
PetarGolubovicRomanov 19 hours ago Nothing unexpected there - it always seemed a
dodgy thing to me Google is 'the greatest' place to work. It must be to 'keep the lights on'
with all their servers, but it is a company with what, two products - search and maps - and
both have not changed almost at since they were created over a decade ago. Reply 5 2 Head like
a rock PetarGolubovicRomanov 18 hours ago but it is run by the CIA so what do you expect?
Mickey Mic 16 hours ago For the life on me; I just can't understand, why so many have faith in
a system that has enormous disdain for them. Do the people really need the news to make the
announcement ? Sadly, that is the case, because most can't think for themselves anymore, they
rely on the narrative that everything is on a honest base system still !? The fact checkers
don't check the facts, there is no such thing as a private large corporation with out ties to
the intelligence apparatus. Big Company's are used by the shadow Gov. to gain the kind of
wealth they need to stage their secrete plans of the NWO. People like Bill Gates, Fauci,
only spoken in generalities, because they where only groomed to make the wealth for the
advancements of the puppet masters agenda's. How many conspiracies must come true for one to
think that the word "conspiracy" is only used to make others think, the next person must be
crazy to think the way he does ? What the world needs is more common sense, and less dependence
on the glow boxes in front of them. True wisdom, is only for the few that don't think the world
is what they was conditioned to believe in. Ethnocentric pride creates a comfort zone; which is
hard to break, it gets internalized though generations just like how holidays are created.
Sadly, most wouldn't remember by next week; because the their brain is constantly getting
flooded by squeals of events. And to top it all we have fake news to underline the long term
memory bank system. Salman M Salman 14 hours ago Big tech companies represent the pillars of
globalism which by definition supports only their people. The world after the elections will
see their take over or demise.
Head like a rock TheLeftyHater 18 hours ago but those are both CIA creations, is that 'lefty'?
Guns Blazing 14 hours ago Very old news, but worthy of repeating. Just watch that exchange in
Congress between Senator Cruz and Dr. Robert Epstein. Google swaying millions of votes in favor
of Democrats. Also top Clinton campaign donor in 2016 was Alphabet, the parent company of
Google.
The $100-plus million blitz includes at least $22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin
Moskovitz, according to an exclusive report from Recode, a subdivision of Vox. Another
Democratic megadonor involved is former Google and Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt, currently
advising the Pentagon on technology innovation.
Called Future Forward, the super PAC has filed federal paperwork on Tuesday disclosing that
it has raised $66 million between September 1 and October 15. It has contracted for $106
million of TV ads between September 29 and November 3, according to media tracking firm
Advertising Analytics. This makes it the largest Biden booster outside the Democrats' campaign
itself, already a fundraising juggernaut.
Recode also reported that Future Forward "has been recommended in private communications
by the team of Reid Hoffman." He is the LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor
previously caught funding a disinformation
campaign during the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama, in which a company called New
Knowledge created a Twitter army of 'Russian bots' pretending to back the Republican candidate.
It was unclear from the Recode story whether Hoffman had contributed any funding to Moskovitz's
super PAC.
"... "What we're in possession of contains 1,000, maybe more, photographs that are highly, highly – anywhere from inappropriate to illegal – and have to be possessed by the Chinese government," Giuliani said. ..."
"... If there is "underage" material on the hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter, the FBI will have to answer some questions as well. ..."
A tweet published by One America News Network's Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion
claims the hard drive from Hunter Biden's laptop contained "underage obsessions."
"Just saw for myself a behind the scenes look at the Hunter Biden hard drive: Drugs,
underage obsessions, power deals " she wrote "Druggie Hunter makes Anthony Weiner's down under
selfie addiction look normal. Biden Crime Family has a
lot of apologizing to do. So does Big Tech."
Perhaps also referring to "underage" content, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told Steve Bannon
on the War Room
Pandemic podcast on Wednesday that the hard drive contains "sensitive stuff."
"What we're in possession of contains 1,000, maybe more, photographs that are highly, highly
– anywhere from inappropriate to illegal – and have to be possessed by the Chinese
government," Giuliani said.
Only a portion of the data in the hard drive has been released so far, so an even bigger
October Surprise could be awaiting the Democrat Party.
If there is "underage" material on the hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter, the FBI
will have to answer some questions as well.
According to the computer repairman who obtained the laptop, "The FBI first made a forensic
copy of the laptop, then returned a few weeks later with a subpoena and confiscated it."
However, the agency did not know the repairman also made a copy in case anything suspicious
took place.
ZeroHedge reports , "After he stopped hearing back from the FBI, Isaac said he contacted
several members of Congress, who did not respond, at which point his intermediary reached out
to Rudy Giuliani's attorney, Robert Costello."
"... Meanwhile, back on ABC, Joe Biden skated on answering any questions of substance about his son or Antifa or BLM. On NBC, Guthrie pushed Donald Trump to condemn QAnon and White supremacy, and he did it dutifully. But it wasn't enough. The point of demanding performative disavowals isn't to get the disavowal, it's to smear the person you're asking to disavow the group by association with the group. ..."
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: If you flipped the channel during our show Thursday night, you may
have seen the president and his challenger making their respective cases to voters. But
President Trump and Joe Biden weren't debating each other. That would have been too risky.
There's a massive public health crisis underway, you may have heard.
So to avoid what doomsday hobbyists on Twitter like to call a "superspreader event," Trump
and Biden held separate indoor town halls surrounded by people. They talked to partisan
moderators instead of each other. That might seem like a loss to the country three weeks before
a presidential election. But unfortunately, the science on this question is clear: Nothing
could be more dangerous to America than a televised in-person debate between Joe Biden and
Donald Trump.
So the so-called debate commission made certain a debate couldn't happen. Who benefitted
from that decision? Well, not voters. America has held regularly scheduled presidential debates
for decades and we have them for a reason. The more information voters can get directly from
the candidates rather than the media, the better our democracy functions, not that anyone's
interested in democracy anymore.
Joe Biden doesn't care either way. He just didn't want to talk about Burisma. That's the
scandal that vividly illustrates how, as vice president, Biden subverted this country's foreign
policy in order to enrich his own family. The good news for Biden Thursday night was that he
didn't have to talk about it. No one from ABC News asked him about that scandal for the entire
90 minutes.
As we've been telling you this week, the New York Post and a few other news outlets,
including "Tucker Carlson Tonight," have published e-mails taken from Hunter Biden's personal
laptop. They show that Hunter Biden was paid by foreign actors to change American foreign
policy using access to his father, then the vice president. This is a big story. It is also a
real story.
Friday afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves conclusively this was indeed
Hunter Biden's laptop. There are materials on the hard drive of that computer that no one but
Hunter Biden could have known about or have replicated. This is not a Russian hoax. Again,
we're saying this definitively. We're not speculating. The laptop in question is real. It
belonged to Hunter Biden. So there is no excuse for not asking about it.
But they didn't ask about it. It was a cover-up in real time. No matter what happens in the
election next month, the American media will never be the same after this. It cannot continue
this way. It is too dishonest.
Nevertheless, we did learn a few things Thursday night. (It's hard not to learn when you
watch Joe Biden try to speak for 90 minutes.) At one point, an activist told Joe Biden that she
has an eight-year-old transgender daughter. She asked Joe Biden what he thought about that.
Here's how he responded:
BIDEN: The idea that an eight-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, 'You know,
I've decided I want to be transgender. That's what I think. I'd like to be a -- make my life a
lot easier.' There should be zero discrimination. What's happening is too many transgender
women of color are being murdered. They're being murdered. I mean, I think it's up to now 17,
don't hold me to that number.
So if an eight-year-old biological boy decides one day that he's really a girl, that's final
and you'd have to be a bigot to pause and say, "Wait a minute, you're eight years old, you're a
small child. Maybe let's think about this for a minute." That's what a normal person who has
kids would say. People with kids know that children grow and change. They change their minds
about a lot of things, including themselves. That's the reality of it.
But if you're a crazed ideologue, you don't care about reality. So you would tell the rest
of us that an eight-year-old is entitled to hormone therapy on demand and permanent,
life-altering surgery. That's what Biden is telling us.
It doesn't matter how fashionable talk like this is right now, and it is very fashionable,
it is crazy and it's destructive and it's having a profound effect. No one wants to say it, but
it's true. We know that between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender surgeries for biological
females in this country quadrupled. We also know that many people who get those surgeries
regret them later, deeply regret them. We'd have a lot more data on that, but universities are
actively punishing researchers who follow that line of inquiry. So much for science.
In the end, mania like this will end. The left is at war with nature. Inevitably, they will
lose that war, because nature always prevails. But in the meantime, many children are being
hurt irreparably. Biden doesn't care. It's the new thing, and so he's for it. In fact, Biden is
now busy rewriting his entire life story to pretend that he has been woke for 60 years.
Thursday night, he told us he became a gay rights supporter during the Kennedy administration,
sometime around 1962, when he and his father saw two gay men kissing.
When asked about police brutality, the former vice president speculated that maybe people
like George Floyd would be alive today if the police had just shot him in the leg a few
times.
BIDEN: There's a lot of things we've learned and it takes time. But we can do this. You
can ban chokeholds ... But beyond that, you have to teach people how to deescalate
circumstances, deescalate. So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do shoot
to kill, shoot him in the leg.
How much would you have to know about firearms or human biology to wonder if maybe there
could be some unintended consequences there? People do have arteries in their legs, after all,
and sometimes bullets do miss their targets. So why did no one point out how demented Biden's
answer was?
Well, we have some clarity on the question of why no one pointed it out. It turns out George
Stephanopoulos, the moderator of last night's ABC town hall, was not the only political
operative in the room. One supposedly uncommitted voter was, in fact, a former Obama
administration speechwriter called Nathan Osburn. Osburn repeated Biden campaign talking points
to the letter, at one point referring to court-packing as a safeguard "that'll help ensure more
long-term balance and stability" on the Supreme Court.
BIDEN: I have not been a fan of court-packing because I think it just generates, what
will happen ... Whoever wins, it just keeps moving in a way that is inconsistent with what is
going to be manageable.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're still not a fan?
BIDEN: Well, I'm not a fan ... It depends on how this turns out, not how he wins, but how
it's handled, how it's handled. But there's a number of things that are going to be coming up
and there's going to be a lot of discussion about other alternatives as well.
So we did learn something new last night: Joe Biden isn't a fan of court-packing.
Court-packing has had a few off years, and Joe Biden started to lose his faith in it, even sold
his "Court-Packing" jersey. But at the end of the day, Joe Biden is still open to court-packing
and can get back on the court-packing bandwagon depending on how things are "handled." Got
it?
Biden was allowed to answer non-questions like this because he was surrounded by sycophants
and former employees of his party. Over at NBC, by contrast, the sitting president didn't have
that luxury, to put it mildly. (By the way, it's not good for you to be sucked up to too much.
It's good to get smacked around a little bit. It makes you sharper.)
During the president's one-hour event, moderator Savannah Guthrie asked him dozens more
questions than the voters in the room got to ask. And when Trump began speaking, Guthrie
interrupted him over and over again. Joe Biden wasn't there, so the moderator played stand-in
for Joe Biden.
The good news about all of this is it's so bad and so transparent that it can't continue.
All their stupid little morning shows and their dumb Sunday shows and their even dumber cable
shows -- all of that's going away when the smoke clears from this election. There will be a
massive realignment in the media no matter who wins, because they've showed who they are and
it's so unappealing, so far from journalism, that it can't continue.
Meanwhile, back on ABC, Joe Biden skated on answering any questions of substance about his
son or Antifa or BLM. On NBC, Guthrie pushed Donald Trump to condemn QAnon and White supremacy,
and he did it dutifully. But it wasn't enough. The point of demanding performative disavowals
isn't to get the disavowal, it's to smear the person you're asking to disavow the group by
association with the group.
GUTHRIE: You were asked point-blank to denounce White supremacy [at the first debate]. In
the moment, you didn't ... A couple of days later on a different show, you denounce White
supremacy --
TRUMP: You always do this. You've done this line -- I denounce White supremacy,
OK?
GUTHRIE: You did two days later.
TRUMP: I've denounced White supremacy for years. But you always do, you always start off
with the question. You didn't ask Joe Biden whether or not he denounces Antifa ... Are you
listening? I denounce White supremacy. What's your next question?
NBC was under a lot of pressure from Democrats to make Thursday night's town hall look like
this, and just like Facebook and Twitter delivered earlier this week, NBC delivered,
too.
whatmeworry? 1 day ago The only difference between the "news" media today, and, say a
decade ago, is that they no longer try to conceal their bias. They've dropped the cloak of
objectivity and come out as democrat activists. It's sort of refreshing. We no longer have to
waste time and energy arguing about the fairness of the media. Scotty2Hotty 1 1 day ago
Liberals are more an enemy of the free press than Donald Trump is--we know that for sure after
the NY Post incident. For all the times Trump has trashed the press, he has never shut them
down (he can't), but the liberals at Facebook and Twitter did just that to the New York Post,
because they didn't like a story of theirs. The story should never have been banned anywhere.
In a free society, bogus stories are debunked by other free speech outlets and press agencies.
They are not banned. Trump is not a friend of the press, but liberals are a worse enemy than he
is, to press freedom. Leftists have a strong totalitarian streak, and they continually work to
create environments where only one viewpoint is permitted, whether in academia, television, the
press or elsewhere. Liberals believe more in shutting down dissent than in discrediting it,
through argument. Gadsden_1968 2.0 1 day ago 90% of the media is now formally known as the
Democratic Party propaganda ministry. Arm yourselves, it appears the majority of people are
100% controlled by the Democratic Party's propaganda ministry. If Biden wins, his propaganda
ministry will make Pravda look like a high school news paper. Architech 1 day ago Why is the
crackhead Hunter Biden a taboo subject? Nobody mentions that Hunter is The Train Wreck of the
Century. Even on right wing news they don't tell you what a drop dead irresponsible loser low
life that Hunter is. He sleeps with his dying brothers wife while he is still alive. Red flag.
Plenty of other girls, but no, your sister in law. But that is nothing. Nada. Kicked out of the
Navy for drug use. Banged 1000 strippers in Wash DC, knocked one up, denied the child, was
proven he was the dad, denied child support and was forced to pay. Nice. Dead beat dad deluxe.
There are about 100 things like that. Too long to list. And nobody mentions is. They act like
Hunter is just another guy.... Calling out the Loser of the Century is not off limits in my
book. Calling out stupidity, no self control, no personal responsibility, corruption, unethical
behavior, outright crimes....not off limits. It's actually illegal to be a crack addict did you
know that?
"... "The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and all those intelligence communities." ..."
"... "What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in misconduct?" Greenwald asked. ..."
Glenn Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson's FOX News show Monday night to criticize
the media for its lack of response to the Hunter Biden laptop story. Greenwald also criticized
intel community activity in domestic elections and posed the question that even if Russians are
behind the story it just requires journalistic investigation in case Biden is compromised.
"Adam Schiff is seriously the most pathological liar in all of American politics that I've seen in all of my time covering
politics and journalism," Greenwald said on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' "He just fabricates accusations at the drop of the hat at
the other people change underwear. He's simply lying when he just asserts over and over that the Russians or the Kremlin are
behind the story. He has no idea whether or not that is true. There is no evidence to support it."
"And what makes it so much worse is that the reason that the Bidens aren't answering basic
questions about the story," Greenwald said. "Basic questions like did Hunter Biden drop that
laptop off of the repair shop? Are the emails authentic? Do you know denied that they are. Do
you claim that any have been altered or are any of them fabricated? Did you in fact meet with
Barisma executives? The reason they don't answer the questions is because the media has
signaled that they don't have to. That journalists will be attacked and vilified simply for
asking."
Victor Davis Hanson: Will Our Next Revolution Be French, Russian, Maoist, Or
American?
Glenn Greenwald: Media and Intel Community Working Together To Manipulate The American
People
Trump Rips Coronavirus Coverage: "People Aren't Buying It CNN, You Dumb Bastards"
"The whole point of the Intelligence Community since the end of World War II was that
whatever propaganda the CIA produces, whatever disinformation campaigns they engaged were never
supposed to be directed domestically," he said. "That was the point of the NSA, the CIA, and
all those intelligence communities."
"What we have seen since 2016 going back to the 2016 campaign is incessant involvement
in U.S. domestic politics. Working with journalists to disseminate purely for partisan ends. If
you want to talk about things like violating norms, and dangers to democracy, what's more
dangerous than allowing the CIA constantly to be manipulating our politics by making cover for
the Biden campaign by claiming anonymously that the Russians are behind the story and therefore
you disregard it. Even if the Russians why does that alleviate the responsibility of
journalists to evaluate the emails and to examine whether or not Joe Biden actually engaged in
misconduct?" Greenwald asked.
"The much bigger point is the way that the information is being disseminated," he said. "It
is a union of journalists who have decided that their only goal is to defend Joe Biden and
election him president of the United States working with the FBI, CIA, NSA not to manipulate
our adversaries or foreign governments, but to manipulate the American people for their own
ends. It's been going on for four straight years now and there's no sign of it stopping anytime
soon." Related Videos
Update (1930ET) : In yet another death blow to Adam Schiff and the '50 former senior
intelligence officers' "Russia, Russia, Russia" claims, the FBI and DOJ have told a Fox News
producer that they do not believe that Hunter Biden's laptop and its contents are part of a
Russian disinformation campaign , confirming that the 'current' intelligence community agrees
with DNI Ratcliffe's comments yesterday.
We look forward to the reporting from other mainstream media news agencies now that federal
law enforcement has confirmed this is not a 'hoax' and we assume that the NYPost will once
again be allowed to tweet since this is now as 'factual' as anything thrown at Trump for the
last five years.
y_arrow Fizzy Head , 9 hours ago
Excuse me, but Who cares what these "former" senior officials think? I want names and
party affiliations, that will tell the tale.
and furthermore, if these former guys can muster up a letter why can't the real officials
muster up something, anything? They've known for months!! This is growing more ridiculous as
time goes by.
Han Cholo , 8 hours ago
"former" -- Meaning they are mostly looking from the outside in and have no clue.
Here we thought this man was for the working class and came from a working class.
If you are working class average Joe, you will not be able to dispense your hospital and
bank debts in a bankruptcy court. Thank you hunter and your lobbying company.
It seems in our complicated world many murky relationships develop that come across as
inappropriate. Over the years, growing crony capitalism has become the bane of modern society
and added greatly to inequality. This is why, when we look at Hunter Biden and how he benefited
from his father's role as Vice President an investigation is in order. Even before we get to
what happened in Ukraine, the ties between China and the Biden family are too many and too
large to ignore. President Trump has received a lot of criticism related to how he gained his
wealth, however, almost all of what Trump has done he did as an outsider and not as part of the
ruling political class.
Before going deeper into this subject it is very important to look at how the "Biden
revelations" are being handled by the media. The way media has handled these allegations reveal
a flaw or bias in both mainstream media and social media to the point where even censorship is
being deployed. A good example of the spin being put on this red flag of corruption can be seen
in an article that appeared under trending stories on my city's main news outlet. Here in the
conservation heartland of America, the media published a piece titled; "Biden email episode
illustrates risk to Trump from Giuliani"
The Associated Press piece written by Eric Tucker shines the spotlight on Rudy Giuliani
portraying him as the messenger of Russian contrived information aimed at damaging Biden and
influencing the election. It starts off referring to "a New York tabloid's puzzling account
about how it acquired emails purportedly from Joe Biden's son has raised some red flags." Then
claims that during Giuliani's travels abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens he developed
relationships with some rather questionable figures. These include a Ukrainian lawmaker who
U.S. officials have described as a Russian agent and part of a broader Russian effort to
denigrate the Democratic presidential nominee.
The piece then moves on to the area of how the FBI seems more interested in the emails as
part of a foreign influence operation than wrongdoing by Hunter or his father. The people
reading this article are informed how this is just another latest episode involving Giuliani
that "underscores the risk he poses to the White House" which has spent years dealing with a
federal investigation into whether Trump associates had coordinated with Russia.
The part of the article that got my goat was when it referred to how " The Washington Post
reported Thursday that intelligence agencies had warned the White House last year that Giuliani
was the target of a Russian influence operation." Sighting the Washington Post as an authority
and bastion of truth is a common tactic used by journalists to add validity to their bias and
lazy reporting. Tucker forgot to mention The Washington Post is the propaganda mouthpiece of
Amazon and owned by its CEO Jeff Bezos the richest man in the world which has had several
run-ins with the President.
The effort to denigrate Giuliani rather than focus on Biden wrongdoings cites both "former
officials' and statements made by a person "who was not authorized to discuss an ongoing
investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity to AP," and of course, the exact scope of
what was being investigated was not clear. Claiming that many people in the West Wing have been
concerned about Giuliani's actions or saying the president has expressed private dismay at
Giuliani's scattershot style does not make it true.
Thinking a case can be made that Hunter enriched himself by selling access to his father but
claiming Giuliani's lack of credibility will cause the allegations to implode is a bit of a
reach. This fact much of what appears to be bribe-taking at the highest levels of government
has been overlooked for so long is in its self is a problem. The appointment of an unqualified
Hunter Biden to the board of a Ukrainian energy company with a reported compensation package
worth some $50,000 per month led the Wall Street Journal, to publish a scathing article, on May
13, 2014. bringing the issue before the public.
At criminal.findlaw.com, FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors detail what constitutes
bribery. It is offering or accepting anything of value in exchange to influence a
government/public official or employee. Bribes can take many forms of gifts or payments of
money in exchange for favorable treatment, such as awards of government contracts. Other forms
of bribes may include property, various goods, privileges, services, and favors. Bribes are
always intended to influence or alter the action of various individuals and are linked to both
political and public corruption. In most situations, both the person offering the bribe and the
person accepting can be charged.
Both giving and receiving bribes is usually a felony with significant legal ramifications.
Influence peddling, the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections
with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential treatment falls into this category.
One thing is clear, whenever we are talking about the involvement of huge sums of money,
foreign players, officials holding high public office, or family members of politicians a few
eyebrows should get raised. With this in mind, the Biden problem extends well past Hunter but
also into how other family members have profited from Joe's time as Vice President such as his
brother's involvement in a huge government contract in Iraq.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The issue of Hunter Biden receiving money from Russia, Ukraine, and China surfaced during
the first Presidential debate and Biden claimed it was a story already discredited by
authorities. This narrative was destroyed when the Washington Times acknowledged the Treasury
Department records confirm Hunter Biden received a wire transfer for $3.5 million from the
Mayor of Moscow's wife. It is difficult to find anyone that holds Hunter in high esteem and the
fact the United States suspects the woman sending him this money built much of her wealth
through corruption does little to improve his standing. For those of us cynical of all the
so-called public servants that seem to line their pockets and hold the attitude they are above
the law this is a big red flag.
If the veil of secrecy surrounding Hunter's career is lifted we will most likely find
Hunter's dad did share in the spoils bestowed upon not only his son but others in the Biden
family. I contend Joe Biden's cozy relationship with corruption is why former President Obama
did not rush to endorse Biden when he announced he planned to run. To be clear, we are talking
about, millions, and hundreds of millions of dollars or more. For us cynics, we see this as
what may be only the tip of the spear when it comes to public officials throwing the American
people under the bus for fun and profit. As a voter, this dovetails with my concern about
Biden's relationship and attitude towards China which I consider a major issue.
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 4 hours ago
The [neoliberal] political class is the problem. ******* all of them. Biden just got
caught.
Jan_Michael_Vincent007 , 4 hours ago
The political class is the problem. ******* all of them. Biden just got caught.
RedDog1 , 4 hours ago
Highly recommend reading Peter Schweitzer's book Secret Empires. It's business as usual to
launder bribes through family members and associates.
philipat , 2 hours ago
Yes agreed, the problem here is actually that the entire US political (and economic)
system is completely corrupt and broken. Why has no action been taken against those
responsible for a proven attempted coup? Or against a MSM and SillyCon Valley that is
censoring everything the average American (rightlly or wrongly) actually reads and which is
stifling the very democracy and free speech upon which the country was founded?
The answer? Follow the money.
I do disagree with the author about the specific Biden situation because "The Biden Crime
Family" would be a better description. They are ALL responsible. It is obvious from the
Hunter laptop that payments were being made to "The Big Man" and other family members also,
so this is NOT a Hunter-specific problem. The game was for Hunter to serve as a proxy for
"The Big Man" and receive the "commissions" (better described as influence peddling payments
and extortion - something the Dems are very good at; The Clinton Foundation Model!!) for
onward distribution to the family, visibly or invisibly. In this way, "The Big Man" would not
have anything to report and could appear to be "clean". Pretty obvious to anyone who can fog
a mirror?
And yet still they vote for him. Does that mean a public acceptance of the sleaze and
corruption which is the US today? I certainly hope not.
Rural Hermit , 2 hours ago
Why do you think Obama picked Biden to be his VP? He knows how to shakedown everyone.
Obama's tutor. I do think that the student has surpassed the teacher though. When the rest of
this shakes out, the Kenyan will be in chains.
gregga777 , 3 hours ago
If the truth ever comes out, it will probably show that, among other things, Hunter Biden
was / is probably connected to human trafficking networks, and most likely Eastern European,
most likely involving The Russian Mafia. It's not a stretch to speculate that it also
included children.
If the United States of America had a functioning [sic] Intelligence Community and [Ha,
ha, ha] national law enforcement the Silicon Valley tech giants and others like Amazon
wouldn't be heavily infiltrated by People's Republic of China Ministry of State Security
operatives. Consequently, the massive extent of political corruption would be common
knowledge, especially specifics regarding names, dates, places and amounts. Right Paul Ryan
and Willard Romney?
Rusty Shorts , 3 hours ago
The hits just keep coming.
"Pelosi's Son Now Involved In Ukraine Scandal, Democrat Party In Shambles"
Seriously, does anyone think a Democrat controlled Congress will investigate Biden and all
his cronies, to include Obama? The whole DC swamp is set up to allow selling out of the
American people. DC is not just a threat to national security it is steeped in Treason.
No sense ranting as it does nothing. The only consolation is that stupid people who vote
Biden/Harris will get the crime and corruption they voted into office.
Stackers , 4 hours ago
In Roman times when someone was caught bribing a public official they would cut off his
nose, sew him in a bag with a wild animal, and throw that bag in the river
The problem with all this is that it is extremely well documented going back a number of
years of Hunter Jnr's shopping trips with his father and nothing has been done about it all.
Just search on Biden and China, Romania or Ukraine and then you see the "deals" that Hunter
gets every time.
Every f\/cking place that Biden turned up, Hunter was right behind with his hand out, like
some sort of mob shakedown. Did Biden senior tell Hunter what to do and who to meet because
junior doesn't seem that clever enough to come up with this on his own? That way, the money
also flows to junior who then funnels it to dad later on (which the laptop seems to
show).
Washington insiders know the f\/cking truth and are desperate to keep the gravy train
going. That is why they hate Trump. That is why Barr and co have no interest in getting to
the truth because they are all implicated. The swamp is very deep.
Merica101 , 4 hours ago
Human nature is swampy - that's why the Founding Fathers tried to design a system that
limited the "swampiness'. Unfortunately, they couldn't even begin to imagine the depravity
and games that are now being played. Pray.
Fuster-cluck , 3 hours ago
I have worked for a number of large multi-national corporations. In each, employees must
take an annual ethics course. The only approved amount you can spend on a client is $0. I
mean, no golf, no lunches, no tee shirts, no hunting weekends, zippo, nothing. If anyone in
your family is connected to government, it is automatically assumed to be a conflict of
interest, and you must remove yourself from any part of the dealings. These policies have
been implemented because of the intense fear of the unlimited penalties that may be applied
by goverment sponsored prosecutorial abuse.
So tell me, have those same standards been applied here? Ha. Ha. Ha.
Smilygladhands , 3 hours ago
i think we must implement a no fraternization rule between DC politicians and staff and
the media. too many personal relationships going on up there
TahoeBilly2012 , 3 hours ago
Tards have finally been caught out, no way back.
Look man, I never would have voted for HILLARY OR JEB, no f'ing way! I am a Ron Paul
Libertarian and I rolled the dice with Trump.
You Tards are all a gang of freaks. The fact you even halfway support Biden (or Hillary)
is pathetic. The only way you get change is sticking to your guns or having a Trump come
along and hope he is for the people and not a Satanic criminal, like the Biden's, the Bush's
and the Clinton's. What exactly is it that you freaks don't get and while Bernie may have
been somewhat more "authentic" than the rest, he's a friggin Bolshevik Commy, in his own way,
worse than them all, likely not as corrupt.
There's nothing left to the Dem Party, zero, zilch, it's a stinking rotting corpse relying
on Corporate Media lie after lie to try to compete with Trump. Hell, every Neocon has left
Trump and joined up with y'all. Geez, the stench!
Pathetic, disgusting, sick.
Lucius Septimius Pertinax , 3 hours ago
What bothers me about all this is the reaction of Democrats in general. They don't seem to
care what the Biden's have done, as long as they defeat Donald Trump. We seen this on a
smaller scale with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it's all about sex manta. But in this
case we have what appears to be at least for now, almost a watertight case against Joe Biden.
And still no moral outrage at what Biden's family is up to? Guess I should not have been
amazed, but still hope their are a few thinkers left on the left that can still see the truth
when it bites them.
I expected the CNN's of the left to react this way. Further when their "the Russians"
excuse for everything, is exhausted, they will need someone else to blame, cause they know
Biden and son are as pure as the driven snow. Or at least the owners of all these so called
media news companies decide that Joe cannot win and flush the comode on him.
sirnzee , 3 hours ago
The media has done a terrific job of brainwashing half of America. So sad to be a part of
this. Who is to blame? The media, or the people who allowed their minds to be controlled the
way they are?
Fugly
Merica101 , 3 hours ago
Most of the MSM have their own agenda - a globalist agenda where the US is not their
priority.
12Doberman , 4 hours ago
Some deny the Biden's got the money which is absurd since the Senate report details the
wire transfers. Denial of facts seems to be a democrat trait.
chiquita , 3 hours ago
This is the Democrat philosophy--one of the best movie scenes ever.
Biden has used his family as bag men for graft since he was shaking down banks that
incorporated in Delaware for tax purposes.
He was MBNA Joe long before he became dementia Joe.
Totally vile corrupt dullard on his best day.
That is why the DNC wants him.
CogitoMan , 3 hours ago
Any person who has knowledge of Biden family crimes and still votes for him is beyond
deplorable.
Even demonrats that hate Trump IF they have at least minimum token of decency should
abstain from voting.
But alas, most of dumbocrats will vote for Biden even if he raped their daughters and shot
their wives.
This country with such moral attitude has no chance of survival, especially when tough
times come.
Sad, very sad.
12Doberman , 3 hours ago
Trump learned quickly that without powerful allies in powerful positions in the executive
agencies, within congress, and in the courts he's essentially powerless against this
corruption. Pelosi is involved in Ukraine...McConnell is up to his eyeballs in Chinese
graft.
Md4 , 4 hours ago
"Hunter Biden Is Not The Problem, The Problem Is His Dad"
Pops has been demonstrably crooked for years.
But... Hunter is not a child.
He's a grown man... with a law degree.
His problems are now...his own.
He can begin to recover...when he accepts responsibility for them...
Hotspice2020 , 4 hours ago
Stop treating mainstream media as "independent, objective, unbiased" they are "captured
media", and vassal servants to a hidden hand ruling elite ... as are the Bidens and K.
Harris. The Clintons were vassals before as was slamma Obama. The media will say whatever
their master tell them to say. Thus, when a Hard Drive with pedo, crack, bribery is found,
the masters say...blame it on the Russians. When Trump wants to bring Hunters double dealing
to light...the masters say.. Impeach Trump. What is needed is for a bright light to shine on
the owners of the media...e.g., Bezos Rag (Wash. Post) and Laurene Powell Jobs (mistress to
Steve) owns the Atlantic. Once you keep focusing on the fact that the media has owners that
make every story fit their narrative and you shine a light on them, then you can solve the
problem.
tyberious , 5 hours ago
Term limits
Full income disclosures while in office
No benefit for any legislation co-authored after leaving office
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 4 hours ago
No honor, integrity or honesty in politics anymore. Why would there be any, when apart for
a little public shaming, corruption pays and pays big. The Clinton foundation raked in
hundreds of millions, altered policy and maybe even caused death of the impoverished, i.e.,
Haiti and other places. Sold out national and global security with Uranium One and other
controversies. The end result?... They got to keep all the money. When that happens, everyone
in and running for office gets the message and sees dollar signs.
You need serious recourse like some sort of treason charges when you put money over
country. Audit all family members and colleagues. Then do not let lobbying jobs before or
after office.
moneybots , 3 hours ago
"The Associated Press piece written by Eric Tucker shines the spotlight on Rudy Giuliani
portraying him as the messenger of Russian contrived information aimed at damaging Biden and
influencing the election. It starts off referring to "a New York tabloid's puzzling account
about how it acquired emails purportedly from Joe Biden's son has raised some red
flags.""
Yes, it raises Red Flags about the integrity of the Associated Press, considering the
story is a propaganda piece.
Merica101 , 4 hours ago
Joe and Hunter Biden (and the Biden family) aren't the ONLY ONES....there are many
others.
toady , 4 hours ago
The questions that simply are not being asked/answered....
I have not heard that any Biden has been asked about any of this... apparently they
thought they could just have CNN and the other talking heads say it was all "debunked" and
the brain dead general population would nod and say "okay".
And they were right, the demonrats are all just doing the Alfred E Numan "who, me,
worry?"
It's simple. The "17 intelligence agencies" need to be all over this, starting 15 years
ago.
But they aren't. And they won't. And the US will not recover.
TheLastMan , 3 hours ago
perspective:
1. you work 50 hours a week
2. .gov takes 22% for income tax
3. joe biden (and the rest) take your tax $$$ and provides $$$ foreign aid to country
X
4. hunter biden makes business connection to country x
5. country x takes your foreign aid tax dollars (edit) and pays hunter biden $$ for his
services
6. hunter biden pays joe biden $$ for (his service to your country) edit - servicing your
country
7. repeat step 1
Smilygladhands , 3 hours ago
the biggest problem that must be addressed is our dishonest, biased DNC propaganda arm
also known as main stream media.
they've allowed biden to get away with not answering the SCOTUS packing question and now
actively running cover for him. we cannot allow this to continue
Md4 , 4 hours ago
" Both giving and receiving bribes is usually a felony with significant legal
ramifications. Influence peddling, the illegal practice of using one's influence in
government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential
treatment falls into this category."
When it involves a mortal adversary... we call it something else...
HailAtlantis , 4 hours ago
Always lots of fun this time of year taking Anti-Money Laundering etc continuing education
courses and reading about high level scandals in finance and governments in current news
(it's just gotten progressively more insidious every year).. Scrutinizing little 'guys' while
making billions at the top.
johnny two shoes , 2 hours ago
Can't forget old Swiftboat Kerry...
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary of
State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm.
Heinz's college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of
2014, Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was
at the center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid
Biden and Archer's companies over $3 million.
Electing a President is electing someone in formal command of enough power to kill most of
the people on the planet - perhaps three times over. Including you and me. This is not the
mayor of Minneapolis we're talking about.
vasilievich , 4 hours ago
To use biologists' terminology the species may not be adaptive. To be clever at graft does
*not* assure survival in the long run. It may assure extinction.
12Doberman , 4 hours ago
Biden wasn't clever. Hillary was a bit clever using a Foundation and a 'charity' to
launder her graft. Cost her 15% or so but she had the facade of the charity. Biden put his
crackhead son in charge of laundering the graft...needless to say it was careless in the
extreme...and the DNC knew all about this before they selected Biden. Stunning level of
arrogance.
chiquita , 4 hours ago
Nobody ever said Biden was a smart guy. He knew how to plagerize as in words (speeches),
but he didn't know how to copy as in ideas (charitable foundations)
SurfingUSA , 4 hours ago
Per someone on this forum who has met Biden, he is stupid not just by politician standards
but by everyday people standards.
coelacanth10 , 3 hours ago
Bill gets credit for using the Foundation, base on a undergraduate course at Georgetown on
non-profits and foundations.
chiquita , 4 hours ago
Obama had to know what was going on, if not a party to it. There was a clear distance
between the two of them--Obama did not show a great love for Biden and you have to wonder
what that was all about. He tried to tell Joe "he didn't have to do it" relative to running,
which leaves a lot open to interpretation. Trump keeps saying that Biden was not a bright guy
and that's pretty obvious in a lot of Biden's stories and his overall history. Obama knew
Biden wasn't the smartest guy too. Was Obama trying to tell Joe to leave well enough alone
and not run for the presidency, which would surely expose all this stuff? There was a good
chance Biden wasn't going to get this far, but now see what has happened. You have to wonder
what is at play with this--why didn't they shut Biden down before it got this far?
BREAKING NEWS: Here's Why the Mayor of Moscow's Wife Paid Hunter Biden $3.5 Million And
Likely More!
According to US treasury documents provided by the Senate Finance and Homeland Security
Committees, Hunter Biden was paid $3.5 million from the Mayor of Moscow's wife.
The report by the Senate Finance and Homeland Security Committees was released last month
and it was devastating.
Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Yelena Baturina, the wife of the
former mayor of Moscow.
Until today we didn't know why Yelena Baturina paid Hunter millions of dollars.
According to emails and documents, Yelena Baturina laundered funds into the US in
avoidance of sanctions, Devon Archer claimed the firm received $200 million.
Emails provided by Matthew Tyrmand come directly from Hunter associate's Gmail account.
They are still hosted on Google's servers. Bevan Cooney flipped and gave his login info.
The sky is blue, water is wet and women have secrets.
Might as well add: " Politicians are dishonest." That is not an "October Surprise". More
like ....duuuuuh.
Not sure where the moral contest lies between Biden and Trump. Perhaps that Trump wears
his corruption on his sleeve?
truth or go home , 26 minutes ago
Anyone who was paying attention knew all about this at least 5 years ago. It's not an
October surprise.
Biden has been successfully playing the political game for almost 50 years. He should know
better than to put his hand in the cookie jar for his son over and over, and yet he did it.
It shows you all you need to know about his character.
But you already knew that too. The fact that he is even in the position to run for
President at his age and with clear mental decline beginning to show means he is fully
beholden to the deep state. He is and will be a total puppet of the machine.
The election is down to this: Do you want a nice guy who is a sellout and a puppet and
will do and say whatever the money masters want him to? or do you want a complete ******* who
tells the truth, but gets shut down at every turn?
HarryKallahan , 4 minutes ago
Looks like Hunter's job has always been being the 'bag man'.
Collecting payoff money for daddy Joe Biden.
That's how Joe has lived in that big mansion on a senator's salary.
captain-nemo , 16 minutes ago
Breaking news
Holy ****. The Biden's received 3.5 million dollars in a wire transfer from Yelena
Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow , to launder Russian funds into the US in
order to avoid US sanctions. The fund that was laundered this way was 200 million dollars,
and for this job, the Biden's was compensated with the net sum of 3.5 million dollars. If
this is not a crime , what is?
Hunter Biden profited from his father's political connections long before he struck
questionable deals in countries where Joe Biden was undertaking diplomatic missions as vice
president. In fact, virtually all the jobs listed on his resume going back to his first
position out of college, which paid a six-figure salary, came courtesy of the former six-term
senator's donors, lobbyists and allies , a RealClearInvestigations examination has found.
Hunter Biden: Through a lawyer, he maintained he and his father dutifully avoided "conflicts
of interest." Democratic National Convention/YouTube
One document reviewed by RCI reveals that a Biden associate admitted "finding employment"
for Hunter Biden specifically as a special favor to his father, then a Senate leader running
for president. He secured a $1.2 million gig on Wall Street for his young son, even though it
was understood he had no experience in high finance. Many of his generous patrons, in turn,
ended up with legislation and policies favorable to their businesses or investments, an RCI
review of lobbying records and legislative actions taken by the elder Biden confirms.
That the 50-year-old Hunter has been trading on his Democratic father's political influence
his entire adult life raises legal questions about possible influence-peddling, government
watchdogs and former federal investigators say. In addition, the more than two-decades-long
pattern of nepotism casts fresh doubt on Joe Biden's recent statements that he "never
discussed" business with his son, and that his activities posed "no conflicts of interest."
No fewer than three committees in the Republican-controlled Senate have opened probes into
potential Biden family conflicts. Investigators are also poring over Treasury Department
records that have flagged suspicious activities involving Hunter's banking transactions and
business deals that may be connected to his father's political influence.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest in taking official actions. The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing.
While most of the attention on Hunter has focused on his dealings in Ukraine and China when
his father was in the White House, he also cashed in on cushy jobs and sweetheart deals
throughout his dad's long Senate career, records reveal.
"Hunter Biden's Ukraine-China connections are just one element of the Biden corruption
story," said Tom Fitton, president of the Washington-based watchdog group Judicial Watch, who
contends Biden used both the Office of the Vice President and the Senate to advance his son's
personal interests.
In each case, Hunter Biden appeared under-qualified for the positions he obtained. All the
while, he was a chronic abuser of alcohol and drugs, including crack cocaine, and has cycled in
and out of no fewer than six drug-rehab treatment programs, according to published reports.
He's also been the subject of at least two drug-related investigations by police, one in 1988
and another in 2016, according to federal records and reports. A third drug investigation
resulted in his discharge from the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2014.
This comprehensive account of Hunter Biden's "unique career trajectory," as one former
family friend gently put it, was pieced together through interviews with more than a dozen
people, several of whom insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations, and after an
in-depth examination of public records, including Securities and Exchange Commission filings,
court papers, campaign filings, federal lobbying disclosures, and congressional documents.
Hunter Biden's resume begins 24 years ago. Here is a rundown of the plum positions he has
managed to land since 1996, thanks to his politically connected father and his
boosters:
1996-1998: MBNA Corp.
Fresh out of college, credit-card giant MBNA put him on its payroll as "senior vice
president" earning more than $100,000 a year, plus an undisclosed signing bonus. Delaware-based
MBNA at the time was Biden's largest donor and
lobbying the Delaware senator for bankruptcy reforms that would make it harder for consumers to
declare bankruptcy and write off credit-card debt.
When Tom Brokaw asked Biden in 2008 about whether his son's job was a conflict of interest,
he snapped "Absolutely not." It was an answer he'd repeat many times in the future. NBC
News/YouTube
Besides a job for Hunter, bank executives and employees gave generously to Joe Biden's
campaigns – $214,000 total, federal records show – and one top executive even
bought Biden's Wilmington, Del., home for more than $200,000 above the market value, real
estate records show. The exec paid top dollar – $1.2 million – for the old house
even though it lacked central air conditioning. MBNA also flew Biden and his wife to events and
covered their travel costs, disclosure forms show.
Sen. Biden eventually came through for MBNA by sponsoring and whipping votes in the Senate
to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act.
When NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw
asked Biden during the 2008 presidential campaign whether it was wrong "for someone like
you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit-card
company while you were on the (Senate) floor protecting its interests," Biden gave an answer he
would repeat many times in the future: "Absolutely not," he snapped, arguing it was completely
appropriate and that Hunter deserved the position and generous salary because he graduated from
Yale.
1998-2001: Commerce Department
Hunter also capitalized on the family name in 1998 when he joined President Clinton's
agency. In spite of having no experience in the dot-com industry, he was appointed "executive
director of e-commerce policy coordination," pulling down another six-figure salary plus
bonuses.
He landed the job after his father's longtime campaign manager and lawyer William Oldaker
called then-Commerce Secretary William Daley, who'd also worked on Biden's campaigns, and put
in a good word for his son, according to public records.
2001-2009: Oldaker, Biden &
Belair
After Republican President George W. Bush took over the Commerce Department, Hunter left the
government and joined Oldaker to open a lobbying shop in Washington, just blocks from Congress,
where he gained access to exclusive business and political deals.
Robert Skomorucha: Hunter had "a very strong last name that really paid off in terms of our
lobbying efforts." LinkedIn
Federal disclosure forms show Hunter Biden
and his firm billed millions of dollars while lobbying on behalf of a host of hospitals and
private colleges and universities, among other clients. In a 2006 disclosure statement
submitted to the Senate, Hunter said his clients were "seeking federal appropriations
dollars."
Hunter won the contract to represent St. Joseph's University from an old Biden family friend
who worked in government relations at the university and proposed he solicit earmarks for one
of its programs in Philadelphia. The friend, Robert Skomorucha, remarked in a press
interview that Hunter had "a very strong last name that really paid off in terms of our
lobbying efforts."
These clients, like MBNA, also favored bankruptcy reforms to make it harder for patients and
students to discharge debt in bankruptcy filings. At the same time Hunter was operating as a
Beltway lobbyist, he was receiving "consulting
payments" from his old employer MBNA, which was still courting his father over the bankruptcy
reforms.
In 2007, Hunter also dined with a private prison lobbyist who had business before a Senate
Judiciary subcommittee Joe Biden chaired, according to published reports. Senate rules bar
members or their staff from having contact with family members who are lobbyists seeking to
influence legislation.
William Oldaker: Did not just make Hunter a rich lobbyist, but secured him a $1 million loan
that went sour. ldaker & Willison
Hunter's lawyer-lobbyist firm was embroiled in a conflict-of-interest controversy in 2006
when it was criticized for representing a lobbyist under investigation by the House ethics
committee. The lobbyist was still taking payments from his old K street firm while working as a
top aide on the House Appropriations Committee. Hunter at the time was lobbying that same
committee for earmarks for his clients.
William Oldaker did not just make Hunter a rich lobbyist. Oldaker also secured a $1 million
loan for him through a bank he co-founded, WashingtonFirst, that Hunter sought for an
investment scheme, which later went sour.
Joe Biden deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign and political action
committee donations at WashingtonFirst, while funneling hundreds of thousands in campaign and
PAC expenditures to Oldaker, Biden & Belair. Joe Biden's payments to Hunter's lobbying
firm, including more than $143,000 in 2007 alone, were listed as "legal services" in Federal
Election Commission filings.
Oldaker did not respond to a request for comment left at his office.
National Group: Hunter won earmarks for the University of Delaware and other Biden
constituents. thenationalgroup.net
2003-2005: National Group
LLP
While serving as a partner at Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also registered as a
lobbyist for National Group, a lobbying-only subsidiary which shared offices with OB&B and
specialized in targeted spending items inserted into legislation known as "earmarks."
Hunter represented his father's alma mater, the University of Delaware, and other Biden
constituents and submitted requests to Biden's office for earmarks benefiting these clients in
appropriations bills.
2006-2007: Paradigm Companies LLC
In 2005, when Joe Biden was thinking about making another run at the White House, after a
1987 bid that ended in plagiarism charges, his lobbyist son was looking for a new line of work
too.
In early 2006, Wall Street executive and Biden family friend Anthony Lotito said, Biden's
younger brother, Jim, phoned him on behalf of the senator. He said Biden wanted his youngest
son – whom he still called "Honey" – to get out of the lobbying business to avoid
allegations of conflicts of interest that might dog Biden's presidential bid.
"Biden was concerned with the impact that Hunter's lobbying activities might have on his
expected campaign [and asked his brother to] seek Lotito's assistance in finding employment for
Hunter in a non-lobbying capacity," according to a January 2007
complaint that Lotito filed in New York state court against Hunter over alleged breach of
contract in a related venture. (Jim and Hunter Biden denied such a phone call took place as
described.)
Lotito told the court he agreed to help Hunter as a favor to the senator, who had served on
the powerful banking committee. He figured "the financial community might be a good starting
place in which to seek out employment on Hunter's behalf," the court
documents state. But he quickly found that Wall Street had "no interest" in hiring
Biden.
So the Bidens hatched a scheme to buy a hedge fund, "whereby Hunter would then assume a
senior executive position with the company." And Lotito helped broker the deal. Despite having
no Wall Street experience, Biden was appointed interim CEO and president of the Paradigm
investment fund and given a $1.2 million salary, according to SEC filings
. Lotito joined the enterprise as a partner, and agreed to shepherd Hunter, still in his
mid-thirties, through his new role in high-finance.
"Given Hunter Biden's inexperience in the securities industry," the
complaint states, it was agreed that Lotito would maintain an office at the new holding
company's New York headquarters "in order to assist Biden in discharging his duties as
president."
After the venture failed, Lotito sued the Bidens for fraud. The Bidens countersued and the
two parties settled in 2008.
2006-2009: Amtrak
During this same period, Hunter was appointed vice chairman of the taxpayer-subsidized rail
line, thanks to the sponsorship of powerful Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, a political ally of his
father.
Joe Biden: The "senator from Amtrak" had a son from Amtrak too. Michael Perez/AP for
Siemens
In a 2006 statement
submitted to the Senate during his confirmation, Hunter asserted that he was qualified for the
Amtrak board because "as a frequent commuter and Amtrak customer for over 30 years, I have
literally logged thousands of miles on Amtrak."
Amtrak has been a major supporter of Joe Biden, donating to both his Senate and presidential
campaigns and even naming a train station after him in Wilmington. In return, Biden has
supported taxpayer subsidies for the government railroad throughout his political career.
In his testimony, Hunter denied his Amtrak appointment pushed conflict-of-interest
boundaries.
2009- : Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC
Hunter co-founded the investment firm five months after his father moved into the White
House and incorporated it in his father's home state of Delaware, which has strict corporate
secrecy rules.
At the time, Obama had tapped Vice President Biden to oversee the recovery from the
financial crisis. Three weeks after Rosemont was incorporated, Hunter and his partners set up a
subsidiary called Rosemont TALF and got $24 million in loans from the federal program known as
the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. TALF was designed to help bail out banks and
auto lenders hit by the crisis.
Within months, Rosemont had secured a total of $130 million from the program. Some of the
government cash was then funneled into an investment fund incorporated in the Cayman Islands,
SEC records show. Such offshore
accounts are commonly used to evade taxes.
The move raised ethical flags with government watchdogs who suspected the bailout cash was
used to benefit a well-connected insider.
Other records reveal that another subsidiary created years later – Rosemont Realty
– touted to its investors that board adviser Hunter was politically connected. It
highlighted in a company prospectus that he was the "son of
Vice President Biden."
2009-2012: Eudora Global
On his resume, Hunter also lists himself as "founder" of yet another investment firm. But
Eudora's articles of incorporation show it was actually set up by a major Biden donor, Jeffrey
Cooper, who put Hunter on his board after his father became vice president.
A self-described "friend of the Biden family," Cooper also happened to run one of the
largest asbestos-litigation firms in the country -- SimmonsCooper LLC -- and had courted Biden
to make it easier to file asbestos lawsuits by defeating tort reforms. As a leader on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden had blocked reform
of asbestos litigation every time bills reached the Senate floor.
Cooper's law firm, which directly lobbied the Delaware senator's office to kill such bills,
donated more than $200,000 to Biden's campaigns over the years, as well as his Unite Our States
PAC, FEC records show. In fact, SimmonsCooper was one of Biden's biggest donors
during his failed 2007-2008 run for president, pumping $53,000 into his campaign.
The firm also put up $1 million in investment capital to help his son buy out the Paradigm
hedge fund as part of the arrangement brokered by another Biden family friend, Lotito, to find
non-lobbying work for Hunter.. Thanks in large part to Biden's effort to kill bills reining in
asbestos trial lawyers, SimmonsCooper has hauled in more than $1 billion for alleged asbestos
victims.
Attempts to reach Cooper for comment were unsuccessful.
2009-2016: Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP
When Joe Biden became Vice President, Hunter landed a high-paying, no-show job at the New
York-based law firm, a Democrat shop long tied to the Clintons. Another major Biden donor, the
firm gave him the title "of counsel."
Boies Schiller Flexner: Got Fraud charges against Hunter Biden dismissed, then brought him
aboard. Boies Schiller Flexner
Boies Schiller brought Hunter aboard in 2009 after the Bidens hired the firm to defend
Hunter against charges he defrauded partners in the Paradigm investment venture. Boies Schiller
managed to get the case
dismissed .
In 2014, a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch, who was under investigation and looking to repair his
reputation to attract Western investors, started sending large payments to Boies to support
Hunter for unspecified work. It's unclear what Hunter did for the oligarch, who ran the gas
giant Burisma, but $283,000 showed up at the same time his father was tapped by Obama to play a
central role in overseeing U.S. energy policy in Ukraine.
Boies Schiller has pumped more than $50,000 into Biden's campaigns, Federal Election
Commission records show.
2013-2019: BHR Partners
After Obama named Biden his point man on China policy, Rosemont Seneca set up a joint
venture worth $1 billion with the Bank of China called BHR – and Hunter was named
vice-chairman and director of the new concern.
BHR Partners: Hunter arranged for one of his Chinese partners to shake hands with his
father, the vice president. Beijing approved a business license shortly afterward. BHR
Partners
Following in the shadow of his father's political trajectory, Hunter's new venture won the
first-of-its-kind investment deal with the Chinese government at the same time Biden was
jetting to Beijing to meet with top communist leaders. Secret Service records reveal Hunter
flew to China on Air Force Two with his father while brokering the December 2013 deal. He
arranged for one of his Chinese partners to shake hands with the vice president. BHR was
registered 12 days later. Beijing OK'd a business license shortly afterward.
"No one else had such an arrangement in China," said Peter Schweizer, president of the
Government Accountability Institute.
Hunter resigned from the board of the Beijing-backed equity firm earlier this year as his
father faced growing criticism on the campaign trail over what critics called a glaring
conflict of interest. He did not, however, divest his 10% equity stake in the Chinese fund,
which is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars.
Schweizer, whose books include
"Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elites," said Biden went
"soft" on the Chinese communists so his son could "cash in" on China business deals. Biden
insists he did not discuss the venture with his son before, during or after his official visit
to Beijing. But others see obvious hypocrisy at play in the Biden family's self-dealing in
notoriously corrupt China.
"Biden was one of the most vocal champions of anti-corruption efforts in the Obama
administration. So when this same Biden takes his son with him to China aboard Air Force Two,
and within days Hunter joins the board of an investment advisory firm with stakes in China, it
does not matter what father and son discussed," said Sarah Chayes, author of
"Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens National Security." "Joe Biden has enabled this
brand of practice."
2013-2014: U.S. Navy Reserve
Hunter was selected for a direct commission as a public affairs officer in a Virginia
reserve unit.
He clearly received special treatment in securing the part-time post. Officers had to issue
him two waivers – one for his age and one for a previous drug offense.
His vice president father swore him in at the White House in a small, private ceremony.
Barely a year later, authorities booted Hunter from the Navy for cocaine use after he tested
positive from a urine test. The reason for his discharge was withheld from the press for
several months.
2014-2019: Burisma Holdings
The Ukrainian gas giant added Hunter to its board soon after Obama named his father his
point man on Ukraine policy, focusing on energy. The company paid his son as much as $83,000 a
month, even though he had no energy experience to bring to the table and was required to attend
just one board meeting a year.
Golf buddies: White House visitor logs show that Joe Biden met with Hunter's business
partner Devon Archer, far left, on April 16, 2014. Burisma put Archer on its board shortly
thereafter, followed by Hunter, far right, the next month. Fox News
At the time, the vice president was steering U.S. aid to Kiev to help develop its gas
fields, which stood to benefit Burisma as the holder of permits to develop natural gas in three
of Ukraine's most lucrative fields. Biden promised Ukrainian officials the US would pump more
than $1 billion into their energy industry and economy during a visit to Kiev in late April
2014. He urged leaders to increase the country's gas supply and to rely on Americans to help
them. Less than three weeks later, Burisma appointed his son to the board, after already
retaining him for undisclosed services through Boies Schiller.
Burisma was run by an oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was under investigation at the time
and seeking Western protection from prosecution. In a move observers suspect was intended to
send a message to prosecutors, the company sent out a news release in May 2014 claiming,
falsely, that Hunter would be in charge of its "legal unit." Burisma also trumpeted the fact
that Hunter was "the son of the current U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden."
Biden's office was aware Burisma was under investigation. The administration had tried to
partner with the gas company through U.S. aid programs, but the outreach project was blocked
over corruption concerns lodged by career diplomats.
Viktor Shokin, ex-Ukraine prosecutor: "The truth is that I was forced out because I was
leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma, and Joe Biden's son was a member of the
board," he said in a recent sworn affidavit
prepared for a European court. AP Photo/Sergei Chuzavkov, File
In early 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine
did not dismiss the country's top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma. "If
the prosecutor is not fired," Biden recalled telling Ukraine's leader, "you're not getting the
money."
Biden's muscling worked: Shokin was sacked in March 2016.
The former vice president says he was carrying out official U.S. policy that sought to
remove an ineffective prosecutor. But Shokin had raided the home of Burisma's owner and seized
his property.
In addition, Shokin said that as part of his probe he was making plans to interview Hunter
about millions of dollars in fees he and his partners had received from Burisma. He insists he
was fired because he refused to close the investigation.
"The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe
into Burisma, and Joe Biden's son was a member of the board," Shokin said in a recent sworn
affidavit
prepared for a European court. "I assume Burisma had the support of Joe Biden because his son
was on the board." He added that the vice president himself had "significant interests" in
Burisma.
The prosecutor who replaced Shokin shut down the Burisma probe within 10 months. Burisma's
founder was also taken off a U.S. government visa ban list.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Burisma/Wikimedia
Biden claims he only learned of his son joining the Burisma board from the news media. But
there is evidence Biden had been consulted in advance. White House visitor logs show that Biden
met with Hunter's business partner Devon Archer on April 16, 2014. Burisma put Archer on its
board shortly thereafter, followed by Hunter the next month. (Both Archer and Hunter maintain
Burisma never came up during the private visit in Biden's office, which lasted late into the
night.)
The day after Joe Biden's meeting with Hunter's partner in the White House, Burisma
executive Vadym Pozharskyi reportedly emailed Hunter to thank him for inviting him to
Washington and "giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent[sic] some time together."
The Biden campaign asserts it cannot find a meeting with Pozharskyi on the former vice
president's "schedule," though it did not deny such a meeting could have taken place. The
Ukrainian official mentioned going out for coffee with Hunter on April 17, 2014, which
indicated he was physically in D.C. at the time. RCI has not confirmed the authenticity of the
April 17 email document, first disclosed by the New York Post after obtaining it from a hard
drive allegedly copied from a laptop of Hunter Biden left at a computer repair shop in
Wilmington, Del. Pozharskyi did not respond to emails seeking comment.
Hunter stepped down from Burisma's board in April 2019, a month before his father announced
his White House bid and after critics made an issue of the conflicts his sinecure posed. He has
since kept a very low profile. Unlike Trump's children, Biden's son is not out on the trail
campaigning for him.
1,850 Boxes Sealed Until After Election
"Hunter Biden had no experience in the field, but he did have a notable connection to the
vice president, who publicly has bragged about making clear to the Ukrainians that he alone
controlled U.S. aid to the country," noted Jonathan Turley, a public-interest law professor at
George Washington University.
Retired FBI official I.C. Smith, who led public corruption investigations in Washington and
Little Rock, Ark., said both father and son should have known joining Burisma was a bad idea,
adding that it gives at least the appearance he was leveraging his name for payoffs from shady
clients abroad.
I.C. Smith, ex-FBI official: "I would think, given Hunter's past, the father would have
asked more questions." icsmith.com
"Clearly he's led a troubled life and would be the sort of person susceptible to becoming
engaged in this sort of rather sordid deal," Smith said of Hunter.
"When he said his father asked if the deal was on the up and up and was assured it was, I
would think, given Hunter's past, the father would have asked more questions," he added.
Hunter acknowledged in an ABC News interview last year that he lacked experience in both
energy and Ukraine, but maintained that Burisma was impressed by other things on his
resume.
"Ironically, Hunter highlighted his work at MBNA and his work on the board of Amtrak as
evidence of his qualifications for the Burisma gig," said Fitton of Judicial Watch. "But both
the MBNA and Amtrak jobs, under any sensible analysis, were obvious favors for Joe Biden."
Fitton argued that Biden's claim he never discussed his son's jobs and business deals rings
hollow against the lengthy record of something-for-nothing nepotism.
"That's campaign spin," he said. "Hunter has already admitted to having at least one
conversation on the Ukraine issue with Vice President Biden."
Biden defenders argue that many relatives of politicians are often involved in government
and politics. Ivanka Trump and Don Trump Jr., for instance, have cozy relationships with, or
financial stakes in, companies that may benefit from those decisions. They also point out that,
while they may look bad, there's nothing illegal about such arrangements.
Fitton isn't so sure. He said Judicial Watch is demanding Obama administration documents
related to Hunter's Ukraine and China deals, as well as other business arrangements potentially
monetizing Biden's political power.
"We can't be sure if the arrangements were legal," he said. "If any payments or jobs were
neither ordinary nor customary, there may be legal issues."
It's a federal crime to provide a government benefit or favorable change in policy in
exchange for something of personal value. At a minimum, argued former federal prosecutor Andrew
McCarthy, Biden "had a conflict of interest with the position his son had" on the Burisma
board, noting that at the time, Biden was pushing energy policies that favored the gas
giant.
The Biden School, part of the University of Delaware, which is keeping a lid on Biden
records. Biden School of Public Policy and Administration
Not all of Hunter Biden's critics are coming from the right, either.
"It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Hunter's foreign employers and partners were seeking
to leverage Hunter's relationship with Joe, either by seeking improper influence or to project
access to him," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group
based in Washington.
The Biden Institute: Maggie Haberman, New York Times White House correspondent, was a
featured speaker in 2018, according to its website . The
University of Delaware holds more than 1,850 boxes of Biden records
under seal . Biden
Institute/University of Delaware
While Joe Biden insists "there's been no indication of any conflict of interest from Ukraine
or anywhere else," Senate investigators are seeking a number of related emails and memos
generated during the Obama administration, as well as his 36-year Senate career. That period,
spanning from 1973 to 2009, coincides with a large chunk of his son's resume.
However, Biden has sealed the bulk of the records at the University of Delaware Library,
which
refuses to release any of his papers until after the election. It maintains more than 1,850
boxes of Biden records, including his speeches, voting records, position papers and notes from
confidential interviews he's conducted with foreign leaders, among other documents. The
papers the
university is keeping a lid on could shed light on Biden's thinking behind foreign policies and
controversial bills he sponsored.
A spokeswoman said the library will not release any of Biden's papers to the public until
they are "properly processed and archived." Until then, "access is only available with Vice
President Biden's express consent," she said, while declining to answer whether the university
would comply if the Senate subpoenaed documents as part of its investigation of the Bidens.
The university houses the Biden Institute, which is part of the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School
of Public Policy and Administration.
Through a lawyer, Hunter maintained he and his father dutifully avoided "conflicts of
interest" -- or even "the appearance of such conflicts." In every business pursuit, he
asserted, they acted "appropriately and in good faith."
However, in a moment of candor during a recent ABC News interview, Hunter confessed: "I
don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name
wasn't Biden," before adding, "There's literally nothing my father in some way hasn't had
influence over."
Still, the elder Biden argues it's the Trump family who has the nepotism problem. In a
recent CBS "60 Minutes" interview, he slammed the president for letting his daughter and
son-in-law "sit in on Cabinet meetings."
"It's just simply improper because you should make it clear to the American public that
everything you're doing is for them," he intoned. "For them."
play_arrow _triplesix_ , 10 minutes ago
Crickets from the MSM on the biggest political scandal in history. They can't refute it,
so they simply refuse to cover it.
I'm afraid the American Experiment is over either way, but if Biden and the Dems are
successful in stealing the election, we are destined to be the next Venezuela.
Fight it all you want, but there's nothing you can do. "The emails are Russian" is going to
be the official dominant narrative in mainstream political discourse, and there's nothing you
can do to stop it. Resistance is futile.
Like the Russian hacking narrative, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, the Russian
bounties in Afghanistan narrative, and any other evidence-free framing of events that
simultaneously advances pre-planned cold war agendas, is politically convenient for the
Democratic party and generates clicks and ratings, the narrative that the New York Post
publication of Hunter Biden's emails is a Russian operation is going to be hammered and
hammered and hammered until it becomes the mainstream consensus. This will happen regardless of
facts and evidence, up to and including rock solid evidence that Hunter Biden's emails were not
published as a result of a Russian operation.
This is happening. It's following the same formula all the other fact-free Russia hysteria
narratives have followed. The same media tour by pundits and political operatives saying with
no evidence but very assertive voices that Russia is most certainly behind this occurrence and
we should all be very upset about it.
"To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work," Russiagate founder
and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is heard assuring CNN's audience .
"Joe Biden – and all of us – SHOULD be furious that media outlets are spreading
what is very likely Russian propaganda," begins and eight-part thread by Democratic Senator
Chris Murphy, who claims the emails are "Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda."
"It's not really surprising at all, this was always the play, but still kind of
head-spinning to watch all the players from 2016 run exactly the same hack-leak-smear op in
2020. Even with everyone knowing exactly what's happening this time," tweets MSNBC's Chris
Hayes.
"How are you all circling the wagons instead of being embarrassed for peddling Russian ops
18 days before the election. It's not enough that you all haven't learned from your atrocious
handling of 2016 -- you are doubling down," Democratic Party think tanker Neera Tanden
tweeted in admonishment of
journalists who dare to report on or ask questions about the emails.
Virtually the entirety of the Democratic Party-aligned political/media class has streamlined
this narrative of Russian influence into the American consciousness with very little inertia,
despite the fact that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden has disputed the authenticity of the emails
and despite a complete absence of evidence for Russian involvement in their publication.
This is surely the first time, at least in recent memory, that we have ever seen such a
broad consensus within the mass media that it is the civic duty of news reporters to try and
influence the outcome of a presidential general election by withholding negative news coverage
for one candidate. There was a lot of fascinated hatred for Trump in 2016, but people still
reported on Hillary Clinton's various scandals and didn't attack one another for doing so. In
2020 that has changed, and mainstream news reporters have now largely coalesced along the
doctrine that they must avoid any reporting which might be detrimental to the Biden
campaign.
"Dem Party hacks (and many of their media allies) genuinely believe it's immoral to report
on or even discuss stories that reflect poorly on Biden. In reality, it's the responsibility of
journalists to ignore their vapid whining and ask about newsworthy stories, even about Biden,"
tweeted The Intercept 's Glenn
Greenwald recently.
"You don't even have to think the Hunter Biden materials constitute some kind of
earth-shattering story to be absolutely repulsed at the authoritarian propaganda offensive
being waged to discredit them -- primarily by journalists who behave like compliant little
trained robots ," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
Last month The Spectator 's Stephen L Miller described how the consensus
formed among the mainstream press since Clinton's 2016 loss that it is their moral duty to
be uncritical of Trump's opponent.
"For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over
what I will call the 'but her emails' dilemma," Miller writes. "Those who reported dutifully on
the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server and spillage of
classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids'
table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off
by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump
in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have
been highlighting Trump's foibles. It's an error no journalist wants to repeat."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and you've
got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it. This
means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an established
fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the energy
that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the White
House.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on, everyone
would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made, Russiagate would
never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful forces are pushing us
into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed nations, and Trump would be
grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The mainstream
news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon which they
have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information with
each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
It appears the "Russia, Russia, Russia" cries from Adam Schiff and his dutiful media peons
is dead (we can only hope) as Director of National Intel John Ratcliffe just confirmed to Foxx
Business' Maria Bartiromo that:
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
As Politico's Quint Forgey details
(@QuintForgey) , DNI Ratcliffe is asked directly whether accusations leveled against the
Bidens in recent days are part of a Russian disinformation effort.
He says no:
"Let me be clear. The intelligence community doesn't believe that because there is no
intelligence that supports that."
" We have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that
Hunter Biden's laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It's simply not true.
"
"And this is exactly what I said would I stop when I became the director of national
intelligence, and that's people using the intelligence community to leverage some political
narrative."
"And in this case, apparently Chairman Schiff wants anything against his preferred
political candidate to be deemed as not real and as using the intelligence community or
attempting to use the intelligence community to say there's nothing to see here."
"Don't drag the intelligence community into this. Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of
some Russian disinformation campaign. And I think it's clear that the American people know
that."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and
you've got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it.
This means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an
established fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the
energy that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the
White House.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on,
everyone would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made,
Russiagate would never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful
forces are pushing us into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed
nations, and Trump would be grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The
mainstream news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon
which they have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information
with each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
As we detailed previously, as the Hunter Biden laptop scandal threatens to throw the 2020
election into chaos with what appears to be solid, undisputed evidence of high-level corruption
by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the same crowd which peddled the
Trump-Russia hoax is now suggesting that Russia is behind it all .
To wit, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who swore on National television
that he had evidence Trump was colluding with Russia - now says that President Trump is handing
the Kremlin a "propaganda coup from Vladimir Putin."
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has gone full tin-foil , suggesting that Giuliani was a 'key
target' of 'Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.'
2/ Russia knew it had to play a different game than 2016. So it built an operation to cull
virulently pro-Trump Americans as pseudo-assets, so blind in their allegiance to Trump that
they'll willingly launder Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda.
Yet, if one looks at the actual facts of the case - in particular, that Hunter Biden appears
to have dropped his own laptops off at a computer repair shop, signed a service ticket , and
the shop owner approached the FBI first and Rudy Giuliani last after Biden failed to pick them
up, the left's latest Russia conspiracy theory is quickly debunked .
This is the story of an American patriot, an honorable man, John Paul Mac Issac, who tried
to do the right thing and is now being unfairly and maliciously slandered as an agent of
foreign intelligence, specifically Russia. He is not an agent or spy for anyone. He is his own
man. How do I know? I have known his dad for more than 20 years. I've known John Paul's dad as
Mac. Mac is a decorated Vietnam Veteran, who flew gunships in Vietnam. And he continued his
military service with an impeccable record until he retired as an Air Force Colonel. The crews
of those gunships have an annual reunion and Mac usually takes John Paul along, who volunteers
his computer and video skills to record and compile the stories of those brave men who served
their country in a difficult war.
This story is very simple – Hunter Biden dropped off three computers with liquid
damage at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware on April 12, 2019. The owner, John Mac Issac,
examined the three and determined that one was beyond recovery, one was okay and the data on
the harddrive of the third could be recovered. Hunter signed the service ticket and John Paul
Mac Issac repaired the hard drive and down loaded the data . During this process he saw some
disturbing images and a number of emails that concerned Ukraine, Burisma, China and other
issues . With the work completed, Mr. Mac Issac prepared an invoice, sent it to Hunter Biden
and notified him that the computer was ready to be retrieved. H unter did not respond . In the
ensuing four months (May, June, July and August), Mr. Mac Issac made repeated efforts to
contact Hunter Biden. Biden never answered and never responded. More importantly, Biden stiffed
John Paul Mac Issac–i.e., he did not pay the bill.
When the manufactured Ukraine crisis surfaced in August 2019, John Paul realized he was
sitting on radioactive material that might be relevant to the investigation. After conferring
with his father, Mac and John Paul decided that Mac would take the information to the FBI
office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mac walked into the Albuquerque FBI office and spoke with an
agent who refused to give his name. Mac explained the material he had, but was rebuffed by the
FBI. He was told basically, get lost . This was mid-September 2019.
Two months passed and then, out of the blue, the FBI contacted John Paul Mac Issac. Two FBI
agents from the Wilmington FBI office–Joshua Williams and Mike Dzielak–came to John
Paul's business . He offered immediately to give them the hard drive, no strings attached.
Agents Williams and Dzielak declined to take the device .
Two weeks later, the intrepid agents called and asked to come and image the hard drive. John
Paul agreed but, instead of taking the hard drive or imaging the drive, they gave him a
subpoena. It was part of a grand jury proceeding but neither agent said anything about the
purpose of the grand jury. John Paul complied with the subpoena and turned over the hard drive
and the computer.
In the ensuing months, starting with the impeachment trial of President Trump, he heard
nothing from the FBI and knew that none of the evidence from the hard drive had been shared
with President Trump's defense team.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The lack of action and communication with the FBI led John Paul to make the fateful decision
to contact Rudy Giuliani's office and offer a copy of the drive to the former mayor. We now
know that Rudy accepted John Paul's offer and that Rudy's team shared the information with the
New York Post.
John Paul Mac Issac is not responsible for the emails, images and videos recovered from
Hunter Biden's computer. He was hired to do a job, he did the job and submitted an invoice for
the work. Hunter Biden, for some unexplained reason, never responded and never asked for the
computer. But that changed last Tuesday, October 13, 2020. A person claiming to be Hunter
Biden's lawyer called John Paul Mac Issac and asked for the computer to be returned. Too late.
That horse had left the barn and was with the FBI.
John Paul, acting under Delaware law, understood that Hunter's computer became the property
of his business 90 days after it had been abandoned.
At no time did John Paul approach any media outlet or tabloid offering to sell salacious
material . A person of lesser character might have tried to profit. But that is not the essence
of John Paul Mac Issac. He had information in his possession that he learned, thanks to events
subsequent to receiving the computer for a repair job, was relevant to the security of our
nation. He did what any clear thinking American would do–he, through his father,
contacted the FBI. When the FBI finally responded to his call for help, John cooperated fully
and turned over all material requested .
The failure here is not John Paul's . He did his job. The FBI dropped the ball and, by
extension, the Department of Justice. Sadly, this is becoming a disturbing, repeating
theme–the FBI through incompetence or malfeasance is not doing its job.
Any news outlet that is publishing the damnable lie that John Paul is part of some
subversive effort to interfere in the United States Presidential election is on notice. That is
slander and defamation. Fortunately, the evidence from Hunter Biden's computer is in the hands
of the FBI and Rudy Giuliani and, I suspect, the U.S. Senate. Those with the power to do
something must act. John Paul Mac Issac's honor is intact. We cannot say the same for those
government officials who have a duty to deal with this information.
The recent
New York Post bombshell reports on Hunter Biden's alleged laptop contents included a
curious piece of evidence - a photograph of an FBI subpoena which bears the signature of the
agency's top child porn investigator, special agent Joshua Wilson .
According to the Post , a laptop was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop by a man
believed by the owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, to be Hunter Biden . The shop owner made a copy of
the hard drive before turning it over to the FBI, which includes incriminating emails detailing
alleged Biden family corruption in Ukraine and China, as well as a 'raunchy, 12-minute video
that appears to show Hunter smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified
woman,' as well as ' numerous other sexually explicit images .'
FBI agent Wilson's identity was confirmed by both
Western Journal and
Business Insider , the latter of which compared his signature to a 2012 criminal complaint
and concluded that it "clearly matches the unreversed signature on the subpoena published by
the New York Post ."
As BI notes:
It's unclear whether the FBI employs more than one agent named Joshua Wilson. But the
available evidence seems to show **the Joshua Wilson who signed the subpoena for Hunter
Biden's laptop, and the Joshua Wilson who investigates child pornography for the FBI, are the
same person**. This raises the possibility, not explored by the Post, that the FBI issued the
subpoena for reasons unrelated to Hunter Biden's role in Ukraine and Burisma.
So why is the FBI's top child porn lawyer involved in the Hunter Biden laptop case? OANN 's
Chanel Rion says she's seen the contents of the hard drive, which includes "Drugs, underage
obsessions, power deals," which make "Anthony Weiner's down under selfie addiction look normal
. "
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Meanwhile, if there is incriminating child porn on Hunter's computer, what has the FBI done
about it?
IP freely , 1 hour ago
Oh good....the FBI is involved. should go no where.
Spurius Lartius , 1 hour ago
Corruption and the FBI go together like hookers and blow. Or Lindsey Graham and little
boys.
Montana Cowboy , 1 hour ago
Project Veritas has produced more evidence than the corrupt Boy Scouts at the FBI.
SmokeyBlonde , 1 hour ago
People really need to get over the notion that the FBI is a law enforcement agency. They
have proven time and again that they only act on behalf of the deep state, oligarchs,
kleptocrats, and pederasts at the expense of the rest of us.
CrookedHillieLies , 1 hour ago
The FBI has been led by Prancing Gay Sissies, Crossdressers and Pedophiles since their
inception. Crack and Hooker Hunter Biden will never be convicted of child **** - he will
claim it was "planted" on his computer. The emails are a different problem and hopefully they
will cause him some problems with the IRS. What a dumbazz. I can't believe the DemonRATS
nominated his father to be their choice for President. Landslide for Trump / Pence / Senate /
House / Supreme Court / MAGA / KAG 2020! Let's Roll.
Cash Is King , 1 hour ago
What's that old adage about apples & trees?
Spurius Lartius , 1 hour ago
You could prolly hang anyone who has been in DC for >10 years and be sure you were
doing God's work.
OCnStiggs , 22 minutes ago
Why Is The FBI's Top Child **** Lawyer Involved In Hunter Biden Laptop Case?
Because the FBI has been covering like mad for the criminality in D.C. and they want Biden
to win.
Just sayin'.
Kan , 1 hour ago
Because he is working to hide any real evidence of any of it, please see weiners laptop
that had ALL the clinton emails and all the BIDEN corruption emails. ...
quanttech , 30 minutes ago
Tim Nolan, former judge & chairman of Donald Trump's presidential campaign in
Kentucky, pled guilty to 19 counts of child sex trafficking and on February 11, 2018, he was
sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Republican Ralph Shortey, former state senator & chairman of Donald Trump's
presidential campaign in Oklahoma was indicted on 4 counts of child sex trafficking and child
*********** and on September 17, 2018, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Republican Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House from 1999 to 2007 & congressman
of Illinois, was indicted on federal charges of molesting 4 young boys and on April 27, 2016,
he was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
I could go on, but suffice to say that anyone who thinks it's just Dems or just Repubs
that are the problem... are wrong.
Gardentoolnumber5 , 1 hour ago
Again, the FBI is on the case! Whoa hahahahahaha! And how long have they had a copy of the
hard drive and under Wray's FBI buried it. Ya know... can't interfere in an election 6-8
months out. Abolish the FBI. Pass those who honor their oath over into the Marshals
office.
dogismycopilot , 1 hour ago
The Russians and Chinese would have set him up with underage Moldovan, Ukrainian or
Romanian trafficked girls.
100% so they could blackmail his dad when president.
chiswickcat , 1 hour ago
A Political family involved in sex with minors, drugs and corruption? I'm shocked. Shocked
I tell you.
CheapBastard , 1 hour ago
Odd the Epstain Island flight logs handed over to the FBi have mysteriously
disappeared.
OpenEyes , 39 minutes ago
As disgusting as child **** is, somehow it seems like when they put Capone away for tax
evasion.
First of all, the FBI has had this laptop since last December and done absolutely nothing
about it. But, with Rudy turning it over to the New York Post and making it public they have
to at least appear to be doing something. (something other than investigating Russia's part
in this, which nobody with an IQ above room temperature actually believes)
My guess is that they decided "we can get him for having child *********** on his computer
and everybody will forget about that other stuff."
IronForge , 1 hour ago
Looks like Hunter is Jail-bound.
Pop would have Pardoned Hunter, and Harris would have Pardoned Pop.
However, since someone who saw the laptop content mentioned the "UnderAged" matl on TWTR,
it's safe to presume that Hunter had access to or participated in Patronizing "UnderAged
Paedo" Photos, Site Memberships, Prostitutes, Hookups, or Trafficking Arrangements.
His Strip Club Posse probably had an UnderAged Member.
Hard to Pardon Paedophiles before the BodyPolitic.
Mayor Giuliani might have several Silver Bullets here. He'll need 24/7 Escorting now since
DNC/Bidens/Obama/RED_QUEEN may be Highlighted. He might as well send a Copy to Wikileaks just
in case he gets Nailed by Bidens' Owners.
RICO+Drug+NatSec Charges would have been enough; but we are obligated as a Society to Deal
With, Due Process, and Prosecute Allegations of Paedophilia/Child Abuse/Trafficking.
Most importantly, we will bring those Girls Out of Hunters' Alleged Patronage and into
Protective Custody.
***
What a Mess. I understand some Young Girls are attracted to and want to be
Married/InRelationship/Mating with those in Fame/Power/Money quickly; but once the Male is
Out Of HS, any new "relationship" he gets involved with needs to be with Dames 18+ and Out of
HS.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
"Leave my son outta this! He has a drug problem."
lennysrv , 1 hour ago
That Biden clan, what a wonderful familial role model for the rest of the nation. Further,
I'm amazed at how productive li'l Hunter is; from making mega-deals with the Chinese and
Ukrainians to banging his dead brother's widow to knocking up a stripper to being a deadbeat
dad to smoking crack and engaging in sex acts on video.
Joe Biden has to be so very proud of the family he has created. What a model
Democrat/Liberal.
HaywoodYaBlowMe , 29 minutes ago
There are rumors, that the horrific atrocities, on the anthony weiner tape are too horrid
for the public to find out. I call bulls**t! Release the kraken. To quote Louis Brandeis:
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Let the "people" be made aware of the
offensive behavior, perpetrated, and perpetuated by the dregs of our society. Our society
needs a good flushing. We have many turds who need to be flushed from our system. It's been
said that hardened NYPD officers, who have seen it all, were vomiting and having nightmares,
upon viewing what was on weiner's laptop. Deputy Chief Steven Silks, of the NYPD, was found
dead in his car of what was reported to be a suicide gun shot wound to his head. In fact, 9
of the 12 NYPD officials, who viewed what was on the lap top, have been found dead of
supposed suicide. This info needs to be revealed to the public.
Leguran , 1 hour ago
FBI again!!! Hunter is involved....good grief, get that to the top immediately! Now, start
the Kabuki Circus SHOW. Tarrah see, it we sent it right to the top in order to show the
complaint will be taken seriously. Meanwhile, all future information goes to the same guy at
the top and nowhere else. The job is to keep the lid on and under "investigation" so nothing
leaks. Well, Josh, I hope you do not mind me calling you Josh, where are the files and where
is the action? And, since you told the CIA Director, we can see the the present CIA Director
is involved as well.
I just do not see how the FBI can become more corrupt. Yep it is a culture of
corruption.
z tranche , 1 hour ago
Time to interview Ghislaine Maxwell and review the Epstein flight logs.
rockstone , 1 hour ago
Why? You think they were the only two people in the under age sex business catering to
Washington elites??
Lou Saynis , 1 hour ago
I think the only Washington elites who were engaging in underage sex are democrats. Maybe
I'm being biased but It's just a feeling.
DickStoneVan , 36 minutes ago
John Dennis Hastert. Longest running Republican Speaker of the house in history. A federal
judge referred to him as a "serial child molester" and sentenced him to a mere 15 months in
prison.
Lil Stevie , 1 hour ago
If there ever was a reason for TERM LIMITS this is it.
fnsnook , 1 hour ago
biden has ruling class qualified immunity. you must have missed that chapter of the
constitution.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
Hunter doesn't
Rhal , 1 hour ago
This still mild compared to what was on Anthony Wieners laptop -labeled "life insurance".
Yet no arrests were made there. I mean I get that Trump had to replace hundreds of
judges(literally) before justice could prevail, but we're still at peak corruption!.
Indictments plz.
Ecclesia Militans , 2 hours ago
The Swamp isn't going to let Joe off the hook, it's going to hold this over his head like
a Sword of Damocles to keep him at his desk for his full term, in line and compliant.
MadameDeficit , 10 minutes ago
If that computer repairman hadn't made a copy and gone to a lawyer, we never would have
heard about this.
On a similar note, it's very telling what the NY Post said about the contents - what
(aside from child p0rn) would be illegal for them to publish?
BugMan , 43 minutes ago
Hunter and Joe Biden Scandal Takes a Dark Turn -- FBI's Top Lawyer on Child **** Involved
in Case
Wray, that Deep State swamp creature, probably had the FBI remove the child **** from the
computer at Joe Biden's request. Thankfully, the computer repair agent is a super patriot
that copied the hard drive before it was seized by the FBI. Trump and Guiliani need to hide
the repair shop owner, and hire reliable protection for him, in order to protect him from
Deep State assassins.
Invert This MM , 1 hour ago
Yeah, poor little Joey. He just Quid Pro Quoed his whole carrier and got away with it
until that mean new boss came to town.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
What rock do you live under? Joe has been a horrible human being his whole adult
life--corrupt, lying, and cheating from the time he was in college. There's nothing
redeemable about him--don't ever think he "is not a terrible man"--he is and this new
information just opens up the final chapter that sheds light on a man who would use his son
for decades--going back into the early 1980s--to enrich himself and his family through
corruption that goes so deep, it's beyond criminal.
Brazillionaire , 1 hour ago
No. Biden is a pos. He's one of the main reasons so many Americans are in credit card debt
up to their eyeballs at ridiculous interest rates. And that's the legal stuff. He's corrupt
as hell. Maybe they all are. But he sure is.
Al Capone , 1 hour ago
You forgot the /sarc.
Goldencrapshoot , 1 hour ago
Anyone remember what happened to Nikolae Ceausescu?
Made in Occupied America , 1 hour ago
FBI = Friends of Biden Incorporated (in Delaware, of course)
"In this episode of Common Sense, Rudy Giuliani, who was the trailblazer for RICO
prosecutions in the 1980s, demonstrates how the thirty years of the Biden Family selling public
office, and many other crimes, makes a perfect RICO case." RICO case
Rudy lays out a solid case in the video. I'd say damning. I like the cigar ad too!
Biden has gone silent for four days. He apparently won't re-emerge until the debate
Thursday. That's what they say anyhow. How weird for this point in the election cycle! IMO,
he will probably dodge the debate because he knows Trump will hit him hard with this
material. I even think that at least one Biden will be leaving us, permanently, in the near
future.
Just when I thought the media couldn't defile themselves any further, they will sink to
the bottom of the abyss of unethical behavior to try to save the Democrats. They must either
accept defeat or go full on dictatorship, with all that implies. We are standing at the
crossroads.
The movement to discredit/disqualify any commentary on this story is intesifying. Biden's
cowering in the bunker and Obama's bringing what's left of his reputation to Philly. Lord
knows who'll attend that speech in person unless Covid, like in all the George Floyd events,
is declared risk free for his appearance. The real polling numbers must be horrendously bad
for the left.
What is your confidence that a second term Trump administration will bring those at the
highest levels of government to account unlike the current Trump administration?
What do you believe will change in a second Trump administration? Will Trump hire once
again the same types of people like Rosenstein, Wray, Kelley, Mattis, Bolton, Barr, et
al?
"Biden, meanwhile, has continued his
Invisible Man routine . ABC's event was held at the National Constitution Center in
Philadelphia under the obsequious supervision of George Stephanopoulos, who is more hammy than
a pig farm. Stephanopoulos let Biden speak uninterrupted for long stretches. This was probably
not in his man's interest.
Biden speaks like a man who has just been hit on the head with a mallet. He looks dazed and
angry, like a punch-drunk boxer. When Stephanopoulos asked him about mask-wearing, Biden
free-associated aloud for a few minutes, then arrived at his conclusion with a look of stunned
wonderment on his face.
"We should be thinking about making it mandatory, " Biden announced.
"How could you enforce that?," Stephanopoulos asked.
"You couldn't. That's the problem. You can't enforce measles," Biden said triumphantly.
Stephanopoulos looked appalled.
"It's like you can't mandate a mask," Biden sailed on fearlessly. A few weeks ago, Biden
said he'd mandate mask-wearing if he became President. Then someone explained to him that the
President doesn't have the powers to do i t. Biden's alternative, unveiled this evening, is to
"get all the governors in a room". If they wouldn't mandate masks, Biden said he would "go to
every mayor, to every councilman, every local official". He stopped talking, and smiled like a
triumphant simpleton.
Stephanopolous looked stupefied, or possibly on the edge of coma. By the halfway point,
Biden was heading that way too. Trump's steroids were still raging, but Biden's pills were
wearing off, and he kept fumbling his one-liners.
On foreign affairs, Biden sounded like Kanye West: "Our allies are go it alone, our 'America
first' is America alone." "He's learned the Art of the Steal by the Art of the Deal from Xi in
China."
Biden was regressing fast as bedtime loomed. A question on LGBT rights generated a bizarre
anecdote from his childhood about seeing two African-American men kissing in the street in
Wilmington, Delaware. "The corporate capital of the world at the time," he told Stephanopoulos,
as though that explained it.
Stephanopoulos looked aghast, but Biden rallied, and produced a thick stream of pure and
patronizing gibberish about early childhood education for African-Americans. "When you let them
go to school, they make up rapidly whatever, whatever, um, fail whatever whatever shortcoming
they had in their education prior to that. They've not heard as many words spoken, et cetera,
et cetera. What happens is, studies show that 58 per cent will increase by 58 percent their
chances of going through all twelve years of school."
Like "they" say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. " Dominic Green
-------------
"The corporate capital of the world at the time ..." Say - what?
Dominic Green was not kind to Trump either, but his skill in describing the poor old man's
drivel is reminiscent of some of the great satirical works of English literature, "Tristram
Shandy" comes to mind.
Sweet Jesus! Are we really going to elect this poor fool? Are we going to give him and "Pol
Pot in a pants suit" the Football and the Gold Codes? pl
Why did the DNC choose Biden? Even Obama is a reluctant supporter. Why run him?
1. One obvious answer is that if the worse results from running Hillary was that she lost,
it's a win for the dems as the Rs are too 'polite' to lock up the Clintons. So they figure
that any Biden crime or his power to blackmail others will end if he looses and he (and his
fellow criminals) personally will not be held responsible for his crimes. That eradicates the
Clinton/Obama democratic royalty lineage for a while - if not forever.
2. They don't want him to win. The same folks who have been giving the middle finger to
trump for the past four years don't have to reinvent the wheel and they can continue in their
employment for the next four years.
3. They want him to win. They can replace him when it suits them and they have the ^p and
MIC publically supporting them.
wetwipe , 1 hour ago
The answer is 2. If they were serious about winning in 2020 they would have 'created' some
fresh faced, hip, Obama mk-2 all polished and suited up for 2020. Instead they went with a
senile pedo with a seriously iffy family. It's obvious he is going to lose and that those in
charge wanted it to be this way.
Although this is not to say that if Trump won they would accept defeat... On the contrary
the plan is to use all avenues, legal and illegal to create as much chaos as possible.
rockstone , 1 hour ago
Willie warmed Kamala to stay out of this circus. I agree..... #2.
chiquita , 1 hour ago
It never has made much sense given Biden's age and obvious infirmity. Then putting the
unpopular Harris up as his VP just compounded the poor choice. Seems like a concession on the
whole thing, especially with how neither of them are doing any real campaigning. The whole
thing smells like old fish guts tossed in the garbage too many days before trash pick up
day.
zackra , 32 minutes ago
why did Acosta say Jef epstine,was above there pay grade in Miami ?
simpson seers , 45 minutes ago
Sure sounds like russiagate, only this time it's for real, and even if it wasn't 50
million google hits say
the news has spread far enough and wide enough to hurt the dem cause .(Thanks Jack) Good
thing you love the sound of
gnashing teeth, get at extra mouth guard just in case
Normal , 2 hours ago
Democrat, Royalty, and Globalist all have the same connotation. They are pedophiles.
BinAnunnaki , 2 minutes ago
Joe Biden going down for tax fraud. Hunter kicked half his "salary" back to Pop.
Unreported income.
Get ready to sniff hairy man *** in Sing Sing, Joe
dogismycopilot , 2 minutes ago
Rudy G has delivered another video. This is really going over process...I think the real
beat down will come once they bust open Facebook and Twitter.
"... The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually
impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony
at home.
After several color revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in
the US, with British assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been
limited resistance against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0.
Nevertheless, Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions
more are dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump.
The most dangerous result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM
purveyors is the growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems,
such as Schiff and Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook
and Twitter engaged in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post
and of various Trump-related accounts.
This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it was at least in part
an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond. Even though Twitter
ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment designed to gauge
reactions and areas of resistance.
In November, there could be further, more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current
expansionist movements being made and planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts
of a new non-democratic model of "American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but
"rules-based."
"... Of course the quick objection is that Turkey is getting a crap deal on every single aspect mentioned. This is especially true of Erdogan personally, whose true existential need is to win the war against the Kurds he re-started in Turkey. For instance, the US covertly helps Turkey stay in Syria but simultaneously it "supports" Rojava. And so on and so forth. Yes, the US government is a bully and cheats even its friends. Under Trump it especially cheats its friends, because they are the easiest marks. ..."
james@30 asks "what is the usa offering Turkey here??"
Offering continued intervention in Syria, de facto in alliance with Turkey, which weakens
the Kurds in effect; splitting the Kurds internationally by supporting the KRG; supporting
the continued partition of Cyprus; supporting the effective dismantling of NATO, a very
important point re Greek relations; neutrality in Libya and the disputes over eastern
Mediterranean drilling; deeming Erdogan one of the good Muslims instead of pursuing a
virulent regime change campaign; no economic warfare like in Venezuela.
Of course the quick objection is that Turkey is getting a crap deal on every single
aspect mentioned. This is especially true of Erdogan personally, whose true existential need
is to win the war against the Kurds he re-started in Turkey. For instance, the US covertly
helps Turkey stay in Syria but simultaneously it "supports" Rojava. And so on and so forth.
Yes, the US government is a bully and cheats even its friends. Under Trump it especially
cheats its friends, because they are the easiest marks.
The thing is, Russia cannot bring Erdogan either victory over the Kurds or a healthy
economy. Nor is it clear to me that Putin has any strategy whatsoever for any endgame.
Re Turkey. Erdogan is a megalomaniac nationalist. He is neither a servant of the US nor of
Putin. He does what he thinks is in the interests of Turkey.
This week, the New York Post
dropped a veritable bombshell smack in the middle of the 2020 presidential battlefield with
a story so explosive it should have reverberated from sea to shining sea for many weeks.
Instead, the news was duly squashed under the jackboot of Twitter and Facebook. The effort to
smother the news backfired, though, instead kicking up a discussion of the social media giants
having too much control over the spread of information that could be of interest to
millions.
As most readers probably know by now, the Post reported this week that Hunter Biden had
introduced his father, Joe Biden, the current Democratic presidential contender, to the head of
Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm where Hunter was a paid board member. What makes this
revelation so significant is that not only was Joe serving as vice president at the time of the
alleged introduction, but he has gone on record as saying he knew nothing about his prodigal
son's overseas business dealings.
The rabbit hole travels much deeper, however, considering that Joe Biden publicly bragged
about withholding one billion dollars from the Ukrainian government unless it removed a
prosecutor who was investigating Burisma at the time. And deeper still when it is remembered
that Donald Trump was impeached for simply asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe
Biden's activities in the country.
Had the social media monsters had no political 'dog in the fight,' so to speak, the Post
story would have lit up Twitter and Facebook like Saturday night at the amusement arcade.
Instead, both platforms quickly yanked the plug on the story, preventing even the Post from
tweeting it out. Twitter explained its decision by saying the article had violated its policy
with regard to "hacked material."
That excuse does not hold a drop of water. According to the Post, Hunter Biden's emails were
found in a laptop delivered to a computer repair shop in Delaware back in April 2019 –
allegedly by Hunter Biden himself. When the laptop was never retrieved, however, the shop owner
assumed legal ownership of the device as was his right. In other words, there was no
illegal hacking of the device, as suggested by Twitter. In fact, the computer repairman was
sufficiently concerned with what he had found on the laptop that he promptly handed the device
over to the FBI, also providing a copy of the hard drive to Rudy Giuliani, a member of Trump's
legal team.
If Twitter was genuinely concerned about the origins of the Biden email story, going so far
as to block even the
government's ability to retweet the Post story, then how does one explain the company's
decision not to interfere with the New York Times and its exposé on Donald Trump's tax
status? After all, the Times never mentioned who provided the US president's financial
documents, which have still not seen the light of day. Think about that. The Post story was
censored over documents it can actually produce, while the Times story was put on the fast lane
to public consumption with zero physical evidence to support its claims.
Why was Twitter not suspicious that the New York Times
had received hacked material, as very well could have been the case? It would be very difficult
to explain that as anything other than naked political interference and meddling, which Silicon
Valley and the Democratic Party, by the way, would have us believe is the sole purview of
Russia.
Should Twitter and Facebook lose Section 230 immunity?
Needless to say, the Republicans, forever whining that they have been unfairly targeted by
Big Tech, have called on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear before the Senate as early as next
week. But we've been down this dead-end road before. Every several months, the Silicon Valley
CEOs make their star-studded photo-ops in Washington, swearing up and down before Congress that
they are detached, apolitical animals, with the end result being that absolutely nothing
changes. Maybe this time around, concerned Republicans (and Democrats) should finally do what
they've been promising for so long, and that is to deprive Big Tech of its immunity by
rescinding Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
For the uninitiated, Section 230 grants social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook
immunity from legal action taken as a result of bad information posted to its platforms. This
frees Big Tech from having to perform the grueling fact-checking demanded of regular
publishers; rather, they are simply supposed to serve as a free flow of information.
Yet ever since the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections, and the concomitant rise
of Russiagate, Big Tech went against the spirit of Section 230, creating algorithms in its
alleged battle against 'fake news' as a back door to creating its desired narrative. At the
same time, it
outsourced fact-checking to third-party organizations, among them ABC News, Snopes,
Associated Press, and the Atlantic Council, each of which naturally has its own political ax to
grind. With unsettling frequency, however, the ax has an uncanny way of dropping on the
right-leaning creators.
In fact, back in May, Twitter even marked one of Donald Trump's tweets as potentially
misleading. And now it seems that more than just the Republicans have noticed.
This week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai promised to "move forward
with a rulemaking to clarify" the meaning of Section 230.
Judging by Pai's past record, this may signal a new dawn for social media, in which people
are granted access to platforms that do not censor their content based on political
considerations, as the First Amendment demands. Instead of taking away Big Tech's immunity from
legal responsibility, however, it would be best to keep it intact, on condition there would be
no more monkey business with users' accounts. Nothing less than total free speech. Is this a
dream too far? Possibly.
In any case, it would be poetic justice if the outcome of the 2020 presidential race between
Trump and Biden ultimately comes down to the actions of a Delaware computer repairman, for
repairs are certainly in order at this critical stage in US political history, dependent as it
now is on Big Tech.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The moment the New York Post reported on some of the sleazy, corrupt details contained on
Hunter Biden's hard drive, Twitter and Facebook, the social media giants most closely connected
to the way Americans exchange political information, went into overdrive to suppress the
information and protect Joe Biden. In the case of Facebook, though, perhaps one of those
protectors was, in fact, protecting herself.
The person currently in charge of Facebook's election integrity program is Anna Makanju .
That name probably doesn't mean a lot to you, but it should mean a lot – and in a
comforting way -- to Joe Biden.
Before ending up at Facebook, Makanju was a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic
Council. The Atlantic Council is an ostensibly non-partisan think tank that deals with
international affairs. In fact, it's a decidedly partisan organization.
In 2009, James L. Jones, the Atlantic Council's chairman left the organization to be
President Obama's National Security Advisor. Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Eric Shinseki,
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Chuck Hagel, and Brent Scowcroft also were all affiliated with the Atlantic Council
before they ended up in the Obama administration.
The Atlantic Council has received massive amounts of foreign funding over the years. Here's
one that should interest everyone: Burisma Holdings donated $300,000
dollars to the Atlantic Council, over the course of three consecutive years, beginning in
2016. The information below may explain why it began paying that money to the Council.
Not only was the Atlantic Council sending people into the Obama-Biden administration, but it
was also serving as an outside advisor. And that gets us back to Anna Makanju, the person
heading Facebook's misleadingly titled "election integrity program."
Makanju also worked at the Atlantic Council. The following is the relevant part of Makanju's
professional bio from her page at the Atlantic Council
(emphasis mine):
Anna Makanju is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative.
She is a public policy and legal expert working at Facebook, where she leads efforts to
ensure election integrity on the platform. Previously, she was the special policy adviser for
Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden , senior policy adviser to
Ambassador Samantha Power at the United States Mission to the United Nations, director for
Russia at the National Security Council, and the chief of staff for European and NATO Policy
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She has also taught at the Woodrow Wilson School
at Princeton University and worked as a consultant to a leading company focused on space
technologies.
Makanju was a player in the faux Ukraine impeachment. Early in December 2019, when the
Democrats were gearing up for the impeachment, Glenn Kessler
mentioned her in an article assuring Washington Post readers that, contrary to the Trump
administration's claims, there was nothing corrupt about Biden's dealings with Ukraine. He made
the point then that Biden now raises as a defense: Biden didn't pressure Ukraine to fire
prosecutor Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma; he did it because Shokin wasn't doing his job when
it came to investigating corruption.
Kessler writes that, on the same day in February 2016 that then-Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that Shokin had offered his resignation, Biden spoke to both Poroshenko
and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. The White House version is that Biden gave both men pep
talks about reforming the government and fighting corruption. And that's where Makanju comes
in:
Anna Makanju, Biden's senior policy adviser for Ukraine at the time, also listened to the
calls and said release of the transcripts would only strengthen Biden's case that he acted
properly. She helped Biden prepare for the conversations and said they operated at a high
level, with Biden using language such as Poroshenko's government being "nation builders for a
transformation of Ukraine."
A reference to a private company such as Burisma would be "too fine a level of
granularity" for a call between Biden and the president of another country, Makanju told The
Fact Checker. Instead, she said, the conversation focused on reforms demanded by the
International Monetary Fund, methods to tackle corruption and military assistance. An
investigation of "Burisma was just not significant enough" to mention, she said.
Let me remind you, in case you forgot, that Burisma started paying the Atlantic Council a
lot of money in 2016, right when Makanju was advising Biden regarding getting rid of
Shokin.
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
That's right folks, the Facebook executive currently blocking all of the negative evidence
of Hunter and Joe Biden's corrupt activity in Ukraine is the same person who was coordinating
the corrupt activity between the Biden family payoffs and Ukraine.
You just cannot make this stuff up folks.
The incestuous networking between Democrats in the White House, Congress, the Deep State,
the media, and Big Tech never ends. That's why the American people wanted and still want Trump,
the true outsider, to head the government. They know that Democrats have turned American
politics into one giant Augean Stable and that Trump is
the Hercules who (we hope) can clean it out.
"... Corporate Democrats' anxiety and fear that they could lose control over the party became quite evident during latest party convention, as they tried hard to "bury" their own progressives while gave plenty of time to neoliberal Republicans and war criminals to speak. ..."
globinfo
freexchange
As we explained
previously, what we see now in the United States with Trump, is a counter-attack by the part of
the American capital against the globalist faction. The faction that is primarily consisted by
the liberal plutocracy. Therefore, as the capitalist class splits, the capitalists around Trump
are now taking with them the most conservative part of the American society, as they need
electoral power. They have the money and their own media network. Their first big victory was
Trump in the US presidency and this explains why the liberal media attack him so hard and so
frequently.
The COVID-19 pandemic added more chaos in the ongoing civil war between capitalists and (as
always), the working class is paying the price for the additional mess.
The DNC
establishment fought hard, one more time, to get rid of Bernie Sanders in order to impose its
own - fully controllable and fully dedicated to the neoliberal status quo - Joe Biden/Kamala
Harris duo. Obviously, this was an attempt by the corporate Democrats to challenge and beat
Trump without harming neoliberal order through a Socialist like Sanders in the leadership of
the Democratic Party. Still, the DNC establishment couldn't take full control of the whole
situation as the most popular progressives, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, renewed their
position in the party through big victories in the 2020 primaries. Furthermore, the progressive
army came out stronger through significant
additional victories like Cori Bush's.
Corporate Democrats' anxiety and fear that they could lose control over the party became quite
evident during latest party convention, as they tried
hard to "bury" their own progressives while gave plenty of time to neoliberal
Republicans and war criminals to speak.
And, actually, this is the main reason that the corporate Democrats want so desperately to beat
Trump in November's election.
With a potential Biden victory the corporate Dems will re-establish their position in the party
against progressives, as they will be able to play the Trump-scare card for four more years.
During that time, they will get all the help they want from the liberal media to bury forever
the most popular Socialist policies. Simply by claiming that the Trump nightmare could return
in 2024. Therefore, they will demand "unity" from all party members under their own terms, in
short, under full restoration of the neoliberal status quo. Under these circumstances,
corporate Democrats will have plenty of time to assist the liberal plutocrats to
take over directly the party in 2024.
On the contrary, with a potential Trump victory the Trump-scare card will be burned for good
and corporate Democrats won't be able to use it as Trump won't be able to have another term in
2024.
In that case, corporate Democrats will receive additional pressure from the progressive wing
and progressive voters, as these will demand radical changes inside the party towards popular
policies. The liberal capitalist faction will face the serious threat to be left without
political power, which by 2024, will be restricted to some moderate Republicans who are
dedicated to the neoliberal doctrine. The dream of the liberal plutocrats to take over
political power directly will die forever.
And this could be proved decisive for the outcome of
the endo-capitalist war between the liberal plutocrats and the Trump-affiliated
capitalists.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is calling on the FBI to 'come clean' over the agency's involvement
with Hunter Biden's laptop , after refusing to 'confirm or deny' certain details contained in a
whistleblower complaint by a Delaware computer shop owner.
" The FBI has a duty to inform us . If they believe this was maybe Russian disinformation,
they should give us a defensive briefing," Johnson told Fox News ' "Sunday Morning
Futures."
"If, for example, they also believe that what information this whistleblower gave us is
fraudulent, that would also be a crime, and FBI should tell us that."
Host Maria Bartiromo brought up a salient point - that the FBI was allegedly in possession
of Hunter Biden's laptop which contains apparent evidence of pay-for-play corruption in
Ukraine, at the same time Congressional Democrats were impeaching President Trump for asking
Ukraine to investigate exactly that.
"If the FBI was in possession of these emails from Hunter Biden's computer indicating all
of these payouts, why did they not make this public, as President Trump was being impeached
in the Senate about Ukraine?"
Johnson replied: "the larger question really is; if they had this information - and these
are genuine emails which would probably reveal all kinds of things that would have been very
relevant to the impeachment case, why did they sit out? Are they covering up because Hunter
Biden might be engaged in things that also maybe should have been investigated and possibly
prosecuted? Dow we have two systems of justice? One for Democrats, one for Republicans, one for
the well connected, vs. one for the rest of the Americans."
Bartiromo then steered the conversation to national security risks - noting that the
signature of the FBI's top child porn lawyer appeared on the subpoena for Hunter's laptop.
"The subpoena was served by an FBI agent whose name is Joshua Wilson, and over the last five
years he has been working on child pornography issues. Connect the dots - if an FBI agent is
working on child pornography issues for five years, why is he subpoenaing the laptop of Hunter
Biden? Is there a connection here? Should this suggest that there's a child pornography issue
here on that laptop?"
"Well, I think you just made the connection ," Johnson replied. "This is what the FBI has to
come clean about . This isn't a standard investigation... this is something that, as we were
talking about, relates to national security. And if there's criminal activity involved that can
be tied to Hunter Biden or his business associates, or even possibly tied back to members of
the Biden family - well some of these emails indicate that Joe Biden is fully aware of this
."
As we noted on Friday, FBI agent Wilson's identity was confirmed by both
Western Journal and
Business Insider , the latter of which compared his signature to a 2012 criminal complaint
and concluded that it "clearly matches the unreversed signature on the subpoena published by
the New York Post ."
play_arrow 2 AlaricBalth , 8 hours ago
Hunter Biden has most likely been compromised by tapes of him with young girls while he
was in China. When I was traveling back and forth to China a few years ago, I was told by our
Chinese attorney to be very cautious because Americans were always recorded in their hotel
rooms.
It was the policy of the Chinese government. Privacy laws are non existent. All Americans
were taped in the event that any American could be utilized for the benefit of the CCP in the
future.
Also, there are many high end "Karaoke" parlors in China where horizontal refreshment can
be procured. Many Americans frequent these establishments. The girls are beautiful. The
places have cameras everywhere.
Urfa Man , 4 hours ago
Thanks for mentioning the Chicoms, TBT. None of the tabloid-level sex stuff counts nearly
as much as the fact that Joe Biden's secret payoffs from the Chinese (via Ye Jianming,
Biden's Chinese paymaster). The sneaky Chinese money for Biden makes this election a
dangerous national security crisis.
Joe Biden couldn't get a security clearance for even a low level government job now, let
alone C in C of the US armed forces.
Dogbreath15 , 1 hour ago
"It's not physically possible to shame a Democrat."
The Elite Democrats WANT to sell out the country, they welcome dragging the USA through
the sewer (and then blame the opposition!)
St. TwinkleToes , 6 hours ago
Makes you wonder how many of those Asian/Chinese massage parlors are spying and collecting
operations for the CCP, filming compromising acts to be used against you when the time comes
arrives.
DeathMerchant , 5 hours ago
It's referred to as the Epstein Protocol.
optimator , 5 hours ago
Credit where it's due. Cheaper to run a few massage parlors than running an expensive
island operation.
_arrow
Warthog777 , 4 hours ago
Chinese whistleblower provided 3 hard drives of damning info from the ccp on the Biden
family, biological weapons etc. , to the DOJ, Pelowsi, and eventually Trump.
@Dragonlord. - The TrumpTard that has gone completely out of his mind. The TrumpTard wants
to blame the Biden family for the corruption, perversion, the violence & destruction of
the moral fabric in the US - LOL
The TrumpTard believes that Trump is going to solve the corruption, the political and
racial divide in Yankeelandia - LOL
Sydney Powell should be near the top of the list for candidates to replace Wray. She's
familiar with a fair amount of the chain of corruption while dealing with the Flynn
railroading. She's seen what lengths they are willing to go to and would be less apt to think
she needs to play nice once appointed.
2banana , 8 hours ago
But yet a "noose" in a NASCAR garage gets 15 FBI agents.
Ex-NYPD Commissioner: I've Seen Hunter's Hard Drive; the Bidens 'Belong in Handcuffs'
He'll be another NYPD officer to "commit suicide" as others who saw Weiner's laptop.
SDShack , 7 hours ago
and Pizzagate is just a conspiracy...yep...right.
KnightOfSwords , 7 hours ago
Pizzagate is anything but a "conspiracy theory" These people are sick, evil, degenerates.
Take a real good look at John Podesta and Hillary Clinton.
Calibabe , 8 hours ago
What is contained on Hunter Biden's laptop is enough to put anyone on this site in prison
for a long, long, long time. Yet, he remains free, walking around, not a worry in the world.
I wonder how his "wife" and the stripper who had his child feel about him now? This guy is a
major creeper. The bigger question however isn't so much what the CCP has on Hunter, but what
does the CCP have on ole Joe? You can bet that file they have is thick and probably just as
bad.
Robert De Zero , 6 hours ago
Say what you will about Rudy Giuliani. None of this would be happening right now without
him. He's truly the best friend President Trump could have. He helped get him through 4 years
of hell with the fake Russia hoax and then hits a home run in the last inning leading up to
Election Day.
Now Rudy is taking massive flak from the corrupt liar media.
Rudy, my hat is off to you sir. You deserve medals.
Robert De Zero , 6 hours ago
The tired and failed "Russia is behind everything" trope never gets old for you guys or
the fake news. Get some new material, yawn.
indaknow , 8 hours ago
Not sure how the left can spin this as Russian disinformation when Hunter's own lawyer
just last week contacted the shop owner asking for the laptop back.
Chris Wray is a deep state swamp creature. Did anyone actually expect him, or the FBI to
do the right thing and indict Biden for corruption? They have been sitting on this laptop
evidence for almost a year!!
dibiase , 8 hours ago
Those q guys were telling us to trust him just a year or so back
Fishthatlived , 8 hours ago
"Us?"
SDShack , 7 hours ago
The timing of all this is what connects the dots. 3 Laptops were dropped off in early 2019
to the computer repair shop. Work was done and technician tried to get paid for 3-4 months
and have the laptops picked up. This is now fall 2019. Then the Russian Mueller Hoax
Impeachment hits the news, and the technician realizes he is holding dynamite with a lit
fuse, so he contacts the FBI. The coverup begins by December 2019.
NOTE - this is when the Dem Primary Season is kicking off. Bernie is the leader, but no
establishment demorat can stop him and are winnowed out, especially the big donor favorite
Kamalho early on. When Bernie is feared to be the nominee, a full court press for Senile Joe
is made by the establishment to stop him. Pretty obvious now that the establishment was being
extorted by the Chicoms with the original information on these hard drives. Who would be
video taping a PASSED OUT HUNTER, and sex romps by Hunter with chinese girls, other then the
CCP? The message was install compromised Joe...or we take down your party. And Lordy...look
what happened...Senile Joe steamrolled Bernie, and Kamalho became the fallback position. I
could never figure out the reason for the demorats to rig the system for Senile Joe, who was
clearly one of the weakest candidates. It all makes sense when you realize HE was the CCP
Favorite.
They thought the only people that had the blackmail info was the CCP and the demorat
establishment and swamp. The fix was in. They never figured on an idiot crackhead giving the
hard drive evidence to a 3rd party. That wrinkle is now beyond their control and is going to
blow up DC. The Mutual Assured Destruction card has just been played. The ***-puckering on
all sides has to be reaching nuclear levels.
mc888 , 6 hours ago
I could never figure out the reason for the demorats to rig the system for Senile
Joe
Remember Obama stating he wanted a "continuation" of his administration?
It didn't surprise the informed, and understandably a bit cynical, to hear that the FBI
sat on Hunter Biden's laptop instead of seeking justice. The bureau was previously involved
in an illegal plot to take down Donald Trump, after all, and its Deep State elements would
assuredly love to see Joe Biden succeed him in January. So why would they reveal damning
information on their establishment hope? Yet suppressing Huntergate perhaps provided a
secondary benefit:
The information could be used against Biden once he was in office.
This wouldn't be anything new. It's believed that longtime, legendary FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover used "dirt files" on politicians for leverage; for one thing, it's said, this
enabled him to remain bureau head for as long as he wished. William Sullivan, once the number
three official under Hoover,
put it this way: From the moment the director got damning information on a senator, the
man would be "right in his pocket."
So not only could suppressing Huntergate get Biden in office, but then maybe it's, "Nice
presidency you've got there, Mr. Biden -- I'd hate to see anything happen to it."
Didn't Guiliani tell the FBI that they had a copy of Humper's hard drive - or the owner of
the computer business? It all sounds so convenient. No wonder Biden went into hiding, his son
probably told dad what he did and that 50% of the take was too much. Humper maybe gave dad an
ultimatum. Drug addicts are like that "you bring me down, you go down lower." Blackmail can
be a bitch.
NumbNuts , 4 hours ago
Can they come clean on:
1) JFK assassination
2) WTC 93' bombing set up
3) OKC bombing set up
4) MLK death
5) Waco
6) Just about all other domestic terrorism activities
@therealOrangeBuffoon , 4 hours ago
Conspiracy theorists have no intention of believing anything provable. It's about chasing
rainbows.
NumbNuts , 4 hours ago
Then we should believe what they have to tell us about the Russian Collusion and all
things Biden? Naive, are we?
Stu Pedassle , 4 hours ago
I can prove that Building 7 fell uniformly on it's own footprint in what appears to be a
controlled demolition - does that count?
NumbNuts , 4 hours ago
According to @therealOrangeBuffoon , you have to go with what NIST told us, before they
changed their story, thanks to AE911truth.org .
"more interesting to me and my family ..." NY Post
"Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China's largest private energy company --
including one that he said would be "interesting for me and my family,"
emails obtained by The Post show .
One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017, with the subject line "Expectations," included
details of "remuneration packages" for six people involved in an unspecified business
venture.
Biden was identified as "Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC," an apparent
reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.
His pay was pegged at "850 " and the email also noted that "Hunter has some office
expectations he will elaborate."
In addition, the email outlined a "provisional agreement" under which 80 percent of the
"equity," or shares in the new company, would be split equally among four people whose initials
correspond to the sender and three recipients, with "H" apparently referring to Biden ."
------------
Well, you can see why the Chinese wanted and needed Hunter's expertise. He had demonstrated
his worth with the Ukrainian companies.
And who is the "big guy" for whom Hunter is said to be holding 1o M? pl
Well I expect by the end of next week all them Biden voters via mail will be running to
their Supervisor of Elections offices to retract their votes. Hopefully they are allowed to,
if not, run to the courts.
As to the "Big Guy" It's Pop, you know the one who gets 50% of everything. I read that in one
of Hunters texts to his daughter that Rudy is holding.
The not so widely read Breitbart has a doozy out about Hunter's early business associate
Devon Archer, one going back to 2011. If true it's another on-target salvo to the Biden
family reputation.
...You have undoubtablely heard about the Weineresque hard drive discovery involving Hunter
Biden and his emails. You probably didn't see it on Twitter or Facebook.
Censor the press? Why yes, that's exactly what was done here. Questions from other
competitors in the press? Well those aren't banned; however, it sure looks like the Biden
campaign supplies those to the fake news reporters. Let me suggest one.
Tor, IPFS, and I2P are still available for the moment. If a serious Iron Curtain descends,
uninformed Americans can ask their friends who pirate Internet content to teach them how to
use basic anonymity and pseudonymity tech. That should work for a while, at least.
Eventually, if any hardcore privacy tech attracts mainstream users, we can expect that every
nosy private detective and her cat will have exploits to defeat it, so the march of software
development is never-ending.
However, we are not at the stage where we must teach our neighbors how to use 8kun.top.
(If you want to learn, you're welcome to join us, but honestly it has a learning curve and it
is not optimal for the present situation.)
Currently clearnet sites are summarizing anonymous research. You can reach out to
convenient new sites such as:
to get user-friendly summaries of the news that the lamestream media doesn't want you to
see. You will note that many of the stories at that site come from user-friendly news sites
that you might already know about, such as:
Perhaps it's time for people to get back to simpler lives and just quit finding any reason to
use any of the services of the "Digital Iron Curtain" establishments.
You would be surprised how much more pleasant your life will become without them. Become a
"Luddite" for our time.
I've learned that it's easy not to use the services or products of companies that have
become too political.
All good points and a very timely reminder. How does this Biden total media blackout
control comport with Democrat claims Trump is a dictator, that we will lose America if Trump
is re-elected and we must all end Trump's reign of authoritarian control?
So glad I never signed up for Twitter, do not have a Facebook account and don't even own a
cell phone. Yet the Biden "news" still broke through the high-tech censorship Wall. Democrats
are patently schizophrenic about "open borders".
regarding C-Span: " In related news C-SPAN suspends political editor Steve Scully. Yes, he
was going to be the presidential debate moderator at the second debate; now he admits he lied
about his Twitter feed being hacked. Blue, check."
I watch C Span online; have done so for years. I think C Span is one of the more insidious
of the media outlets, precisely because people think it is so "fair and balanced," "not like
Fox or CNN" that have an obvious bias.
C Span's unobvious bias is what you don't hear -- never, ever hear, and that is any word
that disparages ADL, AIPAC, or the narratives they and their myriad associated organizations
hold dear.
Steve Scully has been one of the fiercest defenders of that invisible protective barrier,
their Golden Boy for most of his career and most of C Span's existence. Maybe Scully is
becoming too expensive: C Span has begun posting advertisements before granting access to
live stream programs.
Or perhaps he's aging out. The people who ensure the above-mentioned policies prevail are
unabashed about their practice of hand-picking people like Scully: Irish, Catholic, innocent
choir-boy appearance.
As Plaintiff's Exhibit #1 I offer statements from Anita Weiner's Expanding Historical
Consciousness: The Development of the Holocaust Education Foundationhttps://tinyurl.com/y5q7eg5v
a book describing how, in the late-1980s and early 1990s Zvi Weiss proceeded step-by-step to
include "holocaust education" first at Northwestern University, where Weiss selected Irish
Catholic scholar of German history Peter Francis Hayes, spent $3000 for a substitute teacher
for Hayes's classes while he spent the semester in Israel being prepped to spearhead Weiss's
agenda. Weiss's success at Northwestern propelled him next to Notre Dame, then to
universities across the country, and then to US military academies. In 2013 a department of
holocaust studies became fully integrated into Northwestern University; it's reasonable to
assume Northwestern is not alone in this.
With respect to this hard drive, the Washington Post has an article saying that the White
House was warned last year that Rudy Giuliani was "the target of an influence operation by
Russian intelligence." The source of that information is, of course, "sources who
demanded anonymity to discuss sensitive information" and some "intercepted
communications."
So from that we are to assume that the Hunter Biden hard drive is not real, but is a
subterfuge created by the FSB, or the GRU, or perhaps by Putin himself.
The absolutely dumbest part of it all was that, by banning the Post, Twitler and Faceplant
have created more interest in the story than had they ignored it. Even NPR had to cover the
reaction to the ban, whilst curiously omitting mention of the details of the EMails.
With respect to the reporters, did anyone call the referenced person in Ukraine? Did
anyone call the local FBI and ask what happened? Did anyone ask any of the Bidens? With
respect to discrediting anyone associated with Trump, including Guliani, where have you been
since 2016?
IRON CURTAIN - what an apt reference for these times of shameless, reckless, ruinous,
fascist-like censorship, intellectual dishonesty, and utter hypocrisy.
I wrote a blog post on censorship, your second resonse about events 15 years ago is almost
as long as what I wrote and is also irrelevant to what big tech is doing with the Hunter
Biden story. Take your axe and animus against CSPAN elsewhere.
Fred,
Apparently, in believing there is something to the Hunter Biden email story, you are the
victim of yet another Russian misinformation operation designed to help their good friend
Donald Trump. That was what I'm picking up from the MSM. The FBI is even about to
confirm...er uh...I mean investigate, Russian involvement. You should be more careful!
Thankfully, socially media continues to do their job of protecting you from the forces of
evil! Can I get an "amen"?
Fred,
Too late. I read it earlier today. But I swear I only so because I was just curious as to
what kind of sinister misinformation those dastardly Ruskies are putting out there to defame
noble Joe Biden and interfere with our system of government. And, to be clear, I only read
Breitbart to see what Russia aligned far-right terrorist white supremacists are plotting.
Have to be informed to be properly on guard, you know.
And if I was ever seen in a strip club, that wasn't me, but if it was, I was only there
for the music.
No need to put me on a list, to deactivate my internet access or contact my employer to
let HR know they have an employee wandering down the crooked path to the Wrong Side of
History.
nb. Ironic that you censored my comment that detailed the way that groups given a platform
by C Span are using the US legal system to **censor** people who legitimately sought to speak
out against the proposed, and now effected, removal of the statue of Robert E Lee in
Charlottesville.
When you live in a concrete jungle and the building burn down you are left with a field of
concrete dreams.
This is a private blog, not a commercial enterprise, to which I have been granted the
privelege of writing commentary. I deleted you 600+ words, as I felt them to be nothing more
than irrelevant trolling. Long and irreleven commentary being one of the halmarks of
trolling. But since you are requesting politely I'll post them in their entirety over on an
open thread, and perhaps our host will publish them.
"ABC's George Stephanopoulos Fails to Ask Joe Biden About Hunter Biden Emails"
Why do the Republicans go on moaning about media bias?? Are they pathologically naive??
The media are an ideological movement - who run the Democrat party as their political wing.
They don't hide it. They are totally open about it. [Since 2016, they don't even bother with
"polite formalities".]
The Republicans need to adjust themselves to reality...
Hunter Biden, Joe's son, was hired as lobbyist by the Ukranian gas company Burisma while his
father, then Vice President of the United States, directed U.S. foreign policy with regards to
the Ukraine.
Joe Biden famously
ordered (vid) the Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire his General Prosecutor Viktor
Shokin. He threatened to otherwise withhold a $1 billion loan to the Ukraine. Biden's pressure
to fire Shokin came ten days after Shokin had confiscated several house of Burisma owner Mykola
Zlochevsky. Shokin was eventually fired, the loan to the Ukraine was released and the
corruption case against Zlochevsky was buried.
Joe Biden has denied:
That he had talks with his son about Hunter's lobbying job for Burisma.
That he had ever any talk with Burisma related people.
That his insistent on firing Shokin was related to an investigation by Shokin into the
owner of Burisma.
The emails the NY Post posted show that one of Burisma's managers thanked Hunter
Biden for arranging a meeting with Joe Biden. The source of the emails is allegedly a laptop
owned by Hunter Biden which was left at a repair shop.
Some Biden acolytes claim that the emails must have come from an alleged Russian hack of
Burisma. But the NY Post also published private photos of Hunter Biden showing him
smoking and passed out next to a crack pipe. The photos may well have been, as the Post
claims, on a laptop Hunter Biden owned. It is extremely unlikely that they were hacked from
Burisma severs.
The Biden campaign offered only a weak
refutation of the NY Post claim that he met with the Burisma manager:
Biden's campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of
informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn't appear on Biden's official schedule. But
they said any encounter would have been cursory.
In an unprecedented manipulative act Facebook as well as Twittercensored links
to the NY Post story:
Twitter prohibited its users from posting links to the Post story, while Facebook reduced how
often the story shows up in users' news feeds and elsewhere on the Facebook platform.
...
The New York Post, in an editorial responding to the companies' actions, said: "Censor first,
ask questions later: It's an outrageous attitude for two of the most powerful platforms in
the United States to take."
...
Facebook, the world's biggest social network, limited dissemination of the Post story within
hours of its publication on Wednesday, according to a tweet by spokesman Andy Stone.
Stone cited a policy saying that Facebook can temporarily take action against content
pending review by news organizations and others in its third-party fact-checking program "if
we have signals that a piece of content is false."
He served as communications director for the House Majority PAC between 2012 and 2014; press
secretary for Democratic California Sen. Barbara Boxer between 2011 and 2012; and press
secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) between 2009 and 2011,
according to his LinkedIn profile.
Facebook's 'fact checking' is done by the shady Atlantic Council:
Following the Streisand effect the censoring of the
NY Post story by Facebook and Twitter has increased the distribution of
its claims.
Many outlets reported on it. However a number of these also repeated false claims that
Shokin was not investigating Burisma and its owner when Joe Biden pushed for his firing.
The Washington Post's 'fact checker' Glenn Kessler
claims :
[T]he Americans saw an obstacle to reform in Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor,
whom the United States viewed as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine's corrupt
oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of
Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky .
While Shokin had been investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that Hunter Biden was
on the board of, the investigation had long been dormant by the time the vice president was
pushing for Shokin's ouster in early 2016 , a former Ukrainian official told Bloomberg News
in May 2019.
But let's be clear: Shokin wasn't fired because of anything improper Joe Biden did, no matter
how colorfully
Biden recounted the tale in 2018. It's a point worth repeating, loudly, as Daniel
Goldman, the former prosecutor who led the investigation for House Democrats, did on Twitter.
Let's try this one more time: the Ukrainian prosecutor was fired because he was NOT
prosecuting corruption cases and there was NO Ukrainian investigation into Burisma . In
addition to there being no evidence to support the bogus allegations, the basic premise is
simply false.
The claim that Shokin was not investigating Burisma and its owner is evidently false. As we
have
pointed out several times Shokin, the prosecutor, confiscated four large houses and a
luxary car of Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky just ten days before Joe Biden started to press
for his firing.
The movable and immovable property of former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of
Ukraine Mykola Zlochevsky in Ukraine has been seized, according to the press service of the
Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine (PGO).
"The PGO filed a petition to court to arrest the property of the ex-Minister of Ecology
and Natural Resources of Ukraine, the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence
Council of Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, from which arrest was withdrawn, and other property he
actually uses, namely housing estate with a total area of 922 square meters, a land plot of
0.24 hectares, a garden house with a total area of 299.8 square meters, a garden house in the
territory of Vyshgorod district, a garden house of 2,312 square meters, a land plot of 0.0394
hectares, a Rolls-Royce Phantom car, a Knott 924-5014 trainer," reads the report.
The PGO clarifies that the court satisfied the petition on February 2, 2016.
Biden's call to Poroshenko during which he pressed for Shokin's firing followed on February
12 2016. At that time Burisma paid millions to the lobbying shop of Joe Biden's son.
That U.S. media continue to deny that Shokin was indeed going after Burisma's owner shortly
before Joe Biden called for his firing is despicable.
Joe Biden's corrupt intervention in the Ukraine stinks to high heaven.
I just wanted to pop in and say to all the frothing tds-adherents among the patrons how
important it is to vote for "Quid-pro-quo-Joe" this Halloween.
It is the only way we can get the first leader in U.S. history to openly flout our
corruption-laws for the good of his degenerate offspring.
This is a monumental accomplishment and will help pave the way for a return of our
international reputation signalling that the Federal Gov't is OPEN FOR BUSINESS!
Yee-haaaaawwwwww!
Get those hard-working Trump kids the f$%@ outta there! Their noses to clean! Lol.
It's only by chance of destiny that the Democratic elite is involved with schemes of
corruption in ex-USSR and ex-Yugoslavia. It just happened that both regions fell when Bill
Clinton - a Democrat - was in power. As a result, everybody who was close him at the time got
rich and a permanent net of contacts with those regional elites.
However, it seems the New York Post is really pro-Trump - at least in his anti-China
stance. In the article titled "Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf
of family with Chinese firm" (linked at the end of this blog's post), it is revealed at the
end of the article that the firm is actually from Hong Kong, and that its contact was a
Hongkonger living in a mansion in Long Island, USA, and already had a criminal record in
American territory and was deported to HK. In other words, the firm has nothing to do with
the Mainland and, more importantly, with the CCP.
It's not traditional for an American news outlet to use the adjective "Chinese" to
designate something or someone from Hong Kong. They usually make it very clear it or he/she
is "from Hong Kong". Americans and the British don't consider Hong Kong as being part of
China, even today. That the New York Post suddenly decided Hong Kong is part of China is in
line with Trump's campaign against Biden that he's pro-China.
Do you think that Hunter is the type of guy who has his ducks in a row? On the ball?? A
real go-getter?
Anyone that has come out of a spiritual darkness will willingly admit how doing the
simplest things in life are the hardest to manage under the influence of whatever multiple
addictions the guy obviously suffers under.
Spilling water on a device is easy. Dropping it off is easy.
But I will admit I would like yo know more details about this exchange. What store,
etc.?
Not a single Amerikastani will choose whom to vote for on the basis of information.
Amerikastani politics is tribal and Amerikastanis will vote according to the tribe they
belong to, or not vote at all.
The probability Biden did something illegal is small. The corruption of the system is so
pervasive that the son's influence peddling is legal.
The real point, that Biden is a traitor selling out to foreigners, is straight forward BS,
suitable only for simpletons. Just becasue reight-wing assholes pushed similar garbage about
Clinton with Benghazi/emails/Clinton Foundation doesn't make it one bit smarter. That Biden
is entirely undistinguished by anything whatsoever except being chosen VP is not really
contested by even his supporters. The real case for Biden is he is not Trump. That case is
only refuted by showing how Trump is effective, honorable, insightful, etc. Shady slanders
about treason aren't that case.
The real case against Biden is that you cannot really vote against someone, you can only
vote for.
Ruh-roh. I guess this is October Surprise #2, the first being the Curious Case of Trump's
Covid. There was no push-back by anyone when DC was labeled a swamp of corruption. At this
point 'draining the swamp' is as far away as a Kanye West presidency. We'll probably have
October Surprises spurting over the landscape until Election Eve. The question of Biden
corruption won't hurt as much as being caught lying about it. Will it make a difference? Yes.
Trump's chance of winning just went from 10% to 17%. But with two+ weeks left, and huge early
voting? We've seen two October Surprises launched by the Trump campaign. A thwarted third
'surprise' was the hope to release Barr/Durham report on the creation of Russia-gate. Barr
has demurred. Will October be a one-sided affair, or are there any surprises left to spring
from the Biden camp - and what if anything could possibly make a difference.
As usual, there're heaps of corruption all over both factions of the Duopoly, and it worsens
every election cycle. Two items caught my eyes this morning in my trip through my news feeds.
Escobar's
long election related article at Strategic Culture has much to chew on. Michael
Klare's "Talking
Tough & Carrying a Radioactive Stick" reviews the astounding number of provocations
made by nuclear capable aircraft of areas surrounding Russia and China since TrumpCo's
Nuclear Posture Review was done in Feb 2018.
As it stands now, I'll vote for Dario Hunter, the Progressive Party POTUS candidate as I
can make no argument favoring either faction of the Duopoly.
div> neither of the two supersized warmongering bowls of crap should be
within a mile of the presidency, and this is just more proof. the msm is shutting this story
down just like it shuts down the assange story.
Posted by: pretzelattack , Oct 15 2020 17:14 utc |
15
neither of the two supersized warmongering bowls of crap should be within a mile of the
presidency, and this is just more proof. the msm is shutting this story down just like it
shuts down the assange story.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 15 2020 17:14 utc |
15
B is right, as usual, but it won't matter because elections are a referendum on the ruling
party, not on the challenger. And ever since Watergate, Americans assume that all politicians
are crooks.
how about the idea that clinton, and biden are traitors pushing war with russia and making a
little more on the side while pushing the real agenda. obama is slippier, no smoking guns
tying that house on martha's vineyard to pushing the treasonous russiagate propaganda.
thanks b.. i agree with your quote here
"That U.S. media continue to deny that Shokin was indeed going after Burisma's owner shortly
before Joe Biden called for his firing is despicable."
@ c1ue | Oct 15 2020 16:10 utc | 2... that is only part of it... bidens direct actions are
the other part...
@ steven t johnson | Oct 15 2020 16:52 utc | 10.. quote "The probability Biden did
something illegal is small. " right.... believe what you want to believe then... why not
admit that regardless of which party gets in power, they are both corrupt to the core?? i am
always amazed at those incapable of seeing this..
The importance of voting out the current Cretin-in-Charge for the causes of basic humanity
and decent governance, among many others, remains; but the Dems surely don't make it easy, do
they? Out of 20+ candidates, and just like last time, they picked the one most likely
corrupted and most likely vulnerable to attacks from the Repubs. It's almost as if the people
who pick the candidate want someone compromised and therefore controllable, just like the
current president.
Reminded again of the Douglas Adams quote from the Hitchhiker series about leaders:
"The major problem -- one of the major problems, for there are several -- one of the many
major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who
manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are,
ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Talking to two "liberal" friends last week discovered they were busy taking lessons to learn
Ukrainian language. Which of course barely even exists as dialect and has no national
literature. But liberals are in love with Ukraine and all it stands for. Whatever Joe Biden
was busy doing if it meant he was standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainians then all is
good.
Russia bad. Repeat ten thousand times. Ukraine dpubleplusgood. No questions allowed.
'i am always amazed at those incapable of seeing this.'
Looks like there's panic at the troll farm this morning. Similar to what we're seeing from
'big tech'. Is there any connection between the two? Same bosses, maybe?
"Following the Streisand effect the censoring of the NY Post story by Facebook and Twitter
has increased the distribution of its claims."
That was completely predictable.
It was also predictable that the CIA blowing the whistle (a little more than a year ago)
would have the effect of harming Biden's reputation far more than it hurt trump.
It was also predictable that after Biden's reputation was damaged the Democrats would
double down on Biden and thus choose the only candidate (besides Hillary) that could lose to
trump
I also predicted the day i heard that the CIA had blown the whistle revealing Biden's
corruption to the sheeple that read and rely on the MSM that the evidence that would confirm
the Biden corruption would magically appear right before the election.
I would not be surprised if more revelations about what is on Hunter's laptop are
forthcoming.
have to agree the "computer repair shop" angle is highly unlikely. all data is swept up and
held - I assume accessing specific information is not insurmountable. The NY Post story is
probably sourced to a leak - which is how it's done nowadays. Just like Trump's taxes.
Twitter/ Facebook censorship is now fact of life. this effort was result of pressure by
Democrat politicians egged on by liberal intelligentsia and Dem-linked MSM (ie NY Times). The
infantilization of western culture and politics is a long-term trend.
Maybe your "liberal" friends found themselves an interesting job in becoming trainers to
ukranian nato-led groups of thugs.They move them all over the world to do some interesting
sightseeing and making fun with war-savvy foreign thugs like Free Syrian Army and jihadi's
and hongkong cockroaches.All in the best possible taste of MI6.In the repression of the
Yellow Vests foreign speaking dressed up as French intervention teams ; armoured police with
unpolicelike methods were overheard,provocateurs were filmed.People tend to forget.
Any more information available about the first days of the BLM?There was talk about
pallets and piles of bricks .
Later on in Kenosha talk about several limo's unloading people,the fabulous lighting,could
it have been a setup that cocked up because of a naive teenager wanting to do his best ?Are
there follow-ups on those allegations or reports?
Well summed up. I did vote blue, ballot already mailed in receipt duly recorded at county
election office, but they don't make it easy, do they? I had to do the proverbial and
figurative nose-holding to do it in 2020. This year, it was more like full, level-4 hazmat
prep even to vote by mail. I guess that fits with the pandemic theme, too. I wanted to turn
the ballot around the same day because I didn't even want it under my roof soiling my house,
but it was actually the next day when I completed and mailed it. I have never felt so dirty
and disgusted about voting. I may not even be alive by 2022, but I don't know how or if I
will go beyond this and vote in the midterms.
Despite screwing the Palestinians; occupying parts of Syria; assassinating a foreign
leader; renegging on a peace agreement with North Korea; and toughening sanctions on Iran
during a global pandemic.
Trump beats Covid. USA! USA! USA!
He didn't need to go to Walter Reed Hospital, but did so for effect. And information
about his condition is tightly controlled. Did he really have it?
Pelosi holds up Covid-related economic stimulus/relief for individuals
Trump seems generous in comparison (he's not).
Hunter's laptop, supposedly abandoned, is given to the FBI.
Pundits and Pearl clutchers will look no further as it fits with the narrrative.
<> <> <> <> <>
The 2020 election has effectively made into a MAGA referendum. Vote Trump if you want
war to save America from her internal and ex./sarc
Both of the Deep State's Duopoly Parties want to Trump to be re-elected. TINA!
Despite screwing the Palestinians; occupying parts of Syria; assassinating a foreign
leader; renegging on a peace agreement with North Korea; and toughening sanctions on Iran
during a global pandemic.
Trump beats Covid. USA! USA! USA!
He didn't need to go to Walter Reed Hospital, but did so for effect. And information
about his condition is tightly controlled. Did he really have it?
Pelosi holds up Covid-related economic stimulus/relief for individuals
Trump seems generous in comparison (he's not).
Hunter's laptop, supposedly abandoned, is given to the FBI.
Pundits and Pearl clutchers will look no further as it fits with the narrrative.
<> <> <> <> <>
The 2020 election has effectively made into a MAGA referendum. Vote Trump if you want war
to save America from her internal and ex./sarc
Both of the Deep State's Duopoly Parties want to Trump to be re-elected. TINA!
@ dh-mtl | Oct 15 2020 17:51 utc | 24... big tech and same bosses - may as well be.. the boss
is NSA-CIA... this attempt at narrative control is quite fascinating...
i agree with what @ jinn | Oct 15 2020 17:52 utc | 25 says... they can't control it...
they just make it worse...
Trump has also: supported a coup against the government of Venezuela; terminated peace
treaties (including JCPOA);
greatly increased defense spending ; militarized space; and sought to bomb Iran in
retaliation for the downing of a US drone (Russia wouldn't allow it).
it's not supposed jackrabbit, they aren't reporting it. blanket media silence. and the
average american, i would wager, is not aware of what's going on. same playbook as iraq, with
many of the same actors and all of the same corporate media.
i see the bootlicker brigade is back, pretending that blm and antifa is behind the violence
when it is crystal clear that it is jackbooted government thug cops who murder people in
broad daylight, with the support of both parties, that are kicking off the resistance. and
pretending that right wing militias are not a threat. trump is going to lose due to the virus
and the economy, and some of these right wing scumbags will carry out a campaign of terror
attacks in response. hope there are no more ok cities.
In reply to Biswapriya Purkayast | Oct 15 2020 16:29 utc |
8
Amerikastani politics is tribal and Amerikastanis will vote according to the tribe they
belong to, or not vote at all.
We're a significant 'tribe' as well. Non voters are a huge block of USians who for many
reasons refuse to validate the corrupt system.
According to The 100 Million Project, "...dispel outdated assumptions about non-voters.
These are our fellow citizens, and they come from every walk of life. But there are some
factors that unite them, which we examine in this report. By bringing to life this diverse
group and their views on politics, the study acts as a clarion call to energize a new
generation of engaged citizens..."
james@19 quotes me for some reason. Inasmuch as I say the system, which includes both
parties, is so rotten what should be corruption has been legalized, and condemn both parties
for crying "treason!" against both Clinton and Trump, then the professed "amazement" that I
and others don't see that both parties are corrupt means...somehow...my dismissing the latest
round of this BS about how leading US politicians are traitors, traitors, traitors is
wrong....implying without being so honest as to say outright, Biden really is a traitor! Like
Clinton! But not like Trump! If there's anything but Trumpery there I've missed it.
Again, there is absolutely nothing good to say about Trump that isn't a pack of lies
(mainly drivel about the Deep State and economic nationalism.) Neither is there anything good
to say about Biden except he's not Trump. Unfortunately you cannot actually vote against
Trump, you can only vote for Biden. Biden may be a blank, but any blank check voters hand him
will be cashed by someone. We see here the genius of the system in full play: Most of us are
effectively disenfranchised before the vote because it has been arranged that we have no one
to vote for. Vote suppression, mail in ballots, all that is not even required to rig the
election.
What nobody ever talks about is the why of Hunter Biden's association with Burisma, Devon
Archer, and Stephen Kappes (former Deputy Director of the CIA). I wrote the following here at
MofA 6 1/2 years ago. Its worth revisiting to put the current kerfuffle in context:
While the Hunter Biden story is definitely important, we mustn't let its sensationalist
appearances override a much more important story.
One of Hunter and Joe Biden's buddies is Devon Archer -- who also was a chairman on John
Kerry's presidential bid, a rich bundler with ties to the Heinz family. Devon Archer was
just appointed to the board of Burisma along with Biden.
Archer's importance? He sits on the board of DiamondBack Tactics, which is a part of the
military-industrial complex of corporations funded by Torch Hill -- a ready made security,
weaponry, and mercenary outfit ready to roll.
And who is the Chairman of DiamondBack? None other than former CIA Deputy Chief Stephen
Kappes. Kappes was the man who ran the extraordinary (and illegal) rendition program in the
early-mid 2000's. He was convicted in Italy of the kidnapping of an Egyptian Muslim cleric
in 2009. Kappes has had his hands in all the goings on in the middle east and eurasia for
decades, running and setting up many CIA stations, including Moscow, Frankfurt, Pakistan
and Pakistan.
Want to know what's going on? Follow the money -> Burisma ownership eventually leads
to Privat Holdings and Ihor Kolomoyskyi. And the team of Kappes, Biden and Archer, via
Burisma, ensures that U.S. oligarchical goals are being furthered. Burisma is just a shell
for the CIA to operate out of.
I don't see any reason to revise my assertion that Burisma is a CIA shell company, and
Hunter Biden was just assisting his dad and the CIA in its nefarious activities. And that is
why the truth has been, and will continue to be buried.
"...what should be corruption has been legalized, and condemn both parties for crying
"treason!" against both Clinton and Trump, then the professed "amazement" that I and others
don't see that both parties are corrupt means...somehow...my dismissing the latest round of
this BS about how leading US politicians are traitors, traitors, traitors is
wrong....implying without being so honest as to say outright, Biden really is a traitor! Like
Clinton! But not like Trump! If there's anything but Trumpery there I've missed it. "
The problem with that, charging them with corruption and treason, is we don't have a
viable alternative. It's like you can't fire the help without understanding how to do what
they do for yourself.
We're using a sort of containment strategy. Assuming we have to put up with corruption, we
try to ensure a minimization of its effects on us.
"...there is absolutely nothing good to say about Trump that isn't a pack of lies..."
Is it a lie to say that Trump isn't Biden?
Is it a lie to say that Trump openly and bluntly criticizes the corporate mass media?
Is it a lie to say that Trump scrapped the TPP?
Is it a lie to say that Trump ridicules identity politics and thus weakens its ability to
silence critics?
Is it a lie to say that Trump is forcing the international community to critically re-examine
their relationship with the American empire?
I don't think these things are lies, and I do think they are good for humanity.
Funny how Trump Derangement Syndrome victims always seem to be completely unaware
of their derangement. The syndrome must create its own blind spot.
@ steven t johnson
"Biden may be a blank, but any blank check voters hand him will be cashed by someone."
Would that be Kamala Harris, backed by Clinton/Pelosi?
Fascinating show! Nineteen/twenty sleeps to go.
Unsurprisingly the journalist responsible for the Hunter Biden nothingburger is linked to
Breitbart. Breitbart-style right-wing propaganda is not even muck racking, so much as aping
that style through lies and deception in order to keep their right-wing readers scared
shitless of any alternative to the GOP. Older folks might remember "Bureaucrash" which
similarly aped the Yes Men. I don't know if Bureaucrash is still around, but the biggest name
inheritor of that kind of project is "Project Veritas" by rich kid James O'Keefe who avoided
a wiretapping charge over his attempted wiretapping of Senator Mary Landrieu because one of
his co-conspirators was a local attorney's son. This is not to imply guilt by association,
but I am always suspicious of right-wing journalism because the milieu of right-wing
journalists is devoted to their political project to the point that they're almost practicing
their own idea of taqiya in their endeavors.
How much effort are we supposed to go through to connect the dots between an investigation
of Burisma's former head, an apparently "cursory" interaction between that former head and
Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden's presence on Burisma's board? Without evidence, are we supposed
to assume - in line with a far right conspiracist narrative - that the cursory interaction
was the former head of Burisma calling in a favor? Given that the investigation was centered
around happenings that occurred before Hunter Biden was on the board, what benefit would Joe
Biden personally have gotten from squashing the investigation?
There's been plenty of suspicion that CIA was connected to Burisma but your comment
essentially confirms it.
Normally Biden and his son's mistakes would be covered up/hushed up. But the Biden's are
being roasted so that the Deep State can re-elect Trump.
I should dig up my old comments from years ago about Deep State wanted to elect Trump and
Hillary throwing the election to Trump. (I just don't have the time right now.) It should be
more clear now after what we've seen from the Democratics over the last 12 months.
Censorship of political speech just before an election is as dangerous to democracy as
anything possibly could be.
It is far more dangerous than Putin buying a few Facebook ads.
Keeping things in perspective, Democrats are willing to toss democracy, just so long as
they can get power. That is exactly what they accuse Republicans of doing. And of course,
Republicans would, even if this time it is Democrats doing it.
This stinks in a very familiar way to the Clinton Foundation corruption of 'pay to play' that
Wikileaks published just before Trump got elected in 2016 (among the many others). A whole
new dimension of corruption and collusion is emerging. The fact even Facebook and Twitter are
now prepared to act so shamelessly and overtly is highly alarming, not just disgusting.
I will not at all be surprised if US voters go for another middle finger vote. Many will
find it a tough choice between organised corruption or chaotic populism.
Pozharsky and Burisma, and karma to the rescue but to be unnoticed by US voters. The root for
Pozharsky is fire, like burnt out, and Burisma is drill, drilling, like the ineffable Sarah
Palin from Alaska, from her window she could see Russia so she new a lot about the russkies,
drill baby drill. So drill and fire plus Biden on tape as Satrap Major conditioning a billion
buck loan on firing some functionary on a far away land. And that seems to be quite normal
for the american voter. Probably that's the reason why the candidates for the election are no
candidates at all. You do not have an election.
Normally Biden and his son's mistakes would be covered up/hushed up. But the Biden's are
being roasted so that the Deep State can re-elect Trump.
___________________________________________
Yes but:
A] they were never mistakes
B] nobody will go to jail
C] the Bidens will make tons of money writing books and giving speeches and being put on more
corporate boards.
You're almost correct. We have an election for the two executives atop the federal
government, but we don't have any real choice when it comes to candidates as those are
carefully controlled, and that is the most distinctive way in which the Outlaw US Empire
fails as a democratic-republic and is instead an authoritarian form of government at the
federal level. This was made possible by the overthrowing of the Articles of Confederation
and replacement by the 1787 Constitution which allowed for the continuation of governance by
the Aristocratic Class. By the time universal suffrage was enacted after WW1, the
misallocation of wealth had already allowed the Creditor Class to gain control of the federal
government. That Class has maintained its control except for the short interruption by FDR.
The secret for the Class's ability to stay in control is rather simple--Divide and Rule--as
it also owns the methods to exert control. Much the same exists within the EU, which is why
it acts in such close lockstep with the Outlaw US Empire.
The formula for the world's people to gain their freedom is rather simple: They must
overthrow the Creditor Class and never allow them to gain power again by socializing all
institutions. The hard part is getting the people of the planet to realize that is what's
required and then going about its implementation.
@ steven t johnson | Oct 15 2020 19:50 utc | 38.. thanks for your response... i just see both
choices are bad choices for the usa.. but then i see the usa as an empire in fast decline..
maybe there is a slight difference in which one of these 2 candidates is going to take down
the usa faster.. that is about it in my mind.. and fwiw i do agree with some of what @ 41
william gruff says and what all of @ 52 jinn says.. bottom line biden is no shining example
of purity, not that you were implying that either.. the whole usa political system is corrupt
beyond repair as i see it... i would like to be wrong too!
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 15 2020 16:10 utc | 2 What is really interesting is the provenance of
this proof: a water-damaged laptop dropped off at a repair shop, then never paid for nor
picked up.
I have to say that, while I don't believe Biden is innocent of *anything*, this provenance
reeks of Deep State intervention in support of Trump. OTOH, stranger things have happened in
IT repair. However, since my interest is limited - translation: who gives a shit? - I'll
leave it at that.
Re Twitter and Facebook. We know the CIA helped create Google in order to do the social
monitoring and control that the CIA can't do legally. Facebook ditto. Not sure about
Twitter's connection to the CIA, but, hey, I'm sure it's there, too.
As an aside, Twitter is having an outage right now. My guess is too many people are
posting about the Biden emails, so they shut it down for a bit. Or some hackers decided to
take them down for their censorship.
Anyone who imagines that these revelations will matter, just needs to read this thread where
responses of amerikans all seem to fit into three equally stupid categories.
The bulk of the responses don't objectively analyse what this cesspit of greed &
larceny means for their country, because the responses are first filtered through a really
fucking useless partisan subjectivity. When both 'parties' have identical policies,
thoroughly corrupt leadership and a primary aim of deceiving citizens WTF does this tribalist
support for a particular party indicate apart from exceptional stupidity on the part of the
partisan?
The people who consider themselves left of center, question, without any evidence at all
to support their delusion, the provenance of the emails, when the story appears to anyone
with half a brain to be both easily checkable and an entirely probable occurrence in a 2020
capitalist society.
Which brings me to the second and smallest 'cohort', the conspiracists, they not only
question the provenance of the info, they in time honoured fashion drag in their favourite
nemesis, the CIA, now as one who has seen all the truly foul shit that mob of criminals get
up to, I'm not averse to throwing shit at those arseholes, but trying to involve those pricks
in something so small-time and tacky as this is ludicrous, sheer fantasy.
It makes much more sense that the involvement of Devon Archer (a man not averse to trousering
a fat wedge) and by extremely distant connection Steven Kappes, was at the insistence of old
man Biden, who, far more knowledgeable about his son's predilections than anyone else, needed
someone close to the action with the contacts to ensure, that if hunter-baby slipped off the
rails, he could straighten things out and alert the old man.
The last group, the hee-haw "see I told you so, dems are all crooks" rightist types
celebrating this disgusting revelation as they view it through their own blinkered,
subjective & stupid rethug partisanship are the worst of all.
No amerikan should celebrate this, this should be a day of national shame - not just
because it shows biden to be a crook, but also because in recent days, orangeutan's son in
law Jared Kushner has been shown to have been perverting & corrupting
the covid 19 supply chain by using federal facilities to organise & obtain much needed
PPE, then inserting a few select private corporations he is acquainted with to step in
collect the PPE as it arrives in amerika (on federal government funded transport), then
triple (and more) the price as they sell the gear back to public health authorities.
There are no 'good guys' in any of this, both gangs are corrupt stinking low lifes, those
who complain about the lack of objective news then filter all 'news' through their own
subjective lens, are no less hypocritical than the types they claim to deplore.
What has the world come to when the NY Post has surpassed the NYT and WaPo as a
reliable news source.
The world will soon reach that level that was satirised in "Men In Black" when Agent K
(Tommy Lee Jones) advises Agent J (Will Smith) to read The National Enquirer (tabloid rag
famous even here in Australia for "Two women give birth to same baby"-type headlines if only
by hearsay) for "best investigative reporting on the planet".
the conspiracists, they not only question the provenance of the info, they in time
honoured fashion drag in their favourite nemesis, the CIA, ... but trying to involve those
pricks in something so small-time and tacky as this is ludicrous, sheer fantasy.
You are thinking that the info on the laptop is what's important instead of the timing of
a seemingly shocking reveal that will ultimately result in no prosecutions.
= It makes much more sense that the involvement of Devon Archer ... and by extremely
distant connection Steven Kappes, was at the insistence of old man Biden, who, ... needed
someone close to the action with the contacts to ensure, that if hunter-baby slipped off the
rails, he could straighten things out and alert the old man.
I really don't buy the excuse that you offer (nice try, tho). It strains credibility when
we can see that Biden is connected enough to what's going on without taking such
extraordinary measures. And Devon's involvement is better explained by his connection to John
Kerry while Kappes involvement is better explained by CIA's wanting some degree of
oversight.
= ... both gangs are corrupt stinking low lifes ...
There's only one gang. It runs the Duopoly and the media. And the Empire.
!!
p>
Post a comment Name:
Email:
URL: Allowed HTML Tags:
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
As the furor over Twitter and Facebook's attempts to censor Wednesday morning's New York
Post bombshell intensifies, Rudy Giuliani, who was named as the source of the documents in the
NY Post story, just dropped a new video on Twitter where he outlines some of the alleged
transgressions of "the Biden Crime Family".
Earlier, the NYP
exposed never-before-publicized emails suggesting that Joe Biden's involvement with his
son's business endeavors was much more active than he led the world to believe.
In other words, if the emails are genuine (and nobody has offered any credible evidence yet
to suggest that they aren't) then it's clear the Biden lied about having never discussed
business with his son.
In a tweet, Giuliani confirmed that he has more material that has yet to see the light of
day, and teased the public that it would soon be made available on his website , which he said he launched to stop big
tech from censoring the story.
... Giuliani cited Iraq, what he said was the first example of this, outlining a scheme
involving a $1.5 billion contract and Biden's brother, James Biden.
The former NYC mayor continues: "The question is, why did Joe Biden lie about it? The New
York Post on its front page shows that Joe Biden has been lying about Burisma for 7 years,"
Giuliani added, again claiming that Biden "committed a crime".
Specifically, he named Hunter Biden, James Biden, Joe Biden and Sarah Biden, along with
other unnamed family members, as "the Biden Crime Family."
The "crime family" framing of course harkens back to the "Clinton Crime family", as well as
Giuliani's work as a prosecutor where he famously helped break the Mafia's stranglehold on the
underworld, and much of the legitimate business happening in the territories they
controlled.
Now, we can't help but wonder: will Giuliani drop the Hunter Biden sex tape
ZENDOG , 4 hours ago
Wake me when someone goes to jail.
Fiscal Reality , 2 hours ago
Barr: MIA
Durham: MIA
Horowitz: MIA
MSM: MIA and Covering up
CIA: Complicit
DNC: Complicit
FBI: Complicit
Ukraine: Partner
China: Partner
Obama: Partner
Hillary: Co-conspirator.
Outcome? Nothing. A big, fat, dripping NOTHING.
OpenEyes , 2 hours ago
It's all falling down. Crumbling right before their eyes three weeks before the election
that they were plotting to steal. This is just like when a dam gives way, slowly and then
suddenly. And, it involves more than just the corrupt Bidens. The chain is long and goes all
the way to the top. They are in the process of losing the election, and their reputations, in
the court of public opinion. Next comes the courts of law.
We haven't even gotten into the Durham investigation yet. Have you noticed how quiet
things have been over there? Not a single leak. That tells me that they have a serious case
and a tight team.
I am long popcorn, beer and orange jumpsuits.
Md4 , 3 hours ago
"The emails obtained from Hunter Biden's hard drive reveal Joe Biden lied about Burisma,
and more. Tonight I react and share a private text message that describes the ongoing schemes
by the Biden Crime Family."
And that's coming from Giuliani.
A former federal prosecutor of organized crime.
This guy... knows what he's talking about...
DaveClark5 , 3 hours ago
Crooks will be crooks. What is more disguising is the sheeple that vote for them. Our
founders said that the voters must have some kind of moral compass for there experiment to
work. It is now in the balance.
Lyman54 , 1 hour ago
Well we are still waiting for the Weiner laptop contents to be exposed. I suppose the
Biden laptop info will never see the light of day either.
Walter Melon , 3 hours ago
The old mafia prosecutors of the '70s and '80s would release a statement of something
like, "We have a high level mobster admitting to crimes on an audio recording. If you know
anything about this, please contact us."
And the rats would line up not knowing if it was them or someone else, to make their
deal.
Giuliani remembers this.
Let's see what rats show up this week.
Stormtrooper , 4 hours ago
If the purpose of these releases is to influence the election, forget about it. Demon-rats
aren't smart enough to put 2+2 together. The answer for them is 5. Or 10. Or 18. Whatever
fantasy answer they want it to be. They won't be influenced by irrefutable proof that Joe
Biden is dirty.
freakscene , 3 hours ago
They're not targeting "Democrats".
They're targeting those in the middle that are somehow undecided.
PT , 2 hours ago
Everything revealed in October can be safely forgotten. PizzaGate came out one week before
the election. Sure, I saw the spirit-cooking video, I saw the Podesta emails ... and then it
all magically disappeared. How horrific was the Anthony Weiner lap top? Sooooooooo horrific
that it could be forgotten for four years and counting.
January 2016, 147 FBI agents and then what happened? Looks like the year leading up to the
election (one quarter of all time) can be safely ignored too.
If they were going to trial then they would go to trial and the media releases would be
about the trial. No trial? Nothing is happening.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 4 hours ago
It's October... color me surprised.
ImTalkinfullCs , 1 hour ago
This is disqualifying......
bobroonie , 1 hour ago
Not in our Feudal society.
SmokeyBlonde , 43 minutes ago
This is a resume-enhancer for all D's and establishment R's, aka The Uniparty.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
I have been extremely critical of Guliani in the past, mostly 9/11 related, but his common
sense videos are just that, with excellent guests. NYC wishes they had Rudy back.
Saturn2001 , 1 hour ago
The problem is that the hardcore demonkrats and more importantly the press, will stifle
this whole set of facts and defend these lying/thieving creatures. We've seen it before. We
even have the likes of piggy noonan of the Wall Street Journal suggesting that electing Biden
would be a return to normal. Normal thieving, destroying deep state skum. They have done so
much harm to the United States and to the world.
Son of Loki , 1 hour ago
Trump has a way with words:
Donald Trump: 'The Bidens Got Rich While Americans Got Robbed'
The president cited the bombshell New York Post story uncovering emails sent from Vadym
Pozharskyi, an adviser to Ukrainian energy company Burisma, to Hunter Biden, thanking him for
helping arrange a meeting with his father.
Hunter Biden received between $50,000 and $83,000 a month from Burisma to sit on the
board.
"The Biden family treated the vice presidency as a for-profit corporation flying around
the globe collecting millions of dollars from China and Ukraine and Russia and other
countries," Trump said.
Yog Soggoth , 1 hour ago
They threatened to not give the money to Ukraine. That money was USAID money allocated by
vote from Congress taken from American taxpayers. Burisma got it's cut which laundered back
to Bidens. Many laws were broken.
philmannwright , 26 minutes ago
The funny part is that whatever Joe did for his kids, is likely NOTHING compared to the
hundreds of millions of dollars that Hillary took for access to herself, and that is only
what we know about during the Clinton Family's federal reign of self-enrichment from
1992-2016... never mind whitewater.
chemcounter , 2 hours ago
Trump needs to execute prosecution on Hillary. You see, these people get away with
enriching themselves and when they are caught, the opposition tries to hold it over their
heads to keep them inactive politically. Instead, they lay low and then come out later
executing well laid plans then use the reasoning that they must be innocent of all the
accusations or someone would have prosecuted. The people are sick of the obvious dual class
criminal justice system.
ByTony Cox, a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and
several major daily newspapers. If Big Tech's latest censorship fiasco – the
suppression of a New York Post scoop that might harm Joe Biden's presidential campaign –
doesn't spur Republicans to act, they may as well quit pretending to represent their
voters.
If even this isn't enough to trigger so-called conservatives to loosen Silicon Valley's
death grip on America's public marketplace of ideas, nothing will. All the talk about defending
free speech and fighting election interference will be exposed for the meaningless posturing
that it is, much like all those years of hearing Republicans campaign on stopping illegal
immigration, which they had no intention of doing.
In this case, however, the stakes are more personal for Republican politicians. This isn't
only about throwing their constituents under the bus and giving lip service about political
bias while taking donations from the likes of Google and Amazon. This time, the bus is about to
run over them and leave tread-marks on their former careers in Washington.
When the flow of news and information is controlled on political grounds to the extent it
was on Wednesday, it can only lead to irreversible one-party dominance. And here's a hint for
the likes of Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio): Google may give you money, but as the late
George Carlin said, "It's a big club, and you ain't in it." That one party's name will
start with a "D."
The Post article alleged that Biden's son, Hunter Biden, received an email in 2015 from an
executive at Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, thanking him for arranging a meeting with then-Vice
President Joe Biden. The alleged meeting with the executive, Vadym Pozharskyi, occurred about a
year after Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a
month.
If the meeting was arranged by the younger Biden and took place as Pozharskyi said, it would
belie Joe Biden's previous statements that he had never spoken to his son about his overseas
business dealings.
The Biden campaign said no record of such a meeting appeared on the vice president's
"official schedules," but as Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) pointed out, it didn't
deny the veracity of the emails on which the article was based.
Nevertheless, Facebook rushed to curtail the story's exposure. Company spokesman Andy Stone,
who previously worked for two Democrat lawmakers and two Democrat campaign groups, announced
that Facebook would reduce distribution of the article as part of a " standard process " to
reduce spreading of "misinformation" and might do a fact-check of the story. He didn't
say why the article was considered a misinformation threat.
The next shoe dropped with Twitter, which blocked its users from tweeting links to the story
or sending it in direct messages. Those who tried to spread the article got an error message
saying the message couldn't be sent because it was identified as "potentially
harmful."
Conservative observers, such as Toby Young, joked that the article was "potentially
harmful" only to Biden's campaign, but the damage was done. As in the case of Facebook,
Twitter didn't make a case for the article being false, but the company said that in addition
to concern over potential disinformation, the article was blocked "in line with our hacked
materials policy" and a lack of authoritative reporting on where the source material
originated.
The emails weren't hacked; rather, the Post said they were taken off a computer that Hunter
Biden left at a repair shop in Delaware. In any case, the various policy explanations were
excuses for censoring content that probably would have been gleefully allowed by social media
platforms if the article had instead said Donald Trump Jr. was selling access to the White
House.
Social-media giants are censoring the article because they favor Biden over Trump, and they
figure no one will stop them. Mainstream media outlets are cheering on the decision because
they, too, favor Biden and have no principles regarding free speech or good journalism. Before
Twitter did the job for him, MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin warned that no one should be linking
or sharing the Post article because they could discuss its flaws "without amplifying what
appears to be misinformation."
Like Facebook and Twitter, Griffin didn't need to explain how he knew the article was
disinformation. Nor did he show the least bit of self-awareness about the media's spreading of
disinformation over the past four years. Adam Jentleson, a staffer for former Senator Harry
Reid, even pretended to know that the article was not only disinformation, but also the work of
a "Russian propaganda campaign." Again, no explanation or facts needed.
Twitter also locked out the Post's account, as well as those of people who shared the story,
among them actor James Woods and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
Conservative and independent commentators, such as Federalist co-founder Sean Davis and
journalist Glenn Greenwald, saw the obvious importance and implications of Wednesday's
censorship effort. Rarely is social media discussion as dominated by one topic as it was by the
reaction to the Biden story.
The danger is that all the talk just fades away and the debacle is chalked up as just
another example of anti-conservative censorship and bias. There will likely never be a better
poster child to expose Big Tech's criteria for which news gets covered up and which news gets
promoted: If it reflects poorly on Democrats, it's disinformation, and if it makes Republicans
(especially Trump) look bad, it's golden.
As conservative author Mike Cernovich pointed out, "the censorship Rubicon was
crossed." Unless the talk finally becomes action, there's no point in continuing the
conversation.
Update (1000ET): Donald Trump Jr. has just raised an interesting question in a tweet: Is
Twitter censoring the Hunter Biden stories from the NY Post at the behest of the Communist
Party of China?
"There needs to be an immediate government investigation into @twitter/@jack. Not just
because of their blatant election interference to protect Biden, but to find out if they're
censoring these NY Post stories at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party. Put Jack under
oath!!!" Don Jr. tweeted.
Update (0935ET): Despite last night's "apology" from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Twitter and
Facebook are already censoring Thursday's latest Hunter Biden exposé from the NY
Post.
Congress is demanding an explanation, yet Twitter and Facebook are moving ahead with their
outright censorship.
* * *
Rudy Giuliani hinted last night that there would be more emails from the trove discovered by
a Delaware computer repair shop owner (who has shared his story on the record with Fox News).
And at 0500ET, the NYPost published another lengthy exposé - at least the second
front-page piece in what is shaping up to be a fascinating series - citing never-before-seen
emails between Hunter Biden and various individuals connected to a major Chinese energy firm
that failed earlier this year after its chairman - a party insider with deep ties to China's
military - was "disappeared" by China's state security apparatus.
The first of three email chains explored in the story was sent to biden by a man named Jams
Gillar, of the international consulting firm J2cR. The email chain discusses what appears to be
a generous compensation package for Hunter Biden, along with other individuals whom the Post
was apparently unable to identify (though it's tempting to hazard a guess).
A subject line on the email, dated May 13, 2017 read "Expectations", and it included details
of "remuneration packages" for six individuals involved in the new business venture (the nature
of the business wasn't clear, though it appears to be related to Biden's international
consulting business). However, Biden's partner in the business appears to be CEFC China Energy,
the now-defunct energy firm mentioned above.
The deal also listed "10 Jim" and "10 held by H for the big guy?" Though neither was
positively identified.
In another email, sent by Biden as part of a chain dated Aug. 2, 2017, Biden discusses what
appears to be a joint venture - a deal structure common in China, where foreign competitors
must build partnerships with domestic firms - involving the former Chairman of CEFC, Ye
Jianming. Half the ownership was to be held by Hunter and the Biden family.
Ye disappeared in early 2018 and is believed to have had deep connections to China's
intelligence and security services. Though at one point, Biden wrote that Ye had sweetened the
terms of an earlier, three-year consulting contract with CEFC that was to pay him $10 million
annually "for introductions alone."
Here's the excerpt from the NY Post story, accompanied by visual snippets culled directly
from the emails, in which Biden asserts that the reason this joint venture is "so much more
interesting to me and my family is that we would also be partners in the equity and
profits."
The nature of this 'venture' wasn't made clear.
Biden wrote that Ye had sweetened the terms of an earlier, three-year consulting contract
with CEFC that was to pay him $10 million annually "for introductions alone."
"The chairman changed that deal after we me[t] in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND
LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent [sic] owned by ME and 50% owned
by him," Biden wrote.
"Consulting fees is one piece of our income stream but the reason this proposal by the
chairman was so much more interesting to me and my family is that we would also be partners
inn [sic] the equity and profits of the JV's [joint venture's] investments."
What's more, a photo published by the Post and dated Aug. 1, 2017 shows what appears to be a
handwritten flowchart illustrating the ownership structure of "Hudson West", split 50/50
between two entities ultimately controlled by Hunter Biden and someone else identified only as
"Chairman."
We know from the Senate report released last month that 'Hudson West III' was used as a name
for one of Hunter Biden's shell companies formed with Gongwen Dong. To be sure,
some details about Biden's Chinese consulting practice has already been made public , but
details of the dealmaking and discussions that went on behind the scenes have not.
Finally, the last in the triptych of distressing email chains is aa copy of an "attorney
engagement letter" between Hunter Biden and one of Ye's top lieutenants, Hong Kong official Chi
Ping Patrick Ho.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
He agreed to pay Biden a $1 million retainer for "counsel to matters related to US law and
advice pertaining ot the hiring and legal analysis of any US Law Firm or Lawyer."
Later, in December 2018, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Ho for being involved in two
schemes to pay $3 million in bribes to high-ranking government officials to help obtain oil
rights in Chad and lucrative business deals in Uganda.
Ho has served his sentence and was deported to Hong Kong in June.
Neither the Biden Campaign, lawyers for Hunter Biden, Gillar, Dong nor Ho returned requests
for comment from the NY Post.
After
yesterday's catastrophe , we look forward to watching Facebook and Twitter scramble to
suppress this story as well. We're beginning to see why the Post has decided to publicize
details from the trove piecemeal, instead of writing a 10,000-word NYT-style novel about Hunter
Biden's transgressions.
It's a suitable tactic for what some conservatives are calling a "digital civil war" over
information that could influence the election in President Trump's favor.
A year after Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma in 2014, the
then-vice president's son's family connections apparently paid off – at least that's what
the latest materials obtained by the New York Post claim to show. In a 2015
email published on Wednesday, Burisma adviser Vadym Pozharskyi thanked Hunter for an
invitation to Washington, and for the "honor and pleasure" of meeting Joe Biden.
No details of the meeting are revealed, but a 2014 email between Pozharskyi reportedly shows
the Burisma executive asking Hunter for "advice on how you could use your influence" to
thwart a government investigation into the company, which hired him that year for a reported
monthly salary of $50,000, despite Hunter's lack of experience in the energy sector.
Joe Biden has repeatedly denied any knowledge of his son's foreign business dealings, and
has responded angrily when accused of peddling influence. Confronted by a voter at a town hall
event last December, the Democratic nominee called the voter a "damn liar" and
"fat." Pressed by President Donald Trump in last month's presidential debate, Biden
replied that his son "did nothing wrong" at Burisma, and Joe has insisted since last
year that he was uninvolved in Hunter's work.
The emails seem to tell a different story. They do not, however, provide any more evidence
that Hunter asked his father to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating the firm,
as President Trump and his allies have repeatedly claimed.
Joe Biden himself has claimed responsibility for the firing though, telling the Council on
Foreign Relations in 2018 "I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money," referring to a billion-dollar Obama
administration aid package to Ukraine. "Well, son of a bitch," he quipped then, "he
got fired."
Biden's supporters in the media have insisted that the former VP was just one of many
international voices calling for the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to be fired for corruption, and
that Shokin's investigation into Burisma had gone "dormant." Shokin himself told
ABC News that he had six investigations into the company open at the time of his ouster.
Coming so close to next month's election, the timing of the New York Post's article has
raised some eyebrows. According to the Post, the emails came from a laptop handed in to a
repair shop in Delaware by an unnamed customer last April. When the store owner realized the
laptop contained Hunter Biden's emails and photos, he alerted federal authorities, who seized
it in December. However, the owner copied the hard drive's contents and gave them to Rudy
Giuliani, President Trump's lawyer.
Curiously, among the photos obtained by the Post is a bill for computer repair work made out
to "Hunter Biden," despite the store owner not knowing who the customer was.
Also among these photos are seemingly incriminating shots of Hunter asleep with what appears
to be a crack pipe in his mouth, and according to the Post, a video of Hunter smoking crack
while having sex with an "unidentified woman." Hunter Biden's struggle with drug
addiction is well documented, and he has been to rehab at least six times. Joe Biden has
claimed that he's overcome his addiction.
With just three weeks to go until the presidential election, Giuliani himself promised on
Wednesday that he had "much more to come." Asked by Los Angeles Times reporter Chris
Megerian what this might mean, Giuliani reportedly responded : "Print a
headline saying 'Lyin' Joe' and we can talk."
Joe Biden's campaign responded to the report later on
Wednesday, with spokesman Andrew Bates saying that "no meeting, as alleged by the New York
Post, ever took place." Bates did not, however, deny that the photo of Hunter with the
crack pipe in his mouth was genuine.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may get a taste of her own medicine after Rep. Doug
Collins (R-GA) introduced legislation to push for her removal as House speaker because she
"does not have the mental fitness" to lead the House .
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unwillingness to abide by the Constitution, combined with her recent
actions, call into question her own mental fitness, which is why it's critical that the House
of Representatives demand her removal from the line of succession," Collins told Fox
News .
A draft of Collins' resolution, obtained by Fox News, argues that P elosi "is unable to
adequately serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives and should therefore be removed
from her position."
The resolution states that Pelosi "has spent the majority of the House of Representative's
time pursuing baseless and fruitless investigations" against President Trump and his
administration, including launching an impeachment inquiry against him in the fall of 2019. -
Fox
News
"On October 31, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi oversaw the first party-line vote to begin an
impeachment inquiry into a president in the history of our country," the resolution
continues.
Collins also cites Pelosi ripping up President Trump's State of the Union speech in February
"before the American people," and that she "visited a shuttered hair salon in San Francisco
where she received a blow-out without wearing a mask in violation of San Francisco's laws
concerning the coronavirus," then "cast blame on the salon's owner for 'setting her up.'"
"Over her tenure of her speakership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has started to demonstrate a
decline in mental fitness, calling into question her ability to adequately serve the House of
Representatives and the American people," it continues.
Collins also references a Tuesday interview in which Pelosi lashed out at CNN 's Wolf
Blitzer after being pushed on why she won't accept the Trump administration's $1.8 trillion
coronavirus relief package.
" There are Americans who are being evicted from their homes, they can't pay the rent. Many
Americans are waiting in food lines for the first time in their lives," said Blitzer, who noted
several Democratic colleagues who had urged the Speaker to compromise - to which Pelosi
snapped: " I don't know why you're always an apologist and many of your colleagues are
apologists for the Republican position."
And three weeks ago Pelosi 'glitched' in the middle of an interview with ABC' s George
Stephanopoulos - blurting out 'good morning, Sunday morning' after hesitating to answer a
question.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/VRxcfe1ijQ4
Collins' resolution comes on the heels of Pelosi's announcement last week that she is
assembling a commission which would allow Congress to oust a president from office using the
25th Amendment, just one day after accusing President Trump of being in an "altered state"
while recovering from coronavirus.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Pelosi denied that it had anything to do with the election, and argued that the committee
would "give some comfort to people" regarding the stability of government.
Under the 25th Amendment, Congress, the cabinet and vice president can strip powers from a
president if for some reason he or she is declared unfit under dire circumstances. But that
requires a 2/3 vote of both houses.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment also states that a majority of "such other body as
Congress may by law" determine if the president cannot discharge the powers and duties of his
office. The 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, and Rep. Jamie Raksin, D-Md., who appeared
with Pelosi last week, said it's time for Congress to set up this "body." - Fox
News
Is octogenarian Nancy Pelosi fit to lead the House?
Fox Business
1.24M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) weighs in on the GOP report on Hunter Biden's financial ties in Europe and China.
Subscribe to Fox Business!
https://bit.ly/2D9Cdse
Watch more Fox Business Video:
https://video.foxbusiness.com
Watch Fox Business Network Live:
http://www.foxnewsgo.com/
FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that
impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York -- the business capital of the world -- FBN
launched in October 2007 and is one of the leading business networks on television, having topped CNBC in Business
Day viewers for the second consecutive year in 2018. The network is available in nearly 80 million homes in all
markets across the United States. Owned by FOX Corporation, FBN is a unit of FOX News Media and has bureaus in
Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. Watch full episodes of FBN Primetime shows Lou Dobbs Tonight:
https://video.foxbusiness.com/playlis...
Kennedy:
https://video.foxbusiness.com/playlis...
Follow Fox Business on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness
Follow Fox Business on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/foxbusiness
Follow Fox Business on Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/foxbusiness
SHOW MORE
16,467 Comments
SORT BY
Commenting publicly as
Nikolai
Bezroukov
Interesting analysis. When people say Joe Biden has had a stuttering problem, that does
not explain him calling Arizona an important city, or confusing where he is. Biden barely
travels, so there's no excuse for him not to know where he is or where he is going. Dementia
may be harsh, But Biden definitely demonstrates signs of cognitive decline!
In 1988, Biden suffered two brain aneurysms, one on the right side and one on the left.
Each required surgery with high risk of long-term impact on brain functionality. As a RN, I
have seen a lot of patients with dementia- Joe needs to retire and enjoy what's left of his
quality time.
The problem with American imperialism that like tiger it can't change its spots. In this
sense Trump vs Biden is false dilemma. "Bothe aare worse" as Stalin quipped on the other
occasion. Both still profess "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine at the expense of the standard of
living of the USA people (outside of top 10 or 20%)
The problem with Putin statement is that both candidates are marionette of more powerful
forces. Trump is a hostage of Izreal lobby, which in the USA are mostly consist of rabid
Russophobes (look art Schiff, Schumer and other members of this gang). Biden is a classic
neoliberal warmonger, much like Hillary was, who voted for Iraq war, contributed to color
revolution in Ukraine, and was instrumental in the conversion of Dems into the second war party.
So there is zero choice in the coming election unless you want to punish Trump for the betrayal
of his electorate, which probably is the oonly valid reason to vote for Biden in key states;
otherwise you san safely ignore the elections as youn; influence anythng. In a deep sense this is
a simply legitimization procedure for the role of the "Deep State", not so much real elections as
both cadidates were already vetted by neoliberal establishment
The key problem with voting for Bide is that this way you essentially legitimizing Obama
administration RussiaGate false flag operation. But as Putin said, chances for extending the
Start treaty might worse this self-betrayal.
Like much of the American public, the Russian public is no doubt weary of the prior couple
years of non-stop 'Russiagate' headlines and wild accusations out of Western press, which all
are now pretty much in complete agreement came to absolutely nothing. This is also why the
whole issue has been conspicuously dropped by the Biden campaign and as a talking point among
the Democrats, though in some corners there's been meek attempts to revive it, especially
related to claims of "expected" Kremlin interference in the impending presidential
election.
Apparently seeing in this an opportunity for some epic trolling, Russian President Vladimir
Putin in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV days ago said it was actually the Democratic Party and
the Communist Party which have most in common.
Putin was speaking in terms of historic Soviet communism in the recent interview (Wednesday)
detailed in Newsweek. "The Democratic Party is traditionally closer to the so-called liberal
values, closer to social democratic ideas," Putin began. "And it was from the social democratic
environment that the Communist Party evolved."
"After all, I was a member of the Soviet Communist Party for nearly 20 years" Putin added.
"I was a rank-and-file member, but it can be said that I believed in the party's ideas. I
still like many of these left-wing values. Equality and fraternity. What is bad about them?
In fact, they are akin to Christian values."
"Yes, they are difficult to implement, but they are very attractive, nevertheless. In
other words, this can be seen as an ideological basis for developing contacts with the
Democratic representative."
The Russian president also invoked that historically Russian communists in the Soviet era
would have been fully on board the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights related
causes. "So, this is something that can be seen, to a degree, as common values, if not a
unifying agent for us," the Russian president said. "People of my generation remember a time
when huge portraits of Angela Davis, a member of the U.S. Communist Party and an ardent fighter
for the rights of African Americans, were on view around the Soviet Union."
So there it is: Putin is saying his own personal ideological past could be a basis of
"shared values" with a Biden presidency, again, it what appears to be a sophisticated bit of
trolling that he knows Biden won't welcome one bit. Or let's call it a 'Russian endorsement
Putin style'. The Associated Press and others described it as Putin "hedging his bets",
however.
Another interesting part of the interview is where the Russian TV presenter asked Putin the
following question:
"The entire world is watching the final stage of the US presidential race. Much has
happened there, including things we could never imagine happening before but the one constant
in recent years is that your name is mentioned all the time," Zarubin said. "Moreover, during
the latest debates, which have provoked a public outcry, presidential candidate Biden called
candidate Trump 'Putin's puppy.'"
"Since they keep talking about you, I would like to ask a question which you probably will
not want to answer," the interviewer continued. "Nevertheless, here it is: Whose position in
this race, Trump's or Biden's, appeals to you more?"
And here's Putin's response:
"Everything that is happening in the United States is the result of the country's internal
political processes and problems," Putin said. "By the way, when anyone tries to humiliate or
insult the incumbent head of state, in this case in the context you have mentioned, this
actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and
power. In a way, it could be said that they are playing into our hands, as the saying
goes."
But on a more serious note Putin pointed out that contrary to the notion some level of
sympathy between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, much less the charge of "collusion",
it remains that US-Russia relations have reached a low-point in recent history under Trump. The
record bears this out.
Putin underscored that "the greatest number of various kinds of restrictions and sanctions
were introduced [against Russia] during the Trump presidency."
"Decisions on imposing new sanctions or expanding previous ones were made 46 times. The
incumbent's administration withdrew from the INF treaty. That was a very drastic step. After
2002, when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty, that was the second major
step. And I believe it is a big danger to international stability and security," Putin
explained.
"Now the US has announced the beginning of the procedure for withdrawing from the Open
Skies Treaty. We have good reason to be concerned about that, too. A number of our joint
projects, modest, but viable, have not been implemented – the business council project,
expert council, and so on," he concluded.
But then on Biden specifically Putin said that despite "rather sharp anti-Russian rhetoric"
from the Democratic nominee, it remains "Candidate Biden has said openly that he was ready to
extend the New START or to sign a new strategic offensive reductions treaty."
"This is already a very significant element of our potential future cooperation," Putin
added of a potential Biden presidency.
@KamalaHarris So, if those
who earn over $400k happen to be landlords, biz owners, etc don't ya think they'll increase
their prices, rents, or whatever to cover the extra tax that will ultimately be passed on to
the consumer....
Ma'am, w all due respect: 1)taxes increase at high end: 2)fiscal stimulus package of
>$2tn; 3)followed by LONG-TERM reinvestment of proceeds in infrastructure, climate, HC,
and education that would surge Econ growth & more than offset taxes. GDP estimates GO UP
in this scenario.
"He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" is what a political constituency
(such as a political party or a cultural group) says of its own tarnished politician. This
politician is better than the opponent because he or she is a member of the group.
"Joe Biden's 'war economy' policies are a radical break with the status quo."
Telegraph
"Bidenomics is a heady brew. The Democrats' $7.9 trillion blast of extra spending is a step
beyond Roosevelt's New Deal. It mimics the Keynesian expansion of the Second World War and
consciously aims to run the economy at red-hot speeds of growth.
If enacted in full, it is large enough to lift the US economy out of the zero-rate
deflationary trap of the last decade and entirely reshape the social and financial
landscape.
The stimulus will be corralled inside the closed US economy by Joe Biden's protectionist
"Buy America" policies, his industrial strategy, and his carbon border tax (i.e. disguised
tariffs against China). This limits leakage.
It is a laboratory of sorts for a post-globalisation experiment in what used to be called
"reflation in one country" – before the free flow of goods and capital emasculated
sovereign governments.
"It's quite likely that, just as in World War II, when we push down on the economic
accelerator, we will find that we have been running on one cylinder up until no w," said the
Roosevelt Institute, now advisors to the
Biden campaign .
This is why
Moody's Analytics estimates that Bidenomics accompanied by a Democrat clean sweep of
Congress would lift American GDP by an extra 4.8pc, add an extra seven million jobs, and raise
per capita income by an extra $4,800 over the next four years , compared to a clean sweep by
Donald Trump. Economic growth would rocket to 7.7pc in 2022." Telegraph -------------
Evans-Pritchard, the author of this piece baldly declares that the Trump tax cut failed to
stimulate economic growth and that a clean sweep by the Democrats in November would lead to
massive GDP growth and a reduction in present economic inequalities in American society. I will
be very interested in your comments. pl
That's a fine read Col. Thank goodness that after 47 years as a politician, including 8
years as VP - during which TARP did what? - Biden finally has a plan to Tax and Spend that
beats all the Tax and Spend plans that went before this one.
Just what is this getting spent on - the same things Obama-Biden promised, "green" (the
color of money) energy, solar charging stations and 1.5 million energy efficient homes
(didn't the Housing bubble cause a little economic problem?), 'educaiton'! I wonder if that
includes teaching us all critical race theory? and "infrastructure". And here I thought
broken records were out of style.
Where's the money coming from? According to Oxfordeconomics, which the Guardian links to,
Biden's raising taxes, but it won't lower consumer spending:
".... we estimate an overall multiplier of 0.25 for the individual provisions in Biden's tax
package. So, for every dollar of tax increase, households would reduce their spending by 25
cents. As such, while the proposal would generate a substantial revenue inflow, we
don'tbelieve it would significantly constrain consumer spending."
So what is the decline in corporate spending if you raise corporate taxes? The economists
at Oxfordeconomics conveniently left that out, nor did they eplicitly tell you that a decade
of tax revenue will still leave you with 60 years of tax burden from Joe's spending.
"On the corporate tax front, the most significant revenue raisers are:•A 7ppt
increase in the statutory corporate tax rate to 28%, which would raise $1.3tn over
10years.•An increase in taxes on foreign earnings.•A 15% minimum tax on global book
income.•The elimination of several real estate investment tax preferences." (Oooh look,
Trump's screwed! Yeah! I wonder how all those REITs look with that?)
Another unasked question: Who is going to do all that economy stimulating work if there is
a national lockdown due to Covid?
"LaRouche's comments were prompted by an article published in the Telegraph on May 19 by
British intelligence stringer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whose experience in orchestrating U.S.
impeachment drives for the British goes back to his attacks on President Bill Clinton.
Evans-Pritchard, on the eve of Trump's first trip abroad as President, is spreading the black
propaganda line that Trump might already be incapacitated, in much the same way as President
Richard Nixon was incapacitated by then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who "instructed
U.S. military officials to ignore any order from the Oval Office to use nuclear weapons."
Evans-Pritchard asserts that the key to overthrowing Trump is to pull Republican support
away from him, which he admits is still strong. But what happens next? He quotes Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, former British UN ambassador and now chairman at Gatehouse Advisory Partners:
"America can be very powerful if it decides to act hard. Xi Jinping and Putin will probably
wait and see whether Trump self-destructs." Evans-Pritchard then raises the question: How
will Trump behave "when the special prosecutor [Robert Mueller] starts to let rip with a
volley of subpoenas."
I like the idea of a Carbon Border Tax. Or at least the one proposed by the EU, as I have
not seen Biden's proposal. It has never made sense to me that we import from countries with
low environmental standards when our own manufacturers are handicapped.
But unless Biden can carry Democratic Senatorial challengers against GOP incumbents it
ain't gonna happen. It will be stalled in the Senate. There is no way McConnell will even
allow it on the Senate floor.
This thinking has been wrong, repeatedly so, for the last 10 years. The idea that there is
just one more pedal to push down to jumpstart the economy belies the truth that we have
experienced the most accommodative and expansive monetary policy on a global level in modern
times.
Aside from the lack of efficacy, which I may look to discuss at length later on, there is
another striking thing about this plan, and that is how it will be paid for. The reason is
not the traditional "where will the money come from" I know where it will come from, cheap US
debt, but it tells us two key things. The first is that the functional ideas of Modern
Monetary Theory (MMT) that you can basically just issue debt and have your central bank both
monetize it and keep the interest payments low and use that to fund largely unlimited
government spending have for the most part been endorsed by those on the left as a mechanism
to deliver on their grand plans. The second thing that is striking though is what they want
to spend the money on, which is military spending and infrastructure and not healthcare and a
green new deal. This calls into question what alignment there is on the cadres of the left or
the possibility that starting with infrastructure is a way to run cover to expand these
fantasy economics to social projects without reorienting the economy towards their
achievement.
Evans-Pritchard's talents are wasted on economic commentary. He writes well, but in the
breathless tones of a failed thriller writer. His entire worldview is based on the notion
that it is always two minutes to midnight. It's a shame that they put all of his stuff behind
a paywall.
Maybe if Biden's plan is approved we will finally see the inflation that Wall Street and
its media minions have been whining about for the past forty years.
I have no doubt that the collapsing pocket that is Conservative Inc will luxuriate back on
the familiar loser's ground of "fiscal responsibility."
Biden's plan, such as it is, simply marries the essence of Trump's nationalist policies
with Great Society spending levels. Like so much of his platform, it is designed to keep the
progressives on the plantation until Nov 3 and not one minute beyond.
Sure it will. The devil is in the details. When has any Democrat economic plan ever
produced intended results. First they have to confess what went wrong with their trillion
dollar "War on Poverty" that now requires another trillion to pretend to clean up that
grotesquely distorted mess.
Until they confess to their sins of the past, they are doomed to repeat them. How are they
going to remedy their decades of teacher union K1-2 fail turning out entire generations of
dysfunctional illiterates who are somehow going to be absorbed into this dynamite
economy.
They are sitting in the back room smoking dope and spinning tales. What I hear is wealth
confiscation and/or turning on the printing presses. Time for a good recap of Obama's initial
"Green Jobs Revolution" from his first term - who did those promise work out and why are we
having to undo the piles of excrement Biden First Term left behind.
I have a bad case of deja vu When in fact the Trump Tweaking was paying long term
dividends, until the deep state hijacked covid to destroy any possible Trump bragging rights.
Never forget Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump's SOTU address and declaring they were all lies --
and then carrying out her covid porn agenda to make sure she was proven correct.
Remember the three generation rule - all revolutionary and planned economies always fail
by the third generation. Soviet Union, Margaret Thatcher's warning, Cuba, etc ......if all
the wealth in the world was redistributed, it would be back in similar hands three
generations later. Societies always stratify, even since the Sumerians.
America is unique primarily because of the mobility it offers between the strata by its
relatively free market system. Don't mess with it. Democrat's heavy handed planned utopia is
a nightmare.
I am no economist. However, I am not in debt. I am not wealthy, but I have all I need and
want. I've worked very hard during my life and enjoyed my jobs because they were suited to my
training and kislls. My retirement funds keep me comfortable. My two sons are doing well in
our current economy. That's, of course, a self-centered view of the situation.
But, with that in mind, I say this: "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." (I know Biden is not
Greek, but I hope you get my point.)
I am also remembering the Obama administration. I may receive only an Obama phone and an
EBT card.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is generally a very astute writer. However, on economics and
national fiscal policies and central banking he has bought into the Davos sophistry that
defies common sense for over a decade.
An example of this sophistry is this line from the passage in your post - "..lift the US
economy out of the zero-rate deflationary trap of the last decade...". Ask an average
American if they've seen any price deflation in their rents or house prices, their kid's
tuition, their health care premiums, their cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of tacos at
their neighborhood taqueria, the cost of getting their shirt cleaned, over the past decade
and they'll laugh at you. The cost of living of average Americans have risen and that is the
real living experience. But of course if you're Ben Bernanke or Mario Draghi or Jerome Powell
or Ms. Lagarde then we are in a "deflationary trap" and they should print more and more money
that gets shipped first to their friends on Wall St. The Party of Davos as Jack called
it.
Under the government enforced lockdown, how many trillions has the US federal government
under the Trump administration borrowed from future generations in the first and now the
second stimulus waiting for approval? How many trillions did Jerome Powell print up and send
to his friends at Blackrock and Citadel?
GDP is a useless indicator IMO. Digging trenches and filling them up will raise GDP. A
very important indicator however is productivity growth. That has been lagging for many
years. Another are median household income & wealth, which has also been lagging. What
we've seen in the US is a dramatic increase in wealth inequality between the top 0.1% vs the
bottom 80% over the past 50 years and this curve continues to accelerate - second order
derivative!! The second is the level of systemic debt across all sectors - individuals,
corporate and government at all levels that has continuously risen over 50 years increasing
systemic leverage to a point larger than during the civil war and WW II. This has occurred
under both parties and the Trump presidency has actually increased it despite the rhetoric.
Compare the Balance of Trade relative to the soundbites.
A systematic restructuring of our economy away from financialization, away from bailouts
of the oligarchy, away from unprecedented market concentration, away from untrammeled credit
expansion to back previous credit losses and having a monetary authority with a singular
focus on sound money is what's necessary. But that's not gonna happen under either Trump or
Biden as it will gore the ox of the Party of Davos whose interests is what both sides
primarily cater to. More debt-fueled government spending always ends up as socialism for the
oligarchy which is exactly what we've had for decades. It is an economic truism that as
productivity of debt continually declines, economic productivity also declines. That's the
trap we are in!
Been very happy with my gold investments these past two years and will stick with them
thanks, Biden would supercharge them.
Longer term I am looking to have most of my money in Asia, Russian oil companies also seem
to like drilling for oil, rather than desperately trying to be anything else than producing
oil like BP and the rest. Demographics are dire for most of the West and the US is likely to
continue transitioning in to a Latin American style country. People have been well
conditioned in to not talking about such things but no point talking about the increasing
economic dysfunction without talking about the underlying cause. A massive increase in
immigration will lead to a surge in inequality, anemic economic growth, fiscal deficits and a
decline in gdp per capita.
Time to start think about investments the way a well to do Latin would.
Well, Biden has to get elected first, we'll see. Carbon taxes, hmmm - another way to
destroy the middle-class?
Something to think about is the European Central Bank, they are a meeting late this month
with "experts" to determine if they will go to a digital currency. The ECB might then decide
the "experts" are right and go full digital on Jan 1st, 2021. We might see a whole lot of
Euro money coming into the USA, hope so. However, the Federal Reserve has not been printing
any new bank notes so you'll have trouble finding crisp bills for Christmas gifts.
IMO, based on the debt current and future we are loading on the backs of our children, it
matters not a whit which of the paths are chosen. Both will end in destruction of said debt
by some method - because you can only load so much on horseback and still ride. As we stand
now, we are walking alongside a swaybacked packhorse already. Closing off the country, where
the only growth has been in the services sector for decades, makes sense in what
universe?
Raise taxes? They have only ever increased in my lifetime, my fathers and his. At what
point does the Boston Tea Party repeat? From where I sit, everything either party does is
only adding fuel to a coming conflagration, as nothing is actually paid for - a ledger entry
is aggregated and we march on. The piper will get paid, as he has the children...
1.socialism and keynesian economics as a viable theory dead dead right now....today and
politicians know it
2. central banks are trapped at zero bound interest rates with no way under heretofore main
stream economic theories to stimulate their respective economies
3. politicians are largely dumb as a bag of hammers with not a shred of understanding what to
do other than to listen to think tanks warmed over rehashed ideas that have not worked in the
past and won't now.
4. what biden is proposing is MMT with communist thomas piketty theory disguised as classical
keynesian nonsense being sold to a public almost as dumb as those doing the selling
5. in order to make this works they will have to institute guranteed basic income for the
umpteen millions of people who will NEVER work again under this policy of bullshit
6. and lastly to ensure NO ONE can escape this trap which will evolve into an UGLY neo
feudalism for 99% of the populace this team of genuinely EVIL people will have to CANCEL ALL
paper money FORCING everyone to have a bank account for using digital money THE ONLY money
that can exist if this comes to pass. banks loves this as it gives them a cut of all the
action
7.as a result taxes will be anything they want and YOU have no escape or recourse
whatsoever
8. say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing and your economic life under digital money will
be cancelled placing you into destitution and death
9. this is a recipe for slavery on a gigantic scale ensuring the 1/10 of 1% can rule without
disturbance forever
10 revolution will be the only option at that point and since the police and military will
continue to be paid by the state it will be bloody
On the other hand, if this scheme promises to bring back the Jimmy Carter 14% interest
rates on CD's for us retired folks, I say bring it on. Everyone else will just have to deal
with the economic rubble later on their own.
I just need another good 15 years or so myself. In other words, never believe old people
when it comes to managing the US economy- our goals are selfish and very short term. So like,
what's in this for meeeeeee?
Biden must have listened to AOC for this fiscal policy advice. Bring back chicken coops
and victory gardens, and turn in your scrap metal because we are WAR.
What in God's name is Biden having a Brit pushing his economic plan. We all know they
embellish everything which then falls apart into pieces. Yes, Fred I remember those +14%
interest rates I paid on my mortgage and still kick myself for not taking the 100k down
payment and putting it into a 14% 30 year CD and renting. But then we all have those
memories. Sure would not want my grandchildren paying those rates on a 500k mortgage as it
would kill the real estate business and this country.
Sleepy Joe will be ready for the assisted living center by year two and we would be stuck
with Checkbook Harris, UGH. Vote for the Bullcrapper that gets things done.
Ahem; This has been done before: After Hitler was elected in 1933; He slammed the borders
shut to money transfer, then started building the autobahn. It worked, Germany came out of
the slump. Of course, Hitler then moved on to building planes & tanks. Also, Modern
Monetary theory says you can run the printing presses & print money like mad, as long as
that paper is going into a real, working economy, it gets recycled. That does not describe
the current 'developed world' economy; the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, real estate) has
eaten it's own tail. When all the other assets have jacked up half way to the moon, there
will be another gold rush (same as 1930s) & my shack in northern BC will shake with all
the helicopters flying around to work up new gold mines.
Candidate Donald Trump's 2016 programme was clear. Bring industry back home. Ditto the
troops. Ensure an adequate defence. Drain the swamp.
Looked good. I hadn't realised that his main achievement would be somewhat simpler. Stay
functioning in office in the face of the most dangerous series of attacks on an American
President that can have been seen since the early nineteenth century.
So clearly he's going to need another term in office to get on with all the things he
should have been able to get on with in the first.
Candidate Joe Biden was, I thought at first, stealing part of the Trump 2016 programme. Bring
industry back home. Turns out not - as far as I can see America will remain the most heavily
industrialised country going. But, as in my own country, much of the industry will still be
abroad. With the jobs.
As with my own country Biden's America will be environmentally virtuous. It'll hit some
good targets. It'll not use as much fossil fuel. Yesterday's heavy polluters - the coal mines
and steel mills - won't pollute any more.
Fake. Again as with my own country the dirty industries we still rely on will still be
roaring full steam ahead. Coal will still be mined. Steel will still be produced. But
elsewhere.
So Candidate Joe Biden will not be the man to put that part of the Trump 2016 programme
into action. He'll be the man who continues with the fake environmentalism we've already seen
so much of. Naturally, if the heavy industry is outsourced so is our pollution. Doesn't look
that clever a trick to me, even if it fools the eco-warriors.
time2wakeupnow@28 is still wrong. Hyping the Bernie Sanders' rebellion would have turned
the Democratic Party nomination into a horserace and that would have boosted ratings.
Networks do not sell ratings, they sell audiences. An audience for Sanders is not a commodity
they can sell to rich buyers of air time. Audiences for Trump they can sell, because that's
the kind of audience, the kind of market, the owners want to invest in. Expecting Moonves' to
confess publicly is naive. It's like expecting a movie or TV producer to tell exactly why
they made this choice or that.
"Biden got the Democratic Party's nomination largely due to the 'behind the scenes'
machinations of Obama and his 'weekend of the long knives' just before Super Tuesday - when
he personally intervened: successfully persuading all of the Democratic candidates to drop
out of the race en-mass - with the exception of Elizabeth Warren - who then proceeded to
strategically siphon crucial progressive votes that would have mostly likely gone to Sanders.
If not for Obama's last minute back door democratic primary 'coup' maneuverings, I very much
doubt that Biden would have ended up the nominee."
Warren, like Harris, never got enough votes to actually matter. The only opposition that
got votes in significant numbers were Sanders, on the would-be left, and Buttigieg, on the
would-be center. Buttigieg never had a chance, because. (It's likely he got funded as a
spoiler precisely because he never would be tolerated as a candidate on a national stage.)
Obama's intervention was irrelevant, except to get a good rep as party loyalists for those
who dropped out. (As if it will do Buttigieg any good.)
"Warren, like Harris, never got enough votes to actually matter."
Warren remaining in the race at that time actually "mattered" considerably for Sanders in
several of the still, in-play 'super Tuesday' states of Maine, Minnesota and Massachusetts
(Warren didn't even carry her home state). And Texas (which Sanders lost be only 4.5 percent
to Biden), would most likely have been carried by Bernie without Warren in the race - giving
him a substantial overall delegate lead vs. Obamas' and DNC's hastily endorsed corporate
Maginot-Line candidate: Joe Biden.
And even with all of their last minute, desperate sabotaging of the Sanders campaign, he
still managed to come within striking distance of carrying the night. It literally took
everything the establishment DNC and their corporate backers could muster to finally put a
stake into Bernie's run before it eventually devolved into a "brokered convention" - which
would have still found a way to deny him the nomination - even if it meant grwatly
diminishing their prospects of winning the election.
As many have aptly stated before, the DNC corporation would have rather lost to Trump
Inc., than win with Sanders - just as it was in 2016.
"Yes, the US is such a politically-ignorant country that Trump can accuse "Corporate Joe"
Biden of being a "radical socialist" and actually find believers, but Western fake-leftist
parties are increasingly being punished by voters for their "right-wing economics and
right-wing foreign policy but with political correctness" platform."
Green Party of Canada, Environmentalists with Neocon characteristics.
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
A lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with murder for shooting three people
last month during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has threatened to sue Joe Biden's campaign for
calling the teen a "white supremacist."
"Formal demand for public retraction is being prepared for Biden-Harris campaign on
behalf of Kyle Rittenhouse," the lawyer, Lin Wood, said Wednesday on Twitter. "I also
hereby demand that Joe Biden immediately retract his false accusation that Kyle is a white
supremacist and militia member responsible for violence in Kenosha."
At issue is a campaign video that Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, released on
Wednesday accusing President Donald Trump of refusing to condemn white supremacists. The video
included footage of Rittenhouse in Kenosha and other clips to depict the 'white supremacy' that
Biden claims Trump failed to denounce.
Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder after shooting three
people at a Black Lives Matter protest on August 25, two of them fatally. His supporters and
defense have said he was under attack by rioters and shot in self-defense.
Leftists politicians have branded Rittenhouse a racist, while Democrat Representative Ayanna
Pressley even calling him a "white
supremacist domestic terrorist." But unlike members of Congress, Biden doesn't have
protection from legal liability for his statements since he currently holds no political
office.
Reporters digging into Rittenhouse's background have found no "clear-cut evidence" of
ties to anti-government militias or white nationalist groups.
NPR and CBS
News found he was extremely pro-police and attended a Donald Trump rally in
January.
Wood was also the lawyer who obtained legal settlements from CNN and the Washington Post for
defaming his client Nicholas Sandmann, the Kentucky high schooler whose January 2019
confrontation with a Native American demonstrator in Washington, DC was misrepresented by media
outlets. Sandmann still has lawsuits pending against ABC, CBS, the New York Times, Rolling
Stone and Gannett, which owns USA Today and the Cincinnati Enquirer, among other
publications.
America has a new manufactured crisis, ElectionGate, as if all the other troubles piling up
like tropical depressions marching across the September seas were not enough.
America needs a constitutional crisis like a hole in the head, and that's exactly what's
being engineered for the holiday season by the clever folks in the Democratic Party's Lawfare
auxiliary.
Here's how it works:
The complicit newspapers and cable news channels publish polls showing Joe Biden leading
in several swing states, even if it's not true.
Facebook and Twitter amplify expectations of a Biden victory.
This sets the stage for a furor when it turns out that he loses on election night.
On cue, Antifa commences to riot all around the country. Meanwhile, a mighty harvest of
mail-in votes pours into election districts utterly unequipped to validate them.
Lawfare cadres agitate in the contested states' legislatures to send rogue elector
slates to the electoral college. The dispute ends up in congress, which awaits a seating of
newly-elected representatives on January 4, hopefully for Lawfare, mostly Democrats. Whoops
!
Turns out, the Dems lost their majority there too. Fighting in the streets ramps up and
overwhelms hamstrung police forces in Democratic-run cities.
January 20 -- Inauguration Day -- rolls around, and the Dems ask the military to drag
Trump out of the White House "with great dispatch!" as Mr. Biden himself put it so nicely
back in the summer.
The U.S. military breaks into two factions. Voilà: Civil War Two.
You didn't read that here first, of course. It's been all over the web for weeks, since the
Democratic Party-sponsored Transition Integrity Project (cough cough) ran their summer "war
game," intending to demonstrate that any Trump election victory would be evidence of treason
and require correction by any means necessary , including sedition, which they'd already tried
a few times in an organized way since 2016 (and botched).
The Democrats are crazy enough now to want this. They have driven themselves crazy for years
with the death-wish of eradicating western civ (and themselves with it). There are many reasons
for this phenomenon, mostly derived from Marxist theories of revolution, but my own explanation
departs from that.
The matter was neatly laid out a year ago during the impeachment ploy: After the color
revolution in Ukraine, 2014, Mr. Biden was designated not just as "point man" overseeing
American interests in that sad-sack country, but specifically as a watchdog against the
notorious deep corruption of Ukraine's entire political ecosystem -- as if, you understand, the
internal workings of Ukraine's politics was any of our business in the first place.
The evidence aired publicly last year suggests that Mr. Biden jumped head-first and
whole-heartedly into the hog-trough of loose money there, netting his son Hunter and cohorts
millions of dollars for no-show jobs on the board of natural gas company, Burisma.
And then, of course, Mr. Biden stupidly bragged on a recorded panel session at the Council
on Foreign Relations about threatening to withhold U.S. aid money as a lever to induce Ukraine
President Petro Poroshenko to fire a prosecutor looking into Burisma's sketchy affairs.
Naturally, the Democratic Party impeachment crew accused Mr. Trump of doing exactly what Mr.
Biden accomplished a few years earlier.
The impeachment fizzled, but the charges and the odor of the Biden-Burisma scandal lingered
without resolution -- all the while that Mr. Biden posed as a presidential candidate in the
primaries.
This week, the Senate released a report detailing findings of their investigation into the
Biden family's exploits abroad. It didn't look good.
Also implicated are the State Department officers in the Kiev embassy who pretended not to
notice any of this, pointing also to their engagement in further shenanigans around the
Trump-Clinton election of 2016 -- a lot of that entwined in the Clinton-sponsored RussiaGate
scheme.
Of course, the Senate was not so bold as to issue criminal referrals to the Justice
Department.
If Mr. Biden actually shows up at this week's debate, do you suppose that Mr. Trump will
fail to bring up the subject?
Does this finally force Mr. Biden's withdrawal from what has been the most hollow, illusory,
and dispirited campaign ever seen at this level in U.S. political history?
All of which is to say that the Democratic Party has other things to worry about, besides
who will replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
That may be hard to believe, but it's how things are now after four years of implacable,
seditious perfidy from the party.
A week ago, all the talk centered around the Democrats' election coup plan, as publicized
stupidly by the so-called Transition Integrity Project. Nice try. What if all those mail-in
ballots sent out recently have Joe Biden's name on them and it turns out that he is no longer a
candidate?
Hmmmm . No doubt the recipients were so eager to fill them in and send them out that there's
no going back on that scam. Apparently, a Biden withdrawal was not one of the scenarios
scrimmaged out in the Transition Integrity Project's "war game."
What then? A do-over?
Hence, panic in the swamp. Joe Biden's misadventures, and his pitiful fate, are but the
outer rainbands of the brewing storm.
There's the threat of further and widespread riots, of course, but since when has
insurrection proved to be a winning campaign strategy in a country not entirely gone to the
dogs?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
People who are not insane usually object to their businesses being torched and their homes
invaded. At this point, after months of violent antics by criminal nihilists, one can even
imagine Multnomah County, Oregon, turning Trumpwise.
The orgy of political hysteria, insane thinking and violence is a psychotic reaction to the
collapsing techno-industrial economy -- a feature of it, actually.
When all familiar social and economic arrangements are threatened, people go nuts.
Interestingly, the craziness actually started in the colleges and universities where ideas (the
products of thinking) are supposed to be the stock-in-trade.
The more pressing the practical matters of daily life became, the less intellectuals wanted
to face them. So, they desperately generated a force-field of crazy counter-ideas to repel the
threat, a curriculum of wishful thinking, childish utopian nostrums and exercises in
boundary-smashing.
As all this moved out of the campuses (the graduation function), it infected every other
corner of American endeavor, institutions, business, news media, sports, Hollywood, etc.
The country is now out of its mind echoes of France, 1793 a rhyme, not a reprise.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 47 minutes ago
People just have to accept the fact- yes I said fact- that the Republic is dead and
there's no saving it. When a guy like Comey, a seditionist, perhaps even treasonous
criminal can testify before Congress and not have the cuffs slapped on him on the way out
says it all.
The Government is rotten through to the core with corruption and cancer. There's nothing
left to work with.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 46 minutes ago
This election won't change anything. Not one thing.
And I'll gladly come back here and eat those words if I'm wrong
Fizzy Head , 6 minutes ago
Good point, some swamp creatures that were drained are still out there minus the
swamp.
NoDebt , 2 minutes ago
Correct, elections mean nothing when politicians aren't afraid of the population they
rule over. And by now I do mean literally RULE OVER. Consent of the governed has been
completely tossed aside in abject ridicule. They see us as their intellectual and moral
inferiors and hold us all in contempt.
Unless the politicians are afraid of us, this will continue. Right now they have no
reason to fear us. Everyone who they wanted locked down and shut up has been- including
even ZH getting the Google muzzle thrown on it. Meanwhile, everyone they wanted out in the
streets fomenting chaos and revolution is out in the streets doing exactly as they are
bidden (and paid) to do.
I imagine them chuckling to themselves and thinking how easy it was. It wasn't easy, of
course, they spent 40 years doing their "slow march through the institutions" but that
phase is over now. They're into the active (violent revolution) part.
And in case nobody has noticed, they're winning.
play_arrow
CRM114 , 16 minutes ago
Interesting point about corruption in Ukraine. Worth noting that the soccer Champion's
League final in 2018 was in Kiev, Ukraine. Very inconvenient for both fans and teams,
airlines couldn't cope, and the hotel ripoffs started immediately. Very stupid place to
hold it. The location is decided by an "independent" FIFA committee, one of whom has a
brother who is the mayor of Kiev. Coincidence, obviously ;)
The idea that Hunter Biden could operate in Ukraine without bribing anyone is
ridiculous. The key question is whether he ripped off the American people as well as the
Ukrainians ;)
tyberious , 57 minutes ago
"The Democrats are crazy enough now to want this"
They hang otherwise!
LetThemEatRand , 1 hour ago
A bloody crisis over whether douchebag or turd sandwich won the election is just about
par for the course these days.
J S Bach , 25 minutes ago
Another great article posted in the past 3 days on ZH. (Maybe there's hope for this site
after all.)
However, as usual... the (((cancerous core))) of all of our malaise, from
unconstitutional currency, to media, to academia, to corrupt courts, to twisted sexual
ideologies... is NOT mentioned.
Hopefully, those who garnered at least an 8th grade education level and a modicum of
ability to think, will be able to read between the lines of articles like these to glean to
underlying truth as to the guilty party.
flyonmywall , 48 minutes ago
********. This isn't France in 1793.
The current President is way more popular than the media is willing to admit.
The media and the Democrats will lose, count on it. They are gambling with the life of
the USA, but more importantly, they are gambling with their own lives.
They range from the $3.5 million wire transfer Hunter Biden received from a Russian
billionaire who was married to the former mayor of Moscow, to Biden claiming he "got started"
at Delaware State - a historically black college that says he never attended, to Supreme Court
nominees and court-packing.
See the full list below:
Your son Hunter Biden received a $3.5
million wire transfer from a Russian billionaire who was married to the former mayor of
Moscow. He also had a joint bank account with a Chinese national that financed
$100,000 in credit card purchases around the world. This all happened while you were Vice
President. Why would people connected to the Russian and Chinese governments want to give
your son millions of dollars?
In
June you said you were vetting your own potential Supreme Court picks and promised you
would release your own list. Now you say you won't release a list. Why go back on your
pledge?
Your running mate Kamala Harris said last year that she was open
to adding as many as 4 seats to the Supreme Court . Now more leading Democrats are saying
your party should pack the Supreme Court if they get the chance. Are you refusing to answer
whether you will go along with this radical plan because you are too weak to stand up to
it?
In January 2017, you said that Democrats should not block President Trump's nominees for
the Supreme Court. You said you believe the Constitution "requires" the
Senate "to give the nominee a hearing and a vote." In 2016 you said "would go forward
with the confirmation process" of a Supreme Court nominee "even a few months before a
presidential election just as the Constitution requires." Now you say the Constitution
requires the exact opposite. How do you reconcile that change?
In 2008 you promised Americans that if they made less than $250,000 they would not pay a
penny more in taxes.
You broke that promise and imposed new taxes that directly impacted middle-class
Americans. Now you're claiming you won't raise taxes on anyone making more than 400,000. Why
should voters believe you now, especially since you've said you will reinstate the individual
mandate tax?
Your plan would raise the U.S. business tax rate higher
than China's rate . Won't that make it more expensive for companies to do business in
America and ultimately send jobs overseas?
In 2008 you and Barack Obama promised to fully fund the federal COPS program, which
provides resources to local law enforcement. But
funding for this program was cut while you were vice president , despite your promise.
Why did you fail to keep your word?
When you were running for president in 2007, both you and Obama pledged to renegotiate
NAFTA, a
promise you did not keep when you were in office. You recently blamed Republicans for
this, saying they wouldn't go along with it, but Democrats controlled Congress in 2009 when
the Obama Administration announced it would not even try to change NAFTA. So why did you fail
to keep your word?
When you voted to give China "most favored nation" trade status in 2000, you said
you did not foresee "the collapse of the American manufacturing economy" because of it.
But by one estimate, it led to the loss of 1 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Do you
acknowledge that your vote to give China most favored nation trade status was a mistake that
hurt American workers?
The 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic infected 60 million Americans when you were VP, and the
federal government depleted its strategic stockpile of N95 masks in response. A
fact check by USA Today found that your administration made no effort to replenish the
stockpile of masks, despite warnings from experts. Do you accept responsibility for that
failure, which left America unprepared for another pandemic?
Your campaign says it is a "lie" that "the Biden-Harris ticket is the most radically
pro-abortion" ticket "in U.S. history." Are there any restrictions on abortion that you
support, and if so, please be specific?
You said the N-word
13 times during a 1985 Senate nomination fight, when you were quoting something
attributed to someone else. Do you think that was appropriate to do? Is that the only time
you've said the N-word?
With the first presidential debate now just hours away , President Trump continues to insist
that Joe Biden take a drug test. Trump's none-too-subtle insinuation is that the former vice
president is so mentally frail that he cannot hope to match the vaulting intellect of the 45th
president of the United States on the debate stage.
It's a peculiar form of Trumpian baiting - something the President has probably learned from
the world of Mixed Martial Arts - or perhaps the product of a guilty conscience. Trump himself
famously sniffed his way through his first debate with Hillary Clinton four years ago, and
there's been plenty of speculation over the years that the President consumes medicinal
substances to combat some form of attention-deficit disorder.
Cockburn won't weigh in on the specifics. But if Biden were to use drugs for tonight's
performance, which ones should he take? Because make no mistake, Biden should absolutely be
taking drugs prior to Tuesday's debate.
Pro athletes all take performance enhancing drugs, after all, and winning a presidential
election is at least as important as hitting 40 home runs or making the Pro Bowl, or
something.
Fortunately, Cockburn is a writer, which means he has countless friends who are perpetually
in one sort of drug-induced haze or another. They quickly supplied suggestions.
1.
Aricept
Aricept is used to enhance mental acuity in patients suffering from Alzheimer's or vascular
dementia. That will certainly be handy for keeping Biden from drooling on the podium. However,
Aricept also has the side effect of increasing libido, and has been found to correlate with
inappropriate sexual behaviors in those who take it.
...actually, Biden may have been taking this drug for a long time.
... ... ...
3. Ecstasy
Arriving Tuesday night amped on MDMA would offer a host of benefits to Biden. Besides
keeping him cheerful and upbeat for the cameras, if Biden is caught, he can easily pivot in a
positive direction: by taking a party drug, he will disavow one of his tough-on-crime
achievements, the 2003 RAVE
Act. Cockburn doesn't understand how contributing to the dramatic collapse of crime rates
nationwide is a bad thing, but in 2020 everybody is convinced that it is. Biden debating while
hopped upon Molly would go a long way toward showing his remorse. 'Loved-up', Biden would also
show a winning spirit of magnanimity towards Donald Trump, which might help sway
independents.
Finally, for years Biden was known as the 'senator from MBNA' due to his pro-credit card
activism in Congress. If he rebrands as the senator on MDMA, at the least everyone will be
really confused.
"When American cities have been in flames and citizen has been pitched against citizen,
Joe has been a calming influence to bear," Bryant reportedly
said Monday. "When others have resorted to violent solutions, he has argued that the
best force is the force of argument because guns can stop a heart, but well-placed words can
change many hearts, and many hearts can change the world."
The nomination came just one day before the first US presidential debate. Biden's rival,
President Donald Trump, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times this year,
most recently on Monday by Australian law professors praising the "Trump Doctrine"
against endless wars.
Trump's other nominations came from Swedish Parliament member Magnus Jacobsson for helping
to broker a peace and economic deal between Serbia and Kosovo, and Norwegian lawmaker Christian
Tybring-Gjedde for brokering a
peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The Trump administration later
followed up on that deal by getting Bahrain to join the UAE in a normalization agreement with
Israel.
While Bryant praised Biden's efforts to ease civil unrest, Biden was largely silent about
the violent nature of many Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests this summer. Even CNN host
Don Lemon warned in
late August that riots across the US – and the failures of Biden and other Democrat
politicians to condemn and quell the violence – was a "blind spot" that could cost
Biden votes in November.
The nomination also raised eyebrows among critics of Biden's record of supporting wars and
military interventions as a Senator and later as vice president under former President Barack
Obama. The Obama-Biden administration campaigned on peace – and Obama won the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2009 largely on speculation that he would deliver on his promises – but the US
instead started new wars and prolonged existing ones. The administration finished its last full
year, 2016, by dropping more than 26,000 bombs around the world and expanded the presence of US
special forces to 70 percent of the world's nations, more than
doubling their reach under former President George W. Bush.
Biden not only voted for Bush's Iraq War in 2003 but also
argued for removing Saddam Hussein from power in 1998. He also voted to authorize former
President Bill Clinton's
bombing of Serbia (along with NATO) in 1999, as well as supported Obama's disastrous
intervention in Syria.
Mindful of that track record, Twitter users ridiculed Bryant for nominating Biden.
"Biden's never been anything but a rubber stamp for CIA bull***t," one commenter
tweeted. "I'm sure the people of Libya and Syria will be glad to hear that," one
observer said of the nomination, followed by another who added "Not to mention Yemen,
Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran."
Another commenter speculated that he saw a trend in Bryant's move: "I think the idea for
these warmongering Henry Jackson Society types is to undermine the Nobel Peace Prize with
absurd nominations."
by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies Posted on September 23, 2020
If the Democrats manage to push Joe Biden over the finish line in November's election,
he will find himself presiding over a decadent, declining empire. He will either continue the
policies that have led the American empire to decadence and decline, or seize the moment to
move our nation into a new phase: a transition to a peaceful and sustainable post-imperial
future
So it is tragic that the 2020 presidential election offers us a choice between two
major party candidates uniquely unqualified to manage America's post-imperial
transition,..
####
Method, not goal.
Download the General John Glubb 'Fate of Empires' booklet at the link.
"When American cities have been in flames and citizen has been pitched against citizen,
Joe has been a calming influence to bear," Bryant reportedly
said Monday. "When others have resorted to violent solutions, he has argued that the
best force is the force of argument because guns can stop a heart, but well-placed words can
change many hearts, and many hearts can change the world."
The nomination came just one day before the first US presidential debate. Biden's rival,
President Donald Trump, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times this year,
most recently on Monday by Australian law professors praising the "Trump Doctrine"
against endless wars.
Trump's other nominations came from Swedish Parliament member Magnus Jacobsson for helping
to broker a peace and economic deal between Serbia and Kosovo, and Norwegian lawmaker Christian
Tybring-Gjedde for brokering a
peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The Trump administration later
followed up on that deal by getting Bahrain to join the UAE in a normalization agreement with
Israel.
While Bryant praised Biden's efforts to ease civil unrest, Biden was largely silent about
the violent nature of many Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests this summer. Even CNN host
Don Lemon warned in
late August that riots across the US – and the failures of Biden and other Democrat
politicians to condemn and quell the violence – was a "blind spot" that could cost
Biden votes in November.
The nomination also raised eyebrows among critics of Biden's record of supporting wars and
military interventions as a Senator and later as vice president under former President Barack
Obama. The Obama-Biden administration campaigned on peace – and Obama won the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2009 largely on speculation that he would deliver on his promises – but the US
instead started new wars and prolonged existing ones. The administration finished its last full
year, 2016, by dropping more than 26,000 bombs around the world and expanded the presence of US
special forces to 70 percent of the world's nations, more than
doubling their reach under former President George W. Bush.
Biden not only voted for Bush's Iraq War in 2003 but also
argued for removing Saddam Hussein from power in 1998. He also voted to authorize former
President Bill Clinton's
bombing of Serbia (along with NATO) in 1999, as well as supported Obama's disastrous
intervention in Syria.
Mindful of that track record, Twitter users ridiculed Bryant for nominating Biden.
"Biden's never been anything but a rubber stamp for CIA bull***t," one commenter
tweeted. "I'm sure the people of Libya and Syria will be glad to hear that," one
observer said of the nomination, followed by another who added "Not to mention Yemen,
Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran."
Another commenter speculated that he saw a trend in Bryant's move: "I think the idea for
these warmongering Henry Jackson Society types is to undermine the Nobel Peace Prize with
absurd nominations."
When the "Fox News Sunday" host takes the stage on Tuesday to moderate the first
presidential debate of 2020, he will for 90 minutes be the most important person in the
world.
His questions, his demeanor, his raised eyebrow will signal to millions of voters how they
are to assess the two candidates -- President Donald John Trump and former Vice President
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
If his questions are piercing for both, if his skepticism is applied equally to both the
Republican and Democrat, then all is well in this corner of the world of journalism. But if
instead Wallace accuses Trump and coddles Biden, we will have one more instance of media bias,
which has become so rampant that President Trump had to christen it with a pet name -- Fake
News.
Every day, the supposedly professional press corps cozies up to Biden with softball
questions ("Why aren't you more angry at President Trump?" has to be my favorite!) while
accusing Trump of being a mass murderer, a racist and a Putin puppet. So conservatives are
entirely justified in having low expectations for the debate and for Wallace, who has
exhibited symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome more than once.
Wallace can ask anything he wants of Trump. I am confident the president will acquit himself
admirably, but the litmus test for Wallace playing fair in the debate will be whether or not he
asks any hard-hitting questions of Biden -- especially about the new Senate
report on the corrupt activities of his son Hunter in Ukraine and elsewhere.
If you have heard anything about the Biden report on CNN and MSNBC, or read about it in your
newspapers, chances are you came away thinking that Republicans had made up a series of fake
charges against the Bidens. "Nothing to see here. Move along."
The
Washington Post , as usual, was at the front of the pack for Fake News coverage. The Post
used its headline to focus entirely on Hunter's position on the board of the corrupt Ukrainian
energy company Burisma, and claimed that the report doesn't show that the cozy arrangement
"changed U.S. policy" -- as if that were the only reason you would not want a vice president's
son enriching himself at the trough of foreign oligarchs.
The story then spent most of its 35 paragraphs excusing Hunter's behavior either directly or
through surrogates such as Democrat senators, and most nauseatingly by quoting Hunter Biden's
daughter, Naomi, who "offered a personal tribute to her father" in the form of a series of
tweets, including the following:
"Though the whole world knows his name, no one knows who he is. Here's a thread on my dad,
Hunter Biden -- free of charge to the taxpayers and free of the corrosive influence of
power-at-all-costs politics. The truth of a man filled with love, integrity, and human
struggles." Oh my, that's convincing evidence of innocence of wrongdoing. I imagine she also
endorses her grandfather for president, for what it's worth.
The three reporters who wrote the Post piece also spin the facts like whirling dervishes.
They say that the report by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley "rehashes" known details of
the matter. They quote Democrats to say without evidence that the report's key findings are
"rooted in a known Russian disinformation effort."
The following passage in particular shows how one-sided the story is:
"Democrats argue that Johnson has 'repeatedly impugned' Biden, and they pointed to his
recent comments hinting that the report would shed light on Biden's 'unfitness for office,'
as reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, to argue that the entire investigation was
orchestrated as a smear campaign to benefit Trump."
Using the "shoe on the other foot" test, can you ever imagine a similar statement being made
in the Washington Post about the Trump impeachment investigation? Let's see. How would that
go?
"Republicans argue that Rep. Adam Schiff has 'repeatedly impugned' Trump, and they pointed
to his recent comments hinting that the report would shed light on Trump's 'unfitness for
office' to argue that the entire investigation was orchestrated as a smear campaign to
benefit Biden."
Oh yeah, sure! The chance of reading that paragraph in the Washington Post news pages would
have been absolutely zero.
Perhaps even more insidious was the decision by the editors to push the most significant
news in the report to the bottom of the Post's story. That is the lucrative relationship that
Hunter Biden established in 2017 with a Chinese oil tycoon named Ye Jianming. Biden was
apparently paid $1 million to represent Ye's assistant while he was facing bribery charges in
the United States.
Even more disturbing, "In August 2017, a subsidiary of Ye's company wired $5 million into
the bank account of a U.S. company called Hudson West III, which over the next 13 months sent
$4.79 million marked as consulting fees to Hunter Biden's firm, the report said. Over the same
period, Hunter Biden's firm wired some $1.4 million to a firm associated with his uncle and
aunt, James and Sara Biden, according to the report."
Then, in late 2017, "Hunter Biden and a financier associated with Ye also opened a line of
credit for Hudson West III that authorized credit cards for Hunter Biden, James Biden and Sara
Biden, according to the report, which says the Bidens used the credit cards to purchase more
than $100,000 worth of items, including airline tickets and purchases at hotels and
restaurants."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Post also glossed over payments received by Hunter Biden from Yelena Baturina, who the
story acknowledges "is the widow of former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov and is a member of
Kazakhstan's political elite." What the story doesn't say is that the payments received by
Hunter Biden's companies while Joe Biden was vice president totaled close to $4 million. Does
anyone have even the slightest curiosity why Hunter's companies received these payments from a
Russian oligarch? As Donald Trump Jr. noted, if he had the same record of taking money from
foreign nationals, he "would be in jail right now."
In other words, the headline and the lede of the Washington Post story were entirely
misleading. What readers should have been told is that there is a pattern of corruption and
inexplicable enrichment in the Biden family that has continued for years and that Joe Biden has
turned his back on it.
Seems worthy of the attention of the voters who will determine the nation's leadership for
the next four years. So the most important question at the debate Tuesday night is the
following: Will Chris Wallace take the same cowardly path as the Washington Post, or will he
demand an answer from candidate Biden as to why influence peddling, conflicts of interest and
virtual money laundering are acceptable?
Based on Wallace's track record, I'm not holding my breath that we will get either the
question or the answer, but if we do, I will happily applaud him as the tough-as-nails
journalist he is supposed to be.
play_arrow chubbar , 1 hour ago
Wallace is co-opted, he's a plant. NO way does he ask about corruption or go after
Joe.
CosmoJoe , 1 hour ago
All Trump needs to do is jab Biden every time his brain locks up; toss in phrases like
"Its OK Joe, take your time". Keep doing that until Biden gets angry and its all over. (Well,
its over anyhow, but....)
Karl Malden's Nose , 1 hour ago
He knew how to push Hillary's buttons and even though she's a spaz she's lightyears
smarter than Joe. Biden is going to fume and crap his depends because Trump is about to knock
him flat on his ***. He'll be stammering to answer while Trump has already moved on to the
next gut punch. There's no gotcha's on Trump, only Biden. Trump is plugged in to everything
and sharp as a knife. Biden will be struggling to remember his instructions and I'm sure
they'll have an ear piece on him he won't hear too clearly.
Hoax Fatigue , 25 minutes ago
Nobody is expecting (((Wallace))) to be fair.
High Vigilante , 1 hour ago
Trump should bring it up, as soon as possible.
There is no guarantee Biden won't skip other debates.
Plus it would make Biden angry and negate the effect of drugs he will be loaded with.
True Historian , 1 hour ago
I have watched Wallace and he is a pretentious pile of excrement. FOX with its "Fair and
Balanced" left the station when they were bought out by Disney.
Wallace sample questions:
Trump : When did you stop being a corrupt NAZI/Russian bitch?
Biden : Are you feeling OK today? If not, how can I make you more comfortable.
CosmoJoe , 1 hour ago
Trump had some fairly hostile moderators in the 2016 debates and he held his own. He has
to be just as merciless with Biden as he was with Hillary. The news doesn't want to talk
about Hunter and his wire transfers from Russia. This is Trump's chance to throw that crap
right into the spotlight.
alexcojones , 1 hour ago
Quote : "Every day, the supposedly professional press corps cozies up to Biden with
softball questions... while accusing Trump of being a mass murderer, a racist and a Putin
puppet."
Why? That's because the so-called "Legacy" media is now the Enemy of The American
People.
Soloamber , 1 hour ago
The question is how long can Wallace hide his anti-Trimp bias ?
Mr. Biden ...what is your favorite color ?
President Trump why do you pay no tax ?
Mr. Biden Isn't China our greatest ally ?
President Trump have you heard from Stormy lately ?
Mr . Biden Please provide your wife's first name .
President Trump.... You appear over weight have you had your blood pressure checked ?
Would you agree to do it now ?
Mr . Biden what are some of your greats political achievements in your distinguished
political legacy ?
President Trump why have you caused global warming ?
DeplorableGlobalConflictWatch , 1 hour ago
Chris Wallace is a joke. Make sure he's sick and replaced by Tucker Carlson.
RealEstateArbitrage , 1 hour ago
Wally is a plant by the deep state. He is a liar and a fool.
Migao , 1 hour ago
Wallace, like his dad, pretentious snob. Yeah, Trump's a jerk, but he's a lovable jerk.
Wallace is a pretentious snob.
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 2 hours ago
No, Ukraine and China should be front and center. It is an election year. And the Dems
have screwed us royally.
Joe Biden was slammed as
"unhinged" by critics following an interview in which he compared US President Donald Trump to
both Fidel Castro and infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels in the space of less than a
minute.
Asked by MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle about voters believing Trump's frequent accusations that
Biden will push a socialist agenda as president, the former vice-president said he wasn't sure
if there was anyone voting for Trump who hadn't already made up their mind.
"But who knows. He's sort of like Goebbels. You say the lie long enough, keep repeating
it, repeating it, repeating it, it becomes common knowledge," he said, arguing that Trump
was using the "socialist" attacks to "scare and distract" voters. He also accused
him of "embracing dictators around the world" and then compared him to the late Fidel
Castro.
"He's more Castro than Churchill," Biden declared.
Comparing a democratically elected president to one of Adolf Hitler's closest allies (and
propaganda minister) in the Third Reich, and the socialist Cuban leader who served for decades,
didn't go down well with Trump supporters on social media, many of them accusing Biden of being
"unhinged."
"Goebbels helped carry out the systematic murder of more than six million Jewish people.
This is a disgusting thing for a politician to say," Daily Caller writer David Hookstead
tweeted
.
In the same Saturday interview, Biden claimed he would debate the president on Tuesday,
despite critics predicting otherwise and even people in his own party, including Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D-California), saying he shouldn't. Biden insisted he would take part in the debates
because Trump is "not very smart" and a "liar."
When It Comes To Bribery, Russian Collusion and Prostitution the Democrats and Media
Ignore Hunter Biden's Complicity by Larry C Johnson
Have you seen this headline? "Progeny of Senior US politician uses dad's influence to garner
millions of dollars and supports sex trafficking of Eastern European women." Yeah, me neither.
Virtual crickets. If this story were about the misdeeds of Eric or Don Trump Jr., the media
would be on fire with outrage. And justifiably so. We would watch old timers like Wolf Blitzer
run in concentric circles with his hair on fire while furiously decrying the corruption. But
this has nothing to do with the Trumps. It is all about Hunter Biden. The evidence is clear and
damning. Instead of reporting, the media is channeling Helen Keller–they are deaf, dumb
and blind. They see nothing. They hear nothing. They say nothing.
The facts presented this week in a report on Hunter Biden, Burisma and the Ukraine by the
U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs require no assumptions on
the part of the reader. The report details multiple nefarious deals that Hunter Biden made
while his dad, aka Sleepy Joe, was Vice President. These are more than basic quid pro quo
deals. They represent a level of corruption not seen since the days of Warren G. Harding. Being
Joe's son was a profitable deal for Hunter.
On May 14, 2014, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian Holding Company
focused on the energy sector. The founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, is described by the
U.S. Embassy in Kiev as a corrupt, "odious oligarch". George Kent, the Acting Deputy Chief of
Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, complained to Vice President Joe Biden's office in early
2015 about the perception of a conflict of interest with respect to Hunter Biden's role on
Burisma's board.
Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma's board (supposedly consulting on corporate governance
and transparency) when Zlochevsky allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving
under Ukraine's prosecutor general, Vitaly Yarema, to "shut the case against Zlochevsky."
Hunter Biden's sweetheart deal was widely known among senior members of the Obama
Administration. Obama's Secretary of State, John Kerry, made news in late 2019 when he denied '
having any knowledge about Hunter Biden or Burisma. NBC reporter Amanda Golden asked former
Secretary of State John Kerry on December 8, 2019 if he was aware that Hunter Biden was on
Burisma's board during his time as Secretary of State. Kerry responded:
"I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No. What would I know about any no. Why would
I know about any company or any individual No. The answer is no. No communication. No
nothing."
But Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, had made sure that step-dad Kerry was alerted to the fact
that Hunter Biden had signed on with Burisma. Kerry's Chief of Staff, David Wade, testified to
the Senate Committees that Kerry knew on May 14, 2014:
Question: What was Secretary Kerry s reaction to you informing him of these news inquiries
about Mr. Heinz and the additional information regarding Mr. Archer's [ Mr. Hunter Biden's
connection and involvement with Burisma?
Wade: He knew nothing about it.
Question: So he learned about this information from you?
Wade: I believe so, yeah.
Question: And when you told him that the information that you were able to confirm with
Mr. Heinz that Rosemont Seneca had not invested or bought Burisma, what was Mr. Kerry's
reaction to that?
Wade: If I recall, his reaction was that he was comfortable answering a press question if
he got it.
Besides being briefed by his Chief of Staff, John Kerry also received an email from Senior
Advisor David Thorne with a slew of relevant news clippings about Hunter's cushy new job:
Hunter's shady dealings with Burisma are only the tip of an iceberg of improper, unethical
and even illegal dealings that marked his father's tenure as Vice President. According to the
Johnson/Grassley report, U.S. taxpayers funded Hunter Biden junkets to 28 foreign locations in
103 days, complete with Secret Service protection. These included:
Moscow, Beijing, Doha, Paris, Seoul, Manila, Tokyo, Mexico City, Milan, Florence,
Shanghai, Geneva, London, Dublin, Munich, Berlin, Bogota, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Hong Kong,
Taipei, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Johannesburg, Brussels, Madrid, Mumbai and Lake Como.
2014 was a profitable, busy year for Hunter. Besides raking in cash to the tune of $50,000 a
month from Burisma, he also climbed figuratively into bed with a Russian oligarch closely tied
to Vladimir Putin–Elena Baturina. Baturina is the former wife of the late Yuri Luzhkov,
who was the mayor of Moscow and was fired in 2010 by then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev
over corruption allegations. In February of 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million to a company
Hunter co-owned with the step-son of John Kerry and a Mr. Devon Archer. The money was sent to
Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC bank account for a "Consultancy Agreement DD12.02.2014." It would
appear that Hunter Biden happily colluded with a Russian oligarch as long as the money was
right.
Hunter Biden's association with shady people involved in human trafficking and prostitution
are particularly troubling. According to the Senate report:
There is extensive public reporting concerning Hunter Biden's alleged involvement with
prostitution services. Records on file with the Committees do not directly confirm or refute
these individual reports. However, they do confirm that Hunter Biden sent thousands of
dollars to individuals who have either: 1) been involved in transactions consistent with
possible human trafficking; 2) an association with the adult entertainment industry; or 3)
potential association with prostitution. Some recipients of those funds are Ukrainian and
Russian citizens. The records note that it is a documented fact that Hunter Biden has sent
funds to non-resident alien women in the United States who are citizens of Russia and Ukraine
and who have subsequently wired funds they have received from Hunter Biden to individuals
located in Russia and Ukraine. The records also note that some of these transactions are
linked to what "appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking
ring."
The report from Senators Johnson and Grassley is just a beginning. Lots of issues left
hanging. For example, the allegations concerning Hunter's involvement with human trafficking
only appear as a footnote. The evidence and further presentation of evidence is warranted.
Another unaddressed concern is how Cofer Black, a former senior CIA official and former
Coordinator for Counter Terrorism at State wound up on the board of Burisma. Why would Cofer
allow himself to serve under someone with such a terrible reputation as Mykola Zlochevsky, the
founder of Burisma? And Cofer is linked directly to Senator Mitt Romney. This Burisma issue
does not only touch Democrats, it involves bipartisan seaminess.
The Hunter Biden evidence of shady dealings as reported by the Senate was dispatched down
the memory hole in record time by the MSM. What's laughable is that it points to Biden family
collusion with Russians. Imagine that. Talk about inconvenient truths...
I'm not naive enough to presume Biden's corruption is unique, but rather business as
usual among many Washington, DC lifers. Still, over the years, I've read several news
items about Joe Biden in particular having used his brothers, sister and son as essentially
bagmen for Biden family ill-gotten gains. Simply put, Joe's a prime example of shameless
self-dealing that goes on in our nation's capitol, no doubt on a bi-partisan basis. Here's a
more recent item that concisely summarizes some of the corrupt/questionable Biden family
dealings:
It is naive to assume that Russian would waste money when there is absolutely no need for
that ;-) They probably laugh at seeing repetition of Soviet Politburo leader succession situation
after Brezhnev's death in the USA. As in famous joke that Chernenko assumed the position of the
General Secretary of the CPSU "without regaining consciousness."
In no way they do not understand that a semi-senile neocon warmonger would not be much
different for them than the current bully-in-chief, as foreign policy is not controlled by the
President, but by the "deep state"?
It is also unclear why Wray pushed this silly "denigration" narrative: how you can denigrate
a person, who is denigrating himself by participating in Presidential election, while clearly
entered a stage of cognitive decline ? Is laughing at him a denigration, or just a natural
reaction on such a situation? Or Christopher Wray thinks that White House is an assisted living
facility and all major decisions are done in CIA and FBI headquarters anyway? And that paying due
respect to any contender of the Presidential race is a duty of any foreign power?
And why Kremlin should like Biden who visited Moscow in 2011 and told both Putin and
opposition leaders the Obama oadministration think that Vladimir Putin shouldn't run for
president once more.
Notable quotes:
"... ... The Treasury Department, in the meantime, sanctioned a Ukrainian politician it known as a Russian agent for efforts to tar Biden for alleged corruption associated to his son's enterprise dealings in Ukraine. ..."
U.S. politics have become so polarized that there's little need for Russia to step in and
invent new controversies, according to a senior British intelligence official.
Russia is nonetheless conducting a "very active" campaign to denigrate Biden and sow
divisions in the U.S. political scene, FBI Director Christopher Wray said last week.
... ... ...
Russian officers deny meddling, both now or in the 2016 elections. On Friday, Putin proposed
that the US and Russia alternate ensures of non-interference in elections, in keeping with a
assertion on the Kremlin web site. He additionally known as for talks on info safety and
restoring cybersecurity cooperation, reviving a proposal he floated after the 2016
election.
Since that vote, Moscow's infatuation with Trump has dimmed. Russian officers say
"Russophobia" in the US institution received't change regardless of who's in the White House.
But the distinction between the two candidates is putting. While Trump mentioned final week
that China and mail-in voting have been higher threats than Russia, Biden has mentioned he'd
make Moscow pay for meddling, calling Russia an opponent.
... The Treasury Department, in the meantime, sanctioned a Ukrainian politician it known as
a Russian agent for efforts to tar Biden for alleged corruption associated to his son's
enterprise dealings in Ukraine.
Top Republicans are calling for the FBI and Justice Department to investigate a series of
wire transfers from Russian and Chinese businesspeople to Hunter Biden , after Senate
Republicans released a Wednesday report detailing the suspicious transactions - including a
$3.5 million wire from a Russian billionaire whose late husband was the mayor of Moscow .
On Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a
letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray inquiring whether the agency has investigated the
wire transfers. The letter follows a Wednesday comment from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who told Fox
News that he would be submitting a criminal referral to the Justice Department over the
payments , according to the
Daily Caller .
A report that
Senate Republicans released Wednesday detailed millions of dollars in transfers to and from
accounts linked to Hunter Biden and various business associates, including his uncle James
Biden.
The report, which cited confidential Treasury Department documents, said that the
transactions had been "
identified for potential financial criminal activity ." Republicans said that the
payments raised "criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns."
According to the report, Elena Baturina, a Russian billionaire whose late husband was
mayor of Moscow, wired $3.5 million in February 2014 to a company co-founded by Biden . The
report also said that Biden wired money to people linked to sex trafficking and prostitution
in Eastern Europe . -
Daily Caller
Meanwhile, PLA-linked Chinese businessman Ye Jianming - chairman of Chinese energy
conglomerate CEFC China Energy - wired hundreds of thousands of dollars to accounts linked to
Biden in 2017 , according to the GOP report. According to the Caller , Jianming was a top
official during the mid-2000s for the China Association for International Friendly Contacts - a
PLA front group which engages in "intelligence collection" for Beijing.
" The report shows that the FBI has been aware of some misconduct for years ," wrote Jordan
in the letter to Wray.
Of course, according to Joe Biden, there wasn't "one single scintilla of evidence" that
Hunter did anything wrong.
When intelligence honchos became politicians the shadow of Lavrentiy Beria emerge behind
them. while politization of FBI create political police like Gestapo, politization of CIA is much
more serious and dangerous. It creates really tight control over the country by shadow
intelligence agency. In a sense CIA and the cornerstone of the "deep state"
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
John Brennan, left, with Robert Mueller in 2013: The CIA director's explosive conclusion in
the ICA helped justify continuing Trump-Russia "collusion" investigations, notably Mueller's
probe as special counsel. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known as
the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections
(ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion over his
presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia influenced the
2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the origins
of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced for
political purposes.
RealClearInvestigations has learned that one of the CIA operatives who helped Brennan draft
the ICA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, financially supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign and
is a close colleague of Eric Ciaramella,
identified last year by RCI as the Democratic national security "whistleblower" whose
complaint led to Trump's impeachment, ending in Senate acquittal in January.
John Durham: He is said to be using the long-hidden report on the drafting of the ICA as a
road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence.
Department of Justice via AP
The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded
conflicting evidence about Putin's motives from the report , despite objections from some
intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump
as a "wild card."
The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work
with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state,
Clinton tried to "reset" relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative
stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a
threat.
These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the
American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried
to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring.
"They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was
going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though
they said it didn't have any real substance behind it," said a senior U.S intelligence
official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which
President Obama ordered after the 2016 election.
He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back
Brennan's judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures" against the Clinton campaign
to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was "weak."
Adam Schiff: Soon after the Democrat took control of the House Intelligence Committee, its
review of the drafting of the intelligence community assessment was classified and locked in a
Capitol basement safe. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The review, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, culminated in a lengthy report
that was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe soon after Democratic Rep. Adam
Schiff took control of the committee in January 2019.
The official said the committee spent more than 1,200 hours reviewing the ICA and
interviewing analysts involved in crafting it, including the chief of Brennan's so-called
"fusion cell," which was the interagency analytical group Obama's top spook stood up to look
into Russian influence operations during the 2016 election.
Durham is said to be using the long-hidden report, which runs 50-plus pages, as a road map
in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence while
targeting the Trump campaign and presidential transition in an unprecedented investigation
involving wiretapping and other secret surveillance.
The special prosecutor recently interviewed Brennan for several hours at CIA headquarters
after obtaining his emails, call logs and other documents from the agency. Durham has also
quizzed analysts and supervisors who worked on the ICA.
A spokesman for Brennan said that, according to Durham, he is not the target of a criminal
investigation and "only a witness to events that are under review." Durham's office did not
respond to requests for comment.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
intelligence matters, said former senior CIA political analyst Kendall-Taylor was a key member
of the team that worked on the ICA. A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of
dollars to Clinton's 2016 campaign, federal records show. In June, she gave $250 to the Biden
Victory Fund.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor: A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and recently defended the ICA in a
"60 Minutes" interview . "60 Minutes"/YouTube
Kendall-Taylor and Ciaramella entered the CIA as junior analysts around the same time and
worked the Russia beat together at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. From 2015 to 2018,
Kendall-Taylor was detailed to the National Intelligence Council, where she was deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Ciaramella succeeded her in that position at NIC,
a unit of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the CIA and the
other intelligence agencies.
It's not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017
assessment. He was working in the White House as a CIA detailee at the time. The CIA declined
comment.
Kendall-Taylor did not respond to requests for comment, but she recently defended the ICA as
a national security expert in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview on Russia's election activities,
arguing it was a slam-dunk case "based on a large body of evidence that demonstrated not only
what Russia was doing, but also its intent. And it's based on a number of different sources,
collected human intelligence, technical intelligence."
But the secret congressional review details how the ICA, which was hastily put together over
30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding
rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies
for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures
from past tradecraft.
Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security "whistleblower," whose complaint led to
President Trump's impeachment, was a close colleague of Kendall-Taylor. It's not clear if
Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment.
whitehouse.gov
It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by
former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. His claim that Putin had personally
ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding
of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had
briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.
"Some of the FBI source's [Steele's] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the
assessment," stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written
by Brennan loyalists.
"The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim
of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin 'feared and hated.' "
Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department's inspector general
as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several
allegations have been debunked, even by Steele's own primary source, who confessed to the FBI
that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from
Steele.
Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department's watchdog that the Steele
material, which he referred to as the "Crown material," was incorporated with the ICA because
it was "corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment "The IC analysts found it
credible on its face," Comey said.
Christopher Steele: His dossier allegations were summarized in a two-page annex to the
ICA, but dissenting views about the Kremlin's favoring Hillary Clinton over Trump were
excluded. Victoria Jones/PA via AP
The officials who have read the secret congressional report on the ICA dispute that. They
say a number of analysts objected to including the dossier, arguing it was political innuendo
and not sound intelligence.
"The staff report makes it fairly clear the assessment was politicized and skewed to
discredit Trump's election," said the second U.S. intelligence source, who also requested
anonymity.
Kendall-Taylor denied any political bias factored into the intelligence.
"To suggest that there was political interference in that process is ridiculous," she
recently told NBC News.
Her boss during the ICA's drafting was CIA officer Julia Gurganus. Clapper tasked Gurganus,
then detailed to NIC as its national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, with
coordinating the production of the ICA with Kendall-Taylor.
They, in turn, worked closely with NIC's cybersecurity expert Vinh Nguyen, who had been
consulting with Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather
intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer
system. (CrowdStrike's president has
testified he couldn't say for sure Russian intelligence stole DNC emails, according to
recently declassified transcripts.)
Durham's investigators have focused on people who worked at NIC during the drafting of the
ICA, according to recent published reports.
No Input From CIA's 'Russia House'
The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from
experts from CIA's so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the
Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the
election to benefit Trump.
"It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence]
community or even with experts in Russia House," the official said. "It was just a small
group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself and Brennan did the editing."
The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion
that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the
17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level
of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion.
The official said the NSA's departure was significant because the agency monitors the
communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan's preferred
conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has
testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump "didn't have the same level of sourcing and
the same level of multiple sources," reportedly has been cooperating with Durham's probe.
The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House
Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the
ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White
House.
N
Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the
assessment reflected the "consensus of the entire intelligence community." His unilateral role
also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.
In his defense, Brennan has pointed to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report that
found "no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community's conclusions."
"The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary
Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump," argued committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner,
D-Va.
"Our review of the highly classified ICA and underlying intelligence found that this and
other conclusions were well-supported," Warner added.
"There is certainly no reason to doubt that the Russians' success in 2016 is leading them
to try again in 2020, and we must not be caught unprepared."
Brennan, ex-Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco and ex-national intelligence
director James Clapper, interviewed by Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC, right, at a 2018 Aspen
Instutute event. Aspen
Institute
However, the report
completely blacks out a review of the underlying evidence to support the Brennan-inserted
conclusion, including an entire section labeled "Putin Ordered Campaign to Influence U.S.
Election." Still, it suggests elsewhere that conclusions are supported by intelligence with
"varying substantiation" and with "differing confidence levels." It also notes "concerns about
the use of specific sources."
Adding to doubts, the committee relied heavily on the closed-door testimony of former Obama
homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, a close Brennan ally who met with Brennan and his
"fusion team" at the White House before and after the election. The extent of Monaco's role in
the ICA is unclear.
Brennan last week pledged he would cooperate with two other Senate committees investigating
the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation. The Senate judiciary and governmental
affairs panels recently gained authority to subpoena Brennan and other witnesses to
testify.
Several Republican lawmakers and former Trump officials are clamoring for the
declassification and release of the secret House staff report on the ICA.
"It's dynamite," said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who reviewed the staff report while
serving as chief of staff to then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"There are things in there that people don't know," he told RCI.
"It will change the dynamic of our understanding of Russian meddling in the election."
However, according to the intelligence official who worked on the ICA review, Brennan
ensured that it would be next to impossible to declassify his sourcing for the key judgment on
Putin. He said Brennan hid all sources and references to the underlying intelligence behind a
highly sensitive and compartmented wall of classification.
He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a highly
restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the sourcing,
and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to Brennan's
questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying evidence
conveniently opaque, the official said.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes.
No, you think? We fought all of WWII in less time than it takes to make the first
indictments of these ******* traitors. And that assumes they will happen EVENTUALLY,
which they won't.
lay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
Used to be it would take somewhere from a couple months to a couple years for
conspiracy theory to be proven conspiracy fact around here.
Now it's four years and counting. Pretty soon it will be a decade or more. Then....
who really cares? Once you've successfully stretched something out that long who really
gives a **** anyway?
If the government finally admitted that Oswald didn't really shoot JFK and that it was
some CIA ***** from the grassy knoll, would you really care at this point? If the
government admitted that there really were aliens in Area 51, would your world really be
rocked by that revelation at this point? Something a little more contemporary, you say?
Fine. What about WTC 7? If conspiracy theories were all confirmed on that one would you
really have a hard time sleeping tonight?
On a long enough timeline everyone stops giving a **** about the truth.
y_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
" The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI
in 2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in
the end found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow."
While wasting thirty million dollars...and two focking years of our
lives...
ay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
It's not even done yet, man. Clock is still running. Four years and counting, end to
end. If Trump gets a second term, eight years, minimum. And as he leaves office they will
still be threatening indictments "any day now". And nobody will even remember why any of
this started, nor care.
I already don't care.
4 play_arrow
Politinaut , 46 minutes ago
Brennan and all of those involved, must pay.
z530 , 57 minutes ago
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said.
Complete 100% ********. Trump can declassify anything he wants, at anytime, for any
reason. If I were him, I would order everything related to Crossfire declassified
tomorrow, sit back and watch the fireworks.
y_arrow
wee-weed up , 1 hour ago
Brennan is TRUE deep-state scum.
My most fervent desire is to see that holier-than-thou...
lyin' Obozo-Hitlery protector, frog marched...
straight to prison on national TV...
And then forced to sing like a Canary.
1 play_arrow
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a
highly restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the
sourcing, and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the
sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said."
One of the most important objectives going forward from all this... has to be the
dismantling of the whole apparatus of security classification.
All of it must be overhauled and restructured.
We simply cannot have a regime of intelligence security so rigorous, as to be clearly
used as a means of tyrannizing the very nation it's supposed to serve.
No enemy on earth is worth that...
play_arrow
bkwaz4 , 1 hour ago
Rational people have always understood that any Russian or Chinese meddling in the
2016 election was done to get Hillary elected so that influence could be purchased
through the Clinton Foundation.
The criminals involved need to be executed.
ay_arrow
Max21c , 1 hour ago
So its the usual situ of all lies and distortions and more lies on top of still more
lies... all more lies made up by the secret police and Washington Gestapo...
ay_arrow
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
It's a small circle of friends at CIA with Brennan protégé, Andrea
Kendall-Taylor and NSA with Eric Ciaramella, the Democratic national security
"whistleblower," who are sleeping with their bosses for advancement and or given head
service to closet LGBTiQNPWXYZ government heads.
Their job literally "sucks" in order to exist.
_arrow
mikka , 2 hours ago
When this sort of thing happens in Russia, China etc., there is a purge, because the
country is more important than its actors. Not in USSA: because of the so called
"democracy", the usurpers get away with it, allowing them not only to survive but also to
try again when conditions improve.
lay_arrow
Max21c , 31 minutes ago
It is interesting to see some of the criminal activities of the rats, vermin, and scum
in the CIA Gestapo & FBI Gestapo and Pentagon Gestapo possibly coming to light... One
or two rays of light and all the cockroaches in the criminal gangs of "national security"
and the state security apparatus of the banana republic and police state start scurrying
about in a frenzy for awhile...
3 play_arrow
Max21c , 47 minutes ago
Notice how all these Nazis and NeoNazis such as Brennan, Steele, Clapper, Schiff,
Warner, Lisa Monaco, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, James Comey, Julia Gurganus,
Vinh Nguyen, Obama, Biden, Clinton are all elite gangsters, crooks, criminals and
hoodlums with ties to the Ivy League, CNN, MSNBC, CBS 60 Minutes, the Aspen Institute,
the secret police community, the Gestapo community, the intelligence community, the CFR,
Elite Think Tanks, the puppet press and official media and numerous other parts of the
criminal underworld of Washingtonian and their secret police & NeoNazi Gestapo...
They're all just gangsters like in any third world banana republic and police state...
just like all the rest of the goons and thugs and criminals in Washington DC..
y_arrow
GoldHermit , 58 minutes ago
If Brennan is not public enemy number one, he's certainly in the top 5.
Max21c , 45 minutes ago
Washington DC runs thick with animals and gangsters just like Brennan... he's common
to the criminal culture of the US government and the criminal culture and criminal nature
of US government officials and Washingtonians... They're all the same and they're all
Nazis and NeoNazis... US elites and Washingtonians are no different than the Soviet KGB,
East German Stasi, Nazi Gestapo or Nazi Waffen SS... just a pack of criminals the rob,
terrorize and persecute people... US government is just one big criminal network and
crime syndicate... all they do is rob people, cheat people, persecute people and
terrorize people... It's a Washingtonian thing and a US government thing...
play_arrow
rtb61 , 1 hour ago
Of course the Russian government favoured the Clintons, they had a ton of evidence of
corruption on them, they released that tape to prove it to them. They know every single
little thing the Klinton Krime Klan did in the Ukraine, everything, they had them cold,
anything they wanted the Clintons would have complied, they still would of course have
demanded to be paid.
Right now both China and Russia prefer the Clinton Corporation Party, they are much
easier to pay off. Too many heads in the Republican Party, too many pay offs, much easier
with the Clinton Foundation Party, the party the Klinton Krime Klan sold to the
corporations, calling it the Democrats is a lie, it is the Clinton Foundation Party,
selling governments to the highest bidder not just yours but with regime change any
country you choose.
It all keeps coming out for political theatre but yet, no even a hint of an arrest let
alone an actual prosecution. Good for votes from the stupids I suppose.
2 play_arrow
williambanzai7 , 1 hour ago
Brennan is a moron. A moron who takes orders from a gaggle of Marxists and a Former
Nazi.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
His little fake aristocratic tone is hilarious. As if a muslim Irish American was some
sort of delicate flower.
y_arrow 1
Patmos , 14 minutes ago
Tragically ironic how the CIA has in large part become the thing it was at least in
theory supposed to help protect against: Tyranny.
2 play_arrow
Soloamber , 34 minutes ago
Isn't it ironic that a report covering a political coup on a presidential campaign and
subsequent attack on an
elected President can't be divulged because it is considered "political ".
Durham reports to Barr and they know the truth will never come to light if Biden wins
.
What they choose to ignore is they work for and are obligated to protect the public
interest .
Not the Democrats , not the Republicans .
It's either that or they are just protecting their old boy netwirk .
Take your pick .
ay_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
"The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report --
known as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in
Recent Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of
suspicion over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to
suggest Russia influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again
to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes."
Or... outright lies known by Blo to be lies?
Sounds like conjured red meat deliberately fed to the leftist House machine...
1 play_arrow
ComradePuff , 10 minutes ago
When I was getting my masters in 2017 at MGIMO, my instructors were as often diplomats
and politicians as they were professors. One, a member of Duma, told us that it was funny
they way the Americans were spinning the collusion angle, because the general consensus
at the Kremlin was that Clinton was preferable to Trump as she was known and they
understood how to deal with her, while Trump seemed like a loose cannon. I was the only
American in the class (in the whole school at that point) and he was not even talking to
me, so clearly this was just general knowledge here.
edit: The CIA must suck at their jobs if there was disagreement, because I learned
that in the first week without using a single bribe, rent boy, honey trap or fake
mustache. That or the CIA just lies, as they do with everything else. Most likely a mix
of both.
y_arrow
amanfromMars , 40 minutes ago
Have you ever thought on what kind of vital explosive intelligence, on the extremely
precarious state of the certainly not United States of America, the likes of a Russia or
a China receives whenever they can freely read, listen and see any/all of the fabricated
tales and phantom trails fed to media main streams ...... for, of course, they would know
immediately whenever such is reported and widely shared, it be wilfully untrue and
decidedly designedly false ..... and they be confronted by weak pathological liars in
international executive offices of a failed state, or a rapidly failing state in well
self-publicised terminal decline ..... for a fast approaching resulting death by suicide
‽ .
And what does it also tell one and all about the equally perverse and parlous state of
the national intelligence quotient of Five Eyes allies, whenever they be by virtue of
either their unquestioning support or deafening silence on such matters, no more than
co-conspirators on a similar sinister path.
Are they themselves incapable of better thinking for greater tinkering? Do they need
it to be freely provided by ..... well, what would they be? Private Contractors/Pirate
Operations/Alien Facilities/Out of this World Utilities?
You can surely be in no doubt that they certainly need something radically different,
considering the plain enough, destructive path that they be currently on, using what they
presently have.
play_arrow
Soloamber , 48 minutes ago
Clintons . They already had a business relationship .
Clintons pay to play was well known .
Strange how "donations " have dropped 90% after she blew the election .
ay_arrow
Mini-Me , 2 hours ago
When does Durham get off his arse and do his damn job?
Former Secretary of State John Kerry falsely claimed in 2019 that he had no knowledge of Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma
Holdings, Inc., according to the Senate report on Biden's financial dealings released on Wednesday.
Kerry was asked by a reporter from NBC News on December 8, 2019, whether he knew of Hunter Biden's activities during his tenure
as secretary of state in the Obama administration from 2013-2017. Biden From 2014-2019 held a seat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian
natural gas company whose former head and founder Mykola Zlochevsky is suspected of bribery and various other crimes. (Zlochevsky's
whereabouts are currently unknown.)
Vice president Joe Biden led the Obama administration's Ukraine policy after Russia's 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula
and subsequent war in eastern Ukraine. Hunter Biden's position at Burisma led American officials to worry about the appearance of
a conflict of interest in their Ukraine policy.
" I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No," Kerry told the reporter regarding Biden's position on the Burisma board. "What
would I know about any -- no. Why would I know about any company or any individual? No."
However, Kerry's former chief of staff David Wade testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee that he informed Kerry personally
of Biden's role at Burisma. Wade received an email on May 13, 2014, from Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, telling him that Hunter Biden
and associate Devon Archer had joined Burisma.
Additionally, former Kerry adviser David Thorne told Wade on May 14, 2014, that he had forwarded news articles on Hunter Biden's
Burisma position directly to Kerry himself, according to emails uncovered by the Senate committee. The emails included links to serveral
articles, including one titled "White House says no issue with Biden's son, Ukraine gas company."
Senator Lindsey Graham has invited Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's private attorney, to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee
regarding alleged corruption in Ukraine.
Graham wrote on Twitter Tuesday that after hearing about "the many improprieties surrounding the firing of former [Ukrainian]
Prosecutor General Victor Shokin," he would give Giuliani "the opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to inform
the committee of his concerns."
Giuliani has repeatedly alleged that former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden were involved in corrupt practices
in Ukraine.
Hunter Biden sat on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company from 2014 to 2019. The company, Burisma Holdings, was the subject
of a corruption probe led by Shokin, who was then prosecutor general of Ukraine.
In 2016, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin at the urging of U.S. and European Union officials, who agreed that Shokin
was himself engaged in corrupt practices.
Graham had initially refused to take any action in the Senate regarding Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine, saying earlier this
month, "I want somebody to look at the conflict of interest outside of politics."
Graham's offer to Giuliani could set up a conflict between the Senate and House of Representatives, the latter of which has summoned
numerous Trump administration officials to answer questions regarding the impeachment probe.
"The Treasury records acquired by the Chairmen show potential criminal activity relating to
transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian,
Russian, Kazakh and Chinese nationals," the report reads. "In particular, these documents show
that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from foreign sources as a result of business
relationships that he built during the period when his father was vice president of the United
States and after."
That Hunter Biden served on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings while
his father was leading the Obama administration's efforts in Ukraine is well-established, but
the $50,000-per-month board seat was just one component of the younger Biden's foreign ventures
during the Obama years. According to Treasury Department records obtained by the committee, he
also pursued business dealings with politically-connected Russian, Chinese, and Kazakh
nationals.
In the course of his globe-trotting business career, Hunter Biden racked up more than $4
million in "questionable financial transactions" with well-connected foreigners. He partnered
with Chinese businessmen connected to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Liberation
Army, he took cash from the wife of the corrupt former mayor of Moscow, and he sent funds to
Ukrainian and Russian nationals living in the U.S. that are "linked to what 'appears to be an
Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring,'" according to the report.
But it was only Hunter's work for Burisma that caught the attention of Obama administration
State Department officials, who said the role created "counterintelligence and extortion
concerns."
Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, George Kent warned Vice
President Joe Biden's office in early 2015 that Hunter's work for Burisma undermined the
administrations' anti-corruption efforts in the country, since the gas company's owner Mykola
Zlochevsky, who Kent described as an "odious oligarch" in his testimony, is famously
corrupt.
"Furthermore, the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board was very awkward for all
U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine," Kent wrote in an email to his
colleagues in 2016.
Kent told Joe Biden's staff that "someone needed to talk to Hunter Biden, and he should
[step] down from the board of Burisma," according to the report. But it doesn't appear Kent's
request was carried out, since Hunter remained on the board throughout the rest of Obama's
term.
U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein also
raised concerns about Hunter's work for Burisma with the vice president. But his complaints
went unaddressed, according to the report.
"This investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama
administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president's son joined the board
of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch," the report's executive summary stated.
While concerns over Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine didn't prompt any decisive action
from the administration, they did reach the desk of Secretary of State John Kerry,
contradicting his later claim that he was never aware that Hunter served on the Burisma
board.
The day after Hunter joined the Burisma board in May 2014, Kerry's stepson Christopher
Heinz, who was a business partner of Hunter's, emailed his father to inform him of Hunter's
appointment to the board and to distance himself from the decision. Kerry's staff followed up
with a briefing on the press inquiries prompted by Hunter's board seat, according to their
testimony before the committees.
Neither Kerry nor anyone else in the administration appears to have intervened to put a stop
to the younger Biden's influence peddling.
When asked by a reporter in 2019 whether he had any knowledge of Hunter's work for Burisma,
Kerry responded "I had no knowledge about any of that. None. No."
Russia
Hunter Biden and his business partner Devon Archer joined with Heinz in 2009 to form the
investment firm Rosemont Seneca. They then spun off a number of shell companies to accept funds
from wealthy and politically-connected clients willing to pay for their "corporate and
governmental affairs" expertise.
One such client was Elena Baturina, wife of former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who was fired
in 2010 by then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev over corruption allegations. Baturina became
Russia's first female billionaire after her plastics company received a number of lucrative
public contracts with the city of Moscow while her husband was mayor.
"Luzhkov used his position as mayor to approve over 20 real estate projects that were built
by a Baturina-owned construction company and ultimately generated multibillion-ruble profits
for his family," according to the report.
In February 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million as part of a "consultancy agreement" to
Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC -- a consortium consisting of Biden and Archer's Rosemont Seneca
and a Massachusetts-based company with offices in Beijing known as Thornton LLC.
Then, between May and December 2015 Baturina wired another $391,968.21 to an account linked
to a company called BAK USA, a Buffalo, N.Y., based start up that manufactured tablet computers
with the backing of unidentified Chinese investors. The majority of that nearly $400,000,
totaling $241,797.14, flowed through the Rosemont Seneca Thornton account before arriving in
the BAK USA account.
Kazakhstan
On April 22, 2014, as Joe Biden joined Prime Minister Arsemy Yasenyuk in Kyiv to speak with
Ukrainian lawmakers about the recent Russian aggression in Crimea, a holding company owned by
the son-in-law of a prominent Khazak politician wired Archer $142,300 through yet another shell
company, Rosemont Seneca Bohai. A currency report obtained by the committee states that the
payment was "For a Car."
The holding company that purchased Archer a car is owned solely by Kenges Rakishev, the
son-in-law of Imangali Tasmagambetov, who was then serving as the mayor of Kazakhstan's capital
city, Astana. Tasmagambetov, who himself previously served as prime minister of Kazakhstan, was
reportedly a close confidant of then Kazahk president Nursultan Nazarbayev. It is unclear why,
exactly, Archer was purchased a car, but Kazakhstan was in flux politically at the time due to
dissension over how to respond to Russia's provocation in Ukraine.
"Given Rakishev's close connection to political leadership in Kazakhstan, the tense
political situation, Hunter Biden's longstanding relationship with Archer and involvement in
transactions with Rosemont Seneca Bohai, and the fact that the payment was timed perfectly with
Vice President Biden's visit to Kyiv to discuss U.S. sanctions against Russia for the invasion
of Crimea, the April 22, 2014 payment from Rakishev to Rosemont Seneca Bohai raises serious
questions," the report reads.
China
In order to sell their consulting services in China, Biden and Archer partnered with a
Boston-based firm known as Thornton LLC. The firm advertises itself as "a cross-border capital
intermediary" and counts a number of state-owned Chinese businesses among its clients,
according to its website.
Through Thornton LLC, Hunter Biden and Archer formed business relationships with a number of
wealth Chinese nationals who have connections the CCP and the People's Liberation Army.
Many of Hunter Biden's Chinese dealings flowed through Ye Jianming, the founder of CEFC
China Energy Co. Ltd, a Chinese energy company that reported in excess of $33 billion in
revenue in 2013. The company was acquired by the state in 2017 but even before that it "hired a
number of former top officials from state owned energy companies" and had "layers of Communist
Party committees across its subsidiaries -- more than at many private Chinese companies,"
according to Reuters.
Through Jianming's company, Hunter Biden was introduced to the CCP elite and those
businessmen who operate with their blessing.
Pictures from an April 2010 event in China posted by the Thornton Group show Biden standing
alongside the general manager of the China Investment Corporation, the vice president of the
China Life Asset Management Company, the general manager of the Postal Savings Bank, among
other Chinese business tycoons.
Hunter Biden and Archer capitalized on those connections some two years later by partnering
with Jonathan Li the CEO of the Chinese investment firm Bohai Capital, to form BHR, an
investment firm specializing in connecting wealthy Chinese investors, and state entities, with
overseas business opportunities. The Chinese government's postal savings bank, its main
development bank, and The Bank of China all invested in BHR. Months before the investors signed
the documents committing to the fund, Hunter arranged for his father to meet Li briefly in the
lobby of a Beijing hotel they were staying in after flying to China on Air Force II.
Hunter initially joined the BHR board in an unsalaried capacity but ultimately acquired a 10
percent stake in the company in 2017.
Ye's relationships were not confined to China's business elite, he also had extensive
connections to high-ranking members of the People's Liberation Army, including one of the
country's leading propagandists, Wang Shu, the CEO of the China Huayi Broadcasting. While Ye
was rubbing shoulders with Beijing's elite, Hunter was busy trying to solicit American
investment in his firm.
A subsidiary of Ye's company wired $100,000 to Biden's law firm, Owasco, in August 2017.
And, one month later, on the day that Ye's firm announced it would acquire a $9.1 billion deal
in the Russian oil company Rosneft, Hunter filed for a $100,000 line of credit with one of Ye's
business partners. Hunter, his uncle James, and James's wife Sarah were all authorized as
credit card users on the account. The foursome went on a spending spree, buying airline
tickets, stays at expensive hotels, and meals at top restaurants.
Ye's company would eventually funnel $4.8 million to Biden's law firm over the following
year.
Joe Biden's spokesman, Andrew Bates, suggested the entire investigation was a partisan
distraction in response to the report.
"As the coronavirus death toll climbs and Wisconsinites struggle with joblessness, Ron
Johnson has wasted months diverting the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Committee away from any oversight of the catastrophically botched federal response to the
pandemic, a threat Sen. Johnson has dismissed by saying that 'death is an unavoidable part of
life.' Why? To subsidize a foreign attack against the sovereignty of our elections with
taxpayer dollars -- an attack founded on a long-disproven, hardcore rightwing conspiracy theory
that hinges on Sen. Johnson himself being corrupt and that the Senator has now explicitly
stated he is attempting to exploit to bail out Donald Trump's re-election campaign," Bates said
in a statement Wednesday.
Republican Senator Mitt Romney expressed a similar sentiment before the report came out,
calling the investigation a "political exercise" that fell outside the "legitimate role of
government."
231 Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson, (R., Wis.), and Finance Committee
chairman Chuck Grassley, (R., Iowa), said they "faced many obstacles" in their probe and added
that "there remains much work to be done."
"" President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to
stop funding to federal government contractors who hold critical race theory training
sessions."
YES!! "Silence is complicity" as leftarded sheep often bleat, and silence in the face of
this ultra-racist bullsh!t has gone on far too long. Never should've been allowed to begin
with.
Nothing new concerning the papers of reference, be it NYT in the USA, Spiegel -unfortunately
I do not speak german and the Spiegel is the only one that I know of with a small weakly
english section- Le Monde, The Guardian, El País, etc. They all belong to the infamous
club of the presstitutes.
Ukraine is a zombie, remotely controlled to keep Russia off balance, not having enough with
Ukraine the same tricks are being applied in Belarus but it seems that the plan did not go
trough.
The work you do is commendable B, but I would appreciate a lot if you would focus your
efforts in Germany since not a lot is known about the internal politics of a country that
basically is the leading one in the EU.
The Navalny affair, Merkel calling for changes in the UN, Germany relations with Poland, the
Treuhand and the liquidation of the DRG, and a lot of issues that someone living there -- I
assume -- sure knows a lot better that the rest.
Ukraine is like an open oozing wound, and it could be a surprise in the coming election
debates in the USA, the Biden Poroshenko tapes are not even mentioned by the presstitutes, and
the level of theft and corruption is monumental, fumbling Biden will have a serious problem
when these conversations come up in the debates.
The two candidates are so pathetic that probably very few voters will vote in the elections.
Most probably will stay hoew because this is not choice, it is a perversion.
In view of riots that situation clearly favor Trump.
Trump will persist through the election. The puppet masters of the radical Left have
invested 4 years and billions (perhaps trillions) or dollars in painting him as a racist
tyrant and their return has been the ability to subvert and riot openly without consequences
for even their low-level foot soldiers.
If they replace him they throw away all of that investment and have to reboot with new
justifications for destroying the West to a Third World state. The on-going Supreme Court
situation is proof of this strategy. It may be the lever they need to escalate to actual
genocides. Trump is the rope the satanic Left is using to pull themselves out of the maw of
Hell and he is the rope with which they will try to hang us all.
Trump isn't actually a populist president, though -- he just plays one on TV. That is
what's most amusing about globocap's meltdown, he's only accelerated the political and social
destruction of white America.
America Firsters are writing a better script, one that casts the international Zionists
such as Soros as the evil they are, and all of the "liberal" GlobalCap "heroes" as cads and
knaves that pander to the Zionists and their endless wars for Israel out of greed, sloth, low
character, hidden racism, and misanthropy.
The "liberals" and neocons are increasingly uptight because middle America and much of
the rest of the world recognizes the America First script as authentic, and the "liberal"
script as the hackneyed CIA and ((Hollywood)) bullshit it is.
Worse yet, the principled left (there still is such a thing) increasingly recognize
"liberals" as self-serving liars, ponzi schemers, and con artists who, out of mania and
hubris, actually started believing their own grift.
Whatever happens during and after election, fact is that Sovereign, Corporate and
personal debt of Globocap countries will raise to unsustainable levels, destroying the dollar
and financial markets with resultant prolonged recession, creating post colonial multipolar
world (Assuming we are not wiped out in a nuclear war between U.S., Russia and China before
this happens)
That is really insane and serious gambling by GloboCap. They may as well admit
defeat. Everyone knows that they are guilty. They have backed themselves into a corner with a
50/50 survival rate gamble as their final move. Do they think that the military would like to
share with them or forgive them, or blame them and place them in stockades in the public
square? What would the military gain by a globocap alliance? What would the military lose by
such an alliance? My guess is that the military would be likely to turn against them.
Sorry I can't see the "war on populism" CJ. Nor am I a subscriber to the "democracy" we
don't have one . I feel as though people were (and are) lost in fear brain's nervous system
freeze response but when a threat is not gone, it turns to anger( fight response ).
Especially with media inciting violence and discord. We all create our world from our
thoughts and feelings which are then manifested in our actions so people need to realize they
are being mind controlled and manipulated by the media.
What are you choosing to bring into the world fear or love?
So, in this "movie" who are the ultimate leaders of Globocap? Do they meet in a big board
room on some island and say things like "Unleash the Antifa!" and "Leak the stuff Trump
didn't actually say about war veterans as a metaphor for putrid populism!"?
I'm not mocking the script, but I'd like to see the key players' machinations dramatized
in scene.
Yes – we can count on Hopkins to show us the horror story being woven by the Elites
of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (GloboCap) in a humorously entertaining manner.
I'd settle for the scene where Soros persuades Greta to slaughter the younglings to stop
global warming. Which, of course, he had no intention of doing even if he could.
Don't count on it. The problem will be proving the ballots and the boxes are illegal in
the first place. The test run was in 2018, and the wrinkles have been ironed out.
With his current state of mental health he actually subjected himself to unreasonable risk by running such a campaign: such condition
as dementia progress much more quickly if the person is under stress.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. process is ridiculous. No one seriously believes in a democracy .except maybe Bernie . ..."
"... I find the U.S. an absurd oligarchy driven by greed and stupidity ..."
Do you know the rest of the message from his doctor???
The second piece of evidence to consider is that in December, Biden released a three-page summary of his medical history in
which "his doctor declared he is a 'healthy, vigorous' 77-year-old fully capable of taking on the role of president."
Professor of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago Stuart Jay Olshansky analyzes the longevity of presidents,
said about cognitive abilities after reviewing the report.
"The only test that hasn't been done is the cognitive functioning test. But the fact that he's on the campaign trail and
meeting a rigorous travel and meeting schedule probably would suffice as a replacement for the formal test for cognitive functioning."
He said that cognitive tests are typically not required unless problems are detected.
You can keep up with this cavalcade of misinformation along with the Repubs or you can admit you are wrong and wait till this
all out. You are doing the exact same thing Trump and company, Sander's cronies, and the media did to Clinton last year.
I was posting on this blog almost a decade ago. Wrote a lot things about trade, outsourcing, China, IBM, Financial Modernization
Act, WTO .climate change .
Yes, I read what his doctor said .did you? I am not impressed with the DNC, Biden, Clinton, Trump, the GOP DNCGOP = DO NOT
CARE GREED OVER PEOPLE.
The U.S. process is ridiculous. No one seriously believes in a democracy .except maybe Bernie .
I am a fan of Snowden, Assage, Hedges, Chomsky, Greenwald, Mate does that help you?
As I told you before, I live in Canada have dual citizenship. Am thinking of writing a comparison between the two health care
systems .based on personal experience. No hearsay. Facts.
If you wish to discuss matters with me, say so.
Pgl and I tangled a long time ago .as I and coberly. Movieguy once was a frequent commentator here; we were good friends.
I try to have people responds and discuss .apparently, that is not possible anymore.
Your turn.
You think I am paid? ROFL I am 80 years old, thinking you guys have about ten years left, if you are lucky. I have done a lot
of research on potable water, ecological destruction, climate .
And I read a lot. I find the U.S. an absurd oligarchy driven by greed and stupidity. I am not a fan of Russia because
of its position of climate. I have read a great deal about China's plans .thought it was stupid rapidly industrializing with coal
.
likbez , March 9, 2020 11:32 pm
Run75441,
> Do you know the rest of the message from his doctor???
This guy is not a regular doctor ;-)
Kevin C. O'Connor is director of executive medicine at the GW Medical Faculty Associates
Which means that he is at least 50% is a highly skilled politician, high level "medical diplomat" trained to please his patients
and navigate difficult situation that arise with such patients, whatever it means.
I would not take his conclusions without a grain of salt :-)
But the list of illnesses speak for itself and is really mind boggling.
A "near-fatal brain aneurysm" , my God. Only 50% survive such a calamity. Two-thirds of survivors have some sort of permanent
neurological damage. Someone with an unruptured brain aneurysm has about a 1% chance of the aneurysm rupturing per year. And should
never take blood thinners. Should avoid drinking alcohol, heavy lifting, stressful or high pressure situations.
Irregular heartbeat (the shadow of Cheney appears in the background), and a history of atrial fibrillation also are a real
danger. Unless this is paroxysmal type, this is a very serious condition with bad prognosis (stroke, heart failure) .
He underwent several surgeries under total anesthesia. That also is a negative factor and complicate prognosis for his other
conditions.
Strangely for a person with the history of brain aneurism, he does take a blood thinner, which might mean advanced stage of
atherosclerosis and/or presence of stents.
This list does not define a "a healthy, vigorous, 77-year-old male" unless this is a joke or forced by pressure "politically
correct" statement.
All-in-all he definitely not a person for whom running the Presidential race is an acceptable load. He actually subjected himself
to unreasonable risk by running such a campaign.
Senate Republicans are set to release their long-awaited report on Joe and Hunter Biden's
activities in Ukraine, and is expected to conclude that Hunter Biden's lucrative seat the board
of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma impacted Obama-era Ukraine policy, which was led by Joe Biden
at the time , according to
The Hill .
Joe Biden has been accused of abusing his position in a quid-pro-quo arrangement whereby he
admitted he withheld $1 billion in US loan guarantees if the country's lead prosecutor
investigating Burisma was fired.
The Bidens have denied any wrongdoing, however depositions from
former Ukrainian officials who were directly involved, as well as
leaked recordings between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Proroshenko have
painted a picture of textbook corruption. Notably, Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach was
sanctioned by the Treasury Department for "spreading disinformation to 'undermine' the former
vice president" when he leaked several recordings of "voices similar to Poroshenko and Biden"
discussing the quid-pro-quo, which Derkach says a journalist gave to him.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/xvIRVHNTsr0
The Senate report follows a probe spearheaded by Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley
(R-IA), and is expected to be released this week.
"I think it's time for the American people to see what we've got," said Johnson, chairman of
the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. " What our investigations are
uncovering, I think, will reveal this is not somebody we should be electing president of the
United States ," he added.
The report will come days before the first presidential debate between President Trump and
Joe Biden, and will likely provide Trump with plenty of fresh ammunition. Biden, meanwhile,
will be able to trot out Trump's latest sexual assault accusation, to which
Trump will be able to
trot out Biden's .
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) predictably downplayed the report - warning that the Biden-Burisma
probe was nothing more than a "political exercise," adding "It's not the legitimate role of
government for Congress or for taxpayer expense to be used in an effort to damage political
opponents."
The Biden campaign responded - telling The Hill : "It is disgraceful enough for the chair of
the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee to dismiss the worst public health
crisis in generations and abandon oversight of the failed federal response to the pandemic. But
to instead subsidize a foreign influence operation against the sovereignty of our elections
with American taxpayer dollars, all in a vain attempt to resuscitate a conspiracy theory that
hinges on Senator Johnson himself being corrupt, is tragic malfeasance. "
That's quite the statement - and telegraphs Biden's likely bullet points for the debate.
Whether he can effectively convey them is anyone's guess.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) attempted to pass a
resolution condemning the GOP's Burisma probe, while The Hill also reports that Democrats may
claim that the probe violates the Senate's Rule 19 - which states that "no Senator in debate
shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other
Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."
"President Trump's Department of the Treasury sanctions Derkach, and the chairman of the
committee repeats the same kind of discredited allegations that Derkach propagates. It is
outrageous. It is a disgrace," Schumer added. Johnson, meanwhile, has denied any contact with
Derkach during the investigation .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the GOP probe concludes about the Bidens and Ukraine
- it's 'unbecoming of a Senator' to investigate at all .
According to Sen. Johnson, "I saw their resolution ... so I was going to enter my own,"
adding "When I came on the floor, I was basically warned, 'We are concerned about what's going
to happen here on the floor.' ... We were all warned. "
Biden is just Clinton-light. His whole career was based on promotion of neoliberalism and hetryal of working and middle class in
the USA. And like Clinton he is personally corrupt.
In the coming election Biden is the symbol of neoliberal status quo, Hillary II who called working class "descicables".
Notable quotes:
"... Others aren't so sure that political moderatism is a virtue. When it comes to addressing climate change, Eric Levitz of New York Magazine argued that "a major [obstacle] is the tendency of moderate Democrats to mistake their own myopic complacency for heroic prudence". ..."
Men who refer to themselves as 'moderate' or 'centrist' score basically the same on values and opinions as people who identify
themselves as 'conservative'
... ... ...
Others aren't so sure that political moderatism is a virtue. When it comes to addressing climate change, Eric Levitz of New
York Magazine argued that "a major [obstacle] is the tendency of moderate Democrats to mistake their own myopic complacency for heroic
prudence". Political researcher David Adler
found
that across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions,
and the most supportive of authoritarianism. Furthermore, Adler found that centrists are the least supportive of free and fair elections
as well as civil rights -- in the United States, only 25 percent of centrists agree that civil rights are an essential feature of
democracy.
This finding dovetails with observations made by Martin Luther King Jr. in his
letter from Birmingham Jail : "I have
almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's
Councilor or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice." Even Arthur Books, a self-avowed
moderate, admits to "the failure
of the mainstream, moderate, progressive formula for how to create a more equal pluralist America," adding, "I'm a moderate guy,
but the evidence doesn't support moderation when it comes to racial equity."
That's all well and good. But what does the data show?
... ... ...
That moderate men most resemble Republicans has been confirmed, of all places, on dating apps. Brittany Wong of HuffPost
writes , "It's almost
become a coastal cliche at this point: If someone lists their political views as 'moderate' on a dating app, the thinking goes, go
ahead and assume the person is a conservative." One interviewee noted, "It's just in my experience, even 'moderate' guys tend to
have extremely different views on topics that matter to me, like gun control, women's reproductive rights and immigration." Sometimes,
moderate men who appear to bend liberal turn out to be "faux woke," according to one interviewee who was initially attracted to someone
whose profile featured photos at a women's march. Eventually "he slowly started to drop his facade," revealing behaviors inconsistent
with his professed political beliefs.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has grown increasingly frustrated with moderate Democrats during her tenure,
saying at a recent event, "The Democratic Party is not a left party. The Democratic Party is a center or a center-conservative
party." Her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, recently deleted a
tweet comparing two moderate Democrat coalitions -- consisting mostly of
men -- to Southern Democrats who favored segregation
and opposed civil rights. During this election cycle, a
recurring criticism of Vice President Biden has been his record on school desegregation.
... ... ...
Kevin Singer is a Research Associate for IDEALS and PhD student at North Carolina State University. Twitter: @kevinsinger0
Alyssa Rockenbach is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Human Development
at North Carolina State University
The authors would like to acknowledge Matthew Mayhew, Co-Principal Investigator of IDEALS, and Laura Dahl for their help
running and analyzing the data in this piece
"... We are witnessing a political game of chess where the only pieces being moved are the pawns, while the king and queen sit safely on a different board. ..."
@
6:29
""There needs to be unrest in the streets as there is unrest in our lives"" When the elite oligarchy ignore peaceful
protests, you get aggressive uprisings. It's human nature and good ol' fashioned patriotism.
As of Sep 20, the video has around one million views and this is another bad news for Creepy Joe. Biden clan is really
greedy and unprincipled. Hunter is definitely corrupt drug addict. That's undeniable.
While his China deal are highly suspicious, Creepy Joe Burisma corruption story is actually completely provable.
Should not children of high officials be restricted in their possible positions, so that they can't use the influence of their
fathers.
Notable quotes:
"... Uncover the secret world of Joe Biden and his family's relationship to China ..."
"... Hunter Biden is just like his father & the Obamas - never had a legit job, never had a position he deserved, always had people bribed to get him positions and paid way more than he's worth ..."
Uncover the secret world of Joe Biden and his family's relationship to China and the sinister business
deals that enriched them at America's expense.
5,909 Comments
T W 1 week ago
Never knew the Biden family has this many dirty secrets with communist China. They exchanged America's top secret for cash.
Pat K 6 days ago
Hunter Biden is just like his father & the Obamas - never had a legit job, never had a position he deserved, always had people
bribed to get him positions and paid way more than he's worth. Obama & Biden have to be the two most corrupt US politicians ever.
What's worse, they put our enemies' interests ahead of the US' & they aided our enemies. What I see are corrupt, greedy people
getting rich at the expense of Americans, consequences be damned. After watching this documentary, why aren't Joe & Hunter & possibly
Obama in jail?
Les Blat 2 weeks ago
Who needs nuclear weapons when you have so many demoncrats wanting to destroy America from within for cash.
Marjorie McDaniel 6 days ago
Personally, I think Joe Biden is faking his illness to get out of his evil doings. Biden is behind it along with Obama and
others. Pray for our nation and its people. Wake up and get on your knees.
Allan Gregoire 2 weeks ago
A vote for Biden is a vote for China. Elections have consequences. Biden supporters learn Mandarin now, you're going to need
it to communicate with your new overlords.
Another setback for Creepy Joe. Looks like he is out of luck. And note the comment: "Just
like the the BLM supporter who, yesterday, walked into a bar in Kentucky and executed three
people at point blank range. " It will also play out. Looks like Biden isn't going to make it to
November......
In the lead-up to the November election political investigator and author Peter Schweizer,
who currently heads the Florida-based Government Accountability Institute, has unveiled a
bombshell exposé presenting damning evidence of Hunter and his father Joe Biden's shady
and hidden financial dealings with China.
Directed by Matthew Taylor, whose prior works include Clinton Cash and Creepy Line , the
41-minute film entitled "Riding the Dragon: The Bidens' Chinese Secrets," details a pile of
corporate records, financial documents, legal briefings as well as court papers which tie
Hunter's firm with a major Chinese defense contractor, namely Aviation Industry Corp. of China
(AVIC), and multiple other PLA linked companies.
"It's a relationship that grew while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States and
shortly after he was appointed the point person on U.S. policy towards China," Schweizer, who
narratives the film,
described upon the documentary's release earlier this month. "This new firm started making
investment deals that would serve the strategic interests of the Chinese military."
"It's the story of the second most powerful man in the world at the time and how his family
was striking deals with America's chief rival on the global stage, the People's Republic of
China ," he added.
I don't need to view a feature-length film to realize that Joe and his whole family are
crooked as ****.
Make_Mine_A_Double , 12 minutes ago
Hence Trump's remark 'if Biden is elected China will OWN America'.
Clearly he knows all this and more. I watched the whole thing - nothing I didn't already
know in bits and peices, but taken together in chronological order is devastating. The whole
family should be executed.
2banana , 1 hour ago
Will be ignored by the fake legacy new media.
Just like the the BLM supporter who, yesterday, walked into a bar in Kentucky and executed
three people at point blank range.
Was smiling when the cops arrived.
platyops , 1 hour ago
We have Kamala the prostitute, Joe the smug cheat that handled "Corn Pop" so well and his
Cocaine driven son Hunter. If politics and the democrat party don't get any more sleazy than
this I don't know.
Joe Biden is asking you to vote for him for president. I for one say NO! As Judge Judy
once said "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining"
Joe Biden and his HO assistant make me ashamed to be an American.
The rest of the world laughs at us because of the democrat party pick to be our
leader!
Joe used to be a Catholic and hated abortion. But now he says sure kill all the babies you
want because I will sell my soul to be president.
Someday he will have to explain to our Lord Jesus Christ his behavior and just what he
thought selling his soul was worth. Not that many years away either dear Joe Biden.
I tried watching this and ended up being like, yeah, politicians are corrupt and they help
out their families and this goes on at the highest levels of all governments and it is really
bad and we should do something about it.
And then I turned it off, because people that didn't already know that don't belong in the
same room with the adults.
FUBAR2014 , 1 hour ago
In other words the whole Democratic party and anyone stupid enough to vote Biden.
Tom Green Swedish , 1 hour ago
Yea, read his wikipedia. This guy is the definition of corrupt. In fact he gives new
meanings to the word corrupt. What a bag of crap.
uhland62 , 1 hour ago
Manafort is the same, just revealed in trillion Dollar money laundering schams.
Touché - surprise - both parties learned from the same textbooks. One-party-rule,
two-party-rule - all the same.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
No one has ever thought that Manafort was anything other than a total sleaze. He was hired
to get Trump through a contested convention with Ted Cruz because Manafort is the only guy
around who's done it. He's responsible for Ford's successful convention fight against Reagan
in '76. Trump dropped him light a hot potato when the information about Manafort's business
in Ukraine came out.
Everyone thinks that Biden and Hunter are clean. You know, Uncle Joe. Now a lot of people
everywhere on the planet are contemplating a war with China. It'll be hard to sweep this one
under the rug like the one with Ukraine. Those deals were for dual-use technology and
required a sign off from the top dogs in the Obama administration. Getting Hunter in on the
action guaranteed smooth sailing.
I hope that Trump blasts Biden's *** with this and I don't even like Trump. Biden and his
crew are a bunch of ******* traitors and they should be outed.
hoytmonger , 1 hour ago
Who cares?
Both Bush 41 and Clinton got a pass on the drugs-for-arms being run out of Arkansas.
Barry Seal had Bush's direct White House phone number in his wallet when he was
murdered.
Then Bush became President.
Every single one of these politicians is dirty.
American2 , 1 hour ago
Bill Clinton certainly knew what was happening in Arkansas, and Bush wasn't even President
when Barry Seale was running drugs into and out of Arkansas, but Bill Clinton was the
Governor.
Shut. It. Down. , 58 minutes ago
Clinton was in on the skim to the tune of ten percent. Not to mention laundering the
profits through Dan Lasater, Jackson Stephens and the ADFA.
Air Cocaine: Poppy Bush, the Contras and a Secret Airbase in the Backwoods of Arkansas
Yup. As corrupt as they come. And creepy. And apparently suffering from early onset
dementia at the very least. And this, THIS MAN, is what the Democratic Party of the United
States of America, is putting up as a supposedly legitimate candidate for POTUS?!? This is
overly ridiculous, and proves TDS is a very real and very dangerous disease. Don't worry
about the wu¥flu, worry about the TDS.
Eastern Whale , 1 hour ago
All politicians is corrupt, lets get this straight. Naive to think Trump doesn't deal with
China.
Look at Jared Kushner's property promotion in China
pc_babe , 1 hour ago
Squirrel!
TahoeBilly2012 , 56 minutes ago
Cabal profits from there transformations and wars. They know whats coming.
Reaper , 1 hour ago
Hunter Biden has his price. It's easily negotiated lower.
Vivekwhu , 1 hour ago
So, now the Rep-Dems are accusing Biden of being a CCP agent? This will go nicely with the
Dem-Reps line that Trump is a Putin agent! Don't you love these farts while the US Plebs go
down the debt financial hole??? The rot in the Imperial DC cesspit is too deep and the coup
against Trump by the US Deep State will go kinetic very soon.
"... First, Biden's support for finance over working-class Americans. His career was bankrolled by the credit card industry. ..."
"... His explanations for carrying water for the credit card industry have changed over time. They have never rung true. ..."
"... At a fundraiser last year, Biden promised his Wall Street donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" for them if he became president. Now the financial world is raising huge money for his campaign. It clearly thinks he's going to be its friend if elected. Most Americans, who get ripped off by the financial sector on a daily basis, aren't looking for a candidate who has made their life harder. ..."
We don't have to choose Biden's way, which would give Trump a perfect foil Former
vice-president Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at Simpson College in Iowa on Saturday.
Photograph: Jack Kurtz/ZUMA Wire/REX/Shutterstock
Democrats are trying to choose a candidate to beat Donald Trump , the most corrupt president
in history. Some think nominating Joe Biden, a moderate white man who calls himself "Middle
Class" Joe, makes sense.
But Biden has a big corruption problem and it makes him a weak candidate. I know it seems
crazy, but a lot of the voters we need – independents and people who might stay home
– will look at Biden and Trump and say: "They're all dirty."
It looks like "Middle Class" Joe has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then
representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans.
Converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn't being
"moderate". It is the kind of transactional politics Americans have come to loathe.
There are three clear examples.
First, Biden's support for finance over working-class Americans. His career was
bankrolled by the credit card industry. He delivered for it by spearheading a bankruptcy
bill that made it harder for Americans to
reduce their debts and helped cause the financial crisis. He not only authored and voted
for that bill, he split with Barack Obama and led the battle to vote down Democratic
amendments .
His explanations for carrying water for the credit card industry have changed over time.
They have never rung true.
Nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to defeat Trump
The simplest explanation is the most likely: he did it for his donors. At a fundraiser last
year, Biden promised his Wall Street donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" for them
if he became president. Now the financial world is
raising huge money for his campaign. It clearly thinks he's going to be its friend if
elected. Most Americans, who get ripped off by the financial sector on a daily basis, aren't
looking for a candidate who has made their life harder.
Second, healthcare. On 25 April, the day he announced his campaign, Biden went straight to a
fundraiser
co-hosted by the chief executive of a major health insurance corporation. He refuses to
sign a
pledge to reject money from insurance and pharma execs and
continues to raise money from healthcare industry donors. His campaign is being
bankrolled by a super Pac run by healthcare lobbyists.
What did all these donors get? A healthcare proposal that
preserves the power of the insurance industry and leaves 10 million Americans
uninsured.
Third, climate change. Biden signed a pledge not to take money from the fossil fuel
industry, then broke his promise. Right after a CNN town hall on climate change, he held a
fundraiser
hosted by the founder of a fossil fuel conglomerate. He is pushing climate policy that has
gotten
dismal reviews from several leading environmental groups.
There are plenty of other examples that raise questions, like housing and social security.
Big real estate moguls are playing
a major role in Biden's campaign . Unlike his rivals, he has no comprehensive housing plan.
When he pushed for cuts to Social Security,
was he serving donors or his constituents?
I can already hear the howls: But look at Trump! Trump is 1,000 times worse!
You don't need to convince me. I have spent my life writing about and fighting against
corruption, and in America I have never seen anything like the current administration. In the
last three years, I have made combating Trump's corruption the heart of my work.
I was on the first lawsuit against him for corrupt constitutional violations and I ran for
attorney general in New York on a platform of pointing out just how dangerous he is, and how
important unused state laws are to stopping him. My work on corruption was cited in the House
judiciary committee's report on impeachment.
2020 should be about a crystal clear contrast between truth and lies, corruption and
integrity, compassion and cruelty
But here's the thing: nominating a candidate like Biden will make it far more difficult to
defeat Trump. It will allow Trump to muddy the water, to once again pretend he is the one
"draining the swamp", running against Washington culture. Trump and the Cambridge Analytica of
2020 will campaign, as they did in 2016, on a message of radical nihilism: everybody lies,
everybody is corrupt, nothing matters, there is no truth.
Corrupt politicians always use whataboutism. With Biden, we are basically handing
Trump a whataboutism playbook. The comparison won't be fair, but if you think he won't use
Biden's closeness to donors as a cudgel to try to keep people home, you haven't been paying
attention. Unlike Democrats , who must give voters a reason
to come out, Trump doesn't need voters to love him. He just needs to convince people the whole
game is ugly.
Whether or not Biden is making choices to please donors, there is no doubt his record
represents the transactional, grossly corrupt culture in Washington that long precedes Trump.
We cannot allow Trump to so lower our standards that we aren't even allowed to call out that
culture, which has not only stymied progress but also harmed the Democratic party.
The good news is that we still have time to break with this culture of corruption. We don't
have to choose Biden's way, which would give Trump a perfect foil. The 2020 election should be
about a crystal clear contrast between truth and lies, corruption and integrity, compassion and
cruelty.
We have a rare opportunity to end a larger culture of corruption and we should take it
– we will regret it if we don't.
wage stagnation and the collapse of working-class life;
our dangerously crumbling infrastructure;
our pressing need to remake our economic system to avoid the onrushing threat to human civilization as we know it posed
by the climate crisis;
and the generalized collapse of faith in our system and its most powerful practitioners, particularly among young people.
... he has not matched Sanders's willingness to disentangle us from unwinnable foreign wars.
Biden is the candidate from credit card companies and like leopard can't change its spots. He is and always was a neocon and
staunch neoliberal.
A typical Washington swamp rat. Completely despicable person, if you ask me.
And a very sick in addition to that. To the extent that he risks his life and accelerates his mental decline by running in
such a stressful contest. That's the same problem that Hillary faced.
But now with "Anybody but Trump" movement growing stronger and stronger by the day, his health problems, past warmongering
and his despicable role in the decimation of the New Deal and the establishment of the rule of financial oligarchy in the USA
might hunt him less than he deserves.
A cat or a dog in place of Biden would probably do as well this time, if not better :-)
We are in recession now and that spells big troubles for Trump. Moreover, the real contest in November most probably will be
between Trump and his administration handling of the coronavirus epidemics, not so much between Trump and Biden ;-)
“Why did Senator Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg suddenly drop out? They were all on the ballot on Super Tuesday and they suddenly
dropped out. Well, they were contacted by the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, by various people like Terry
McAuliffe, the Clintons and all of them basically saying — do it in order to save the party from Bernie Sanders, do it for Joe
Biden, our boy, you know.
These are a bunch of losers, they have lost so many elections, state, federal over the years against the worst Republican Party
in history. And the losers don’t want to give up their sinecures.
They don’t want to give up the entrenched role they play inside this decrepit Democratic Party that Bernie is trying to clean
up and reform. There are a lot of emails, calls going on after the South Carolina primary, in the three days to line up all kinds
of party apparatchiks, to get out the vote, to bad mouth Bernie”
Joe Biden was for all of these corporate managed trade agreements that emptied his beloved native Pennsylvania of jobs. He
supported all of the wars that Clinton and Obama supported. He is the toady of the big banks in Delaware. He supported the Wall
Street bailout after the crash in 2009.
He was the waterboy for the credit card industry and their rapacious interest rates and penalties. And he comes from Delaware,
which is the hospitality center for giant corporations to be chartered in so that they can have permissive corporate laws and
strip their own shareholders and mutual funds and pension funds of the rights of ownership, entrenching power at the top among
the corporate executive class. He voted for legislation in the Senate that led to mass incarceration. That’s all, just for starters.
“He’s responsible for Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. He took Thurgood Marshall’s seat and he’s been voting against
black and Latino interests ever since, making a difference in 5-4 decisions. And as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Biden
mistreated Anita Hill, who was a star witness. And he didn’t urge the Democrats not to bolt — and eleven of them bolted and
supported Clarence Thomas who won 52-48 in a Democratically controlled Senate. He’s responsible for a lot of those 5-4 votes
where Clarence Thomas makes the difference.”
Go go, Joe! We all love you here. We like what you’ve done….more of the same, pleeeeeeeeeeeze!
This is a great idea. Maybe Bernie can sell it to Biden for getting out of the primary after the next debate.
“As Joe Biden romped to victory on what cable news called “Super Tuesday II” in recognition of the American public’s relentless
thirst for branded sequels, CNN’s Jake Tapper surveyed the scene and offered a cheerful parallel: what if this is like John Kerry
in 2004, where the fading Bernie Sanders has reprised the role of Howard Dean? The comparison only goes so far, even if the lion’s
share of the Democratic electorate is once again motivated almost solely by defeating the Republican incumbent, and have put on
their pundit caps to rally around the guy they’ve convinced themselves is most Electable. For one thing, Donald Trump is particularly
unpopular, and it appears—based on the 2018 midterms and some data out of Michigan last night—that Republicans are hemorrhaging
support among white suburban voters, particularly women, as a result.
Still, there are ways in which Biden is weak. It does us no good to pretend that he is the same guy who tore apart Paul Ryan
in a vice-presidential debate in 2012. He is slower now, and there are times he doesn’t always make sense. Trump has his own problems
in that department, but the president’s primal instinct for viciousness and cruelty could still prove effective against Biden—not
that, based on 2016, debates particularly matter.
Biden’s more significant problems may arise with voters who believe the economy is not working for them, that they’ve been
left behind by a system rigged against them. Biden’s emerging coalition of the Democratic Party’s African-American base and Trump-hating
suburbanites will need to feature younger and white working-class voters to get him across the line in places like Michigan—the
kind of votes that Hillary Clinton failed to get running a campaign that was primarily a negation of Trump, not unlike the one
Biden’s running. He also needs to make inroads with Hispanic voters, who skew younger and working class and have gravitated to
the Sanders campaign.
You need to be running for something, not just against something, to get the votes you need beyond the Democratic primary electorate.
Joe Biden must have a signature policy that will speak to the fundamental issues of our time:
wage stagnation and the collapse of working-class life;
our dangerously crumbling infrastructure;
our pressing need to remake our economic system to avoid the onrushing threat to human civilization as we know it posed
by the climate crisis;
and the generalized collapse of faith in our system and its most powerful practitioners, particularly among young people.
The answer to all this may just be a Green New Deal, or at least a similar green infrastructure plan. If Biden is reluctant
to call it the Green New Deal for fear of tying himself to the left and/or alienating the suburbanites in his coalition, he can
call it the Rebuild America for the 21st Century Plan or whatever the hell he wants. But since it’s abundantly clear he’s not
going to pursue any major healthcare reform, he needs to present a simple and clear vision for America’s future, not just a promise
to return things to, like, 2015 or whatever, before the orange man made everything bad. Clearly everything was not good back then,
since an insane game-show host got enough traction with the electorate to crash into the White House. People outside the Democratic
primary electorate will need to believe their lives will change beyond the blessed prospect they won’t have to see the president
making a mess on TV every day.
Former US Vice President Joe Biden
Biden will need more than just an anti-Trump message in November.
First, an infrastructure bill is a political winner. Perhaps Trump’s biggest mistake was having Paul Ryan and Co. try to Repeal
and Replace the Affordable Care Act as the Republicans’ first major initiative on seizing control of every branch of government
in 2016. If Trump had pushed a massive infrastructure bill, the cowering Democrats in Congress would have gone right with him.
He could have gotten a bipartisan deal through immediately and done a victory lap as The Artful Dealmaker Who Cuts Through All
the Political Bullshit to Get Things Done. Instead, he oversaw a quixotic quest to try to erase the first black president’s signature
achievement, which The Base would have loved but which ultimately proved a massive dud politically. Biden could run on an infrastructure
bill and remind people over and over again that Trump failed to deliver on a similar promise and tried to strip them of their
healthcare instead.
Second, the bill would create good-paying jobs in both urban and rural communities across the country at a time when the American
economy’s fastest-growing segment is the “low-wage workforce”—the 53 million Americans, and 44 percent of American workers, who
do not make a living wage. This state of affairs is destroying people’s lives and fueling social and political dysfunction as
hope gives way to rage and despair. Put people to work on a living wage rebuilding the infrastructure in their communities so
it’s fit for the trials to come, including adaptation and mitigation of the climate crisis.
Which brings us to three: it’s the right thing to do. The people who study this stuff—at, say, the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change—say we are running out of time to fundamentally transform our economy to stop putting carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, which traps heat and in turn destabilizes our ecosystems and throws our only planet into a level of disarray that
threatens our very way of life. We have a moral and practical duty to rebuild our society in the image of the future, which means
clean energy and an infrastructure that’s equipped to deal with rising seas, more ferocious storms and wildfires, severe floods
and drought. Forget about what it costs—nobody actually cares about The National Debt, as Trump’s time in the sun has demonstrated.
If Trump attacks him on it, he can point to Trump’s ballooning of the deficit to give tax cuts to rich people and multinational
corporations. Plus, this investment could spur economic activity in the same way Republicans always say tax cuts will, except
it might actually happen.
Last, this is the most promising avenue for Biden to reach out to The Youth Vote which has so conspicuously evaded him in the
primaries. While some of that is down to Bernie Sanders’s incredible appeal to voters under 30—and, if last night is anything
to go on, his comparative strength with voters under 50(!)—a lot is due to the fact that Biden has so far failed to connect with
them on any level. He does not embrace Medicare For All, he does not devote a lot of time or concern to the metric ton of student
loan debt that is crushing an entire generation of Americans, he has not matched Sanders’s willingness to disentangle us from
unwinnable foreign wars.
He must hang his hat on this issue, showing younger voters that he knows their futures are at stake—and not just when it comes
to the climate crisis. These are some of the people who could fill the good-paying jobs that will be created. These are people
who will spend the next 40 years driving over broken-down bridges across this country. Biden will never summon the energy Sanders
does among young people, but he needs to get some of them out to vote. He should come out for the Green New Deal—or, again, whatever
the hell he wants to call it. It’s a promise to rebuild America. It’s something to come out and vote for. Unless, of course, Biden
really just wants to go backwards.”
Another 200 talented and determined Trump election volunteers in action. With such successes
in his re-election campaign Trump probably can save all the money for advertizing. MSM will do it
for him. Amazing.
From comments: "Vote for Joe Biden so you can experience the BLM/Antifa riots right from your
own front porch."
Around 200 demonstrators marched through the city on Saturday night, with some individuals
smashing windows and applying graffiti on buildings. A bank, a restaurant and a Starbucks
coffee shop were among the businesses targeted, the Portland Police said in a statement. No
arrests were made, but the acts of vandalism are under investigation.
Protesters were also filmed burning an American flag as they chanted "black trans lives
matter." In another incident, they torched a pro-police 'thin blue line' flag as they
shouted "blue lives splatter."
Elsewhere in the city, online footage shows demonstrators stopping a truck and then ordering
one of its passengers to raise his fist and say "black lives matter." The vehicle's
windows were reportedly later smashed by the protesters.
Portland's chaotic streets had quietened down due to poor air quality resulting from nearby
forest fires, but protests resumed earlier this week. On Friday, 11 people were arrested after
demonstrators targeted an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in the city.
Oregon's biggest city had previously seen more than 100 consecutive nights of racial
injustice protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police
in May.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
KarlthePoet 4 hours ago 20 Sep, 2020 12:55 PM
The Jewish Banking Cartel ultimately controls the US government. They are not 'for' the
people of America. They are 'for' profit. They also control Wall Street. The reason society
is breaking down in America and in Europe is due to the fact that the economy only works for
a small percentage of people. When the economy is stable, society develops. The economy is no
longer stable. Things will get much worse after the election, no matter who wins. The
collapse has been triggered.
ariadnatheo 3 hours ago 20 Sep, 2020 02:02 PM
The best "peaceful demonstrations" money can buy: George Soros's Open Society Institute
donated $650,000 to Black Lives Matter.. .According to one watchdog group, "In 2016
organizations in the Black Lives Matter movement received $33 million in grants from the Open
Society Foundations, founded by Hungarian hedge fund manager George Soros in 1993
Wally Downey 4 hours ago 20 Sep, 2020 01:31 PM
Vote for Joe Biden so you can experience the BLM/Antifa riots right from your own front
porch.
"... these "contested election" scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series. ..."
"... the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump. ..."
"... Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States ..."
"... In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual, and conveniently titled it "The Playbook." ..."
In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first
drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United
States government employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of
government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George
Soros linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election" scenarios we are hearing
so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color
Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News' series exposing the Color Revolution against
Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition
Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of Norm
Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into
paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax,
who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump
ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots
against President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of
the United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color
revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same
regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order
to undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very
same playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put
it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but
the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity
against targets overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly
literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change
manual, and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar (yes, Norm Eisen was
Obama's ethics Czar), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently partook in
war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a detailed
playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm Eisen
only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned chaos
unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election in
our nation's recent history.
... ... ...
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as
Eisen simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless
times when foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such. ... ... ...
So, it appears the War on Populism is building
toward an exciting climax. All the proper pieces are in place for a Class-A GloboCap color
revolution , and maybe even civil war. You got your unauthorized Putin-Nazi president, your
imaginary apocalyptic pandemic, your violent identitarian civil unrest, your heavily-armed
politically-polarized populace, your ominous rumblings from military quarters you couldn't
really ask for much more.
OK, the plot is pretty obvious by now (as it is in all big-budget action spectacles, which
is essentially what color revolutions are), but that won't spoil our viewing experience. The
fun isn't in guessing what is going to happen. Everybody knows what's going to happen. The fun
is in watching Bruce, or Sigourney, or "the moderate rebels," or the GloboCap "Resistance,"
take down the monster, or the terrorists, or Hitler, and save the world, or democracy, or
whatever.
Presidential hopeful Joe Biden issued a stark warning to Americans, saying that "200 million
people will die" of Covid-19 by the end of his short speech. Biden's wacky math once again
raised concern over his mental fitness.
Speaking in Philadelphia on Sunday, Biden hammered President Donald Trump's handling of the
coronavirus pandemic, but one of his statements stood out from the rest of the speech.
"It's estimated that 200 million people will die, probably by the time I finish this
talk," he announced, waving his arms for emphasis.
Biden has fumbled his figures before, claiming earlier this
summer that more than 120 million Americans had died of Covid-19, overstating the true death
toll by a factor of 1,000. Back in February, he claimed during a primary debate that "150
million" Americans had died of gun violence since 2007 – nearly half the country's
population.
President Trump has made attacking Biden's mental health a key tactic in his reelection
campaign. With Biden floundering through
speeches, and relying increasingly on a teleprompter to stay on
message, Trump joked during a rally on Saturday night that his Democratic opponent is
"shot," and has "half his head left."
Police in Louisville,
Kentucky, have arrested a man for shooting three men dead in a bar. The killer apparently
struck without motive, and some commentators have accused the press of burying the story.
Michael E. Rhynes Jr, 33, was arrested just after midnight on Saturday and charged with
three counts of murder, after he allegedly walked into Bungalow Joe's Bar and Grill, pulled a
handgun, and shot three men dead at point-blank range.
"Nobody had ever seen this guy before," bar owner Joe Bishop told
WRDB News . "It was a totally random act. I didn't think I'd be scrubbing blood off my
patio on a Saturday morning."
According to journalist Cassandra Fairbanks, the suspect made several social media
posts supporting
the 'Black Lives Matter' cause.
Little is known about the case so far, and Rhynes Jr's political beliefs remain the stuff of
online speculation. However, the national media has been accused of turning a blind eye to
black-on-white killings before, most recently when five-year-old Cannon Hinnant was brutally
executed by his neighbor, a black man, in North Carolina in August. Hinnant's killing was the
talk of Twitter for more than a week before it was picked up by national news networks.
UnableSemen 24 minutes ago 20 Sep, 2020 05:40 PM
Foreign media (like RT) is the only place where you will hear stories like this. The US media
will bury this.
sukmiwangyak 38 minutes ago 20 Sep, 2020 05:26 PM
It was raciest based as well as a hate crime, I will not be surprise if they let him go these
days. BLM is nothing more than a terrorist organization with a licenses. There is no more
Media in US, let's stop referring them as news networks, they are part of the Propaganda
efforts from the swamp.
omyomy sukmiwangyak 10 minutes ago 20 Sep, 2020 05:54 PM
The juice owned media supports BLM unconditionally. So who are the racists again?
A Black Lives
Matter activist in Washington has gone into social media hiding after her efforts to dox a CVS
drugstore manager for calling the police on two suspected shoplifters didn't go over as
swimmingly as she planned.
The chain of events began when the woman, Charity Sade, started recording police who were
questioning two black men outside a CVS store. At one point, an officer warns one of the
suspects not to interrupt him while he's talking to the other man, saying "His freedom is
dependent on your actions." Sade then interjects, asking the officer for his name and badge
number.
She then films another video of herself confronting the CVS manager inside the store for
calling the police. The manager explains that it's company policy to contact the police when a
shoplifter exits the store without paying for merchandise. He added that he chose not to press
charges against the men, but asked the police to inform them that they could no longer shop at
his store.
Sade then berates the manager, saying, "It's not your merchandise. It's the store's. So,
you know what happens... You decided to call the police on two black people that stole, that
allegedly took something from the store because you're willing to uphold the policy, and they
could have lost their lives."
When the manager replied that he follows CVS policy, not the woman's policy, Sade said,
"So you're willing to risk someone's lives for what, $30,000 a year?"
The manager told her that he saw no such risk, thanked her and began to walk away, at which
point Sade asked for his name. When he refused to answer, she asked another employee. The
manager shot back: "No one's going to tell you my name when you're in here videotaping us so
that you can try to elicit some sort of violence. It's not going to happen." Sade then
attempted to turn the tables, accusing the manager of trying to elicit violence against the
black men by calling the police.
The woman, who identifies herself as a comedian, activist and teacher, posted the videos to
her Twitter account on Thursday, including a picture of the CVS manager and the policeman's
badge number, along with hashtags #BLM and #PeopleOverProperty. To her surprise, reaction was
overwhelmingly negative and she later made her Twitter account private and deleted her
Instagram account. She also attempted to organize a protest outside the store on Facebook.
Twitter users saved Sade's videos before access to her accounts was blocked, enabling the
discussion of her conduct to continue. Author and media critic Mark Dice called her a BLM
"Karen," while conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said anyone who disagreed with
the CVS manager's explanation "should be institutionalized." Journalist Jessica
O'Donnell of The Blaze said that lowering standards
for black people, suggesting that they should be allowed to shoplift, is "actually the
racist thing in the scenario."
"... 80% of the electorate, maybe more, are always locked into their partisan holds in every election. It would appear that only 5-10% are really persuadable. There's typically a swing to one side by the persuadables as voting begins. It invariably then comes down to enthusiasm. Who can turnout more of their voters? ..."
"... I am wondering if Biden is taking steroids. That's the first question I'd ask him at the debate. ..."
At this point Trump should start challenging Kamala to a debate since she's going to be
defacto ruler. (Unless the Biden people have figured out for themselves she'll be purging
them - all oth them - once he's gone.)
"It is going to require a lot of mail in ballots to make Harris/Biden co-presidents"
They've already gotten two judges to extend deadlines in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Nothing
beats legislating from the bench.
While we'll need to wait for the October surprise to gauge better the last minute swings,
80% of the electorate, maybe more, are always locked into their partisan holds in every
election. It would appear that only 5-10% are really persuadable. There's typically a swing
to one side by the persuadables as voting begins. It invariably then comes down to
enthusiasm. Who can turnout more of their voters?
This year like most other years just a handful of states will decide. IMO, they are
Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The bigger question is the Senate. The Democrats are in striking distance of a majority.
If Trump wins the presidency but the Democrats win the Senate it would only increase
impeachment attempts.
Those clever and evil Russians are at the top of their game
again. For less then 20 millions dollars they dispose Hillary in 2016
and now intend to dispose Creepy Joe. Wait, is that this a valuable service to the
nation?
The collapse of neoliberalism forces the US neoliberal elite to deploy desperate measures to preserve the unity of the nation
and the US-controlled world neoliberal empire. Neo-McCarthyism in one of those dirty tricks. The pioneer in this dirty game was
Hillary, but now it is shared by both parties.
According to FBI director Christopher Wray you need to be Russian to
understand that Biden as a Presidential Candidate is DOA. And that decision of DNC to prop him
instead of Sanders or Warren was pretty idiotic, and was based on the power the neoliberal wing
(aka Clinton mafia) still holds within the Party. You have to be pretty delusional to believe
Biden has all his marbles.
And by "interference" he means reporting in the news and expressing
own opinion. Like in 2016 looks like FBI again crossed the line and had become the third
political party, which intends to be the kingmaker of the Presidential elections. So here's a
suggestion: call in UN observers to the elections.
Russian media influence is actually very easy to prove -- just ask yourself, do you trust
RT more than CNN? But if a person laugh every time Joe Biden talks and it has nothing to do
with Russia.
And if this nonsense again comes from the FBI Director, the legitimate question is "What
next?" The claim that Putin ordered the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?
Look at all those hapless intelligence agencies, helplessly watching Russian hackers
stealing election. But, wait a minute, we are talking about arguably the largest, best
equipped, best financed and most devious intelligence agencies on the Earth. So it is natural
to assume that people who want to steal the election are those who cry most loudly about the
Russian influence.
Actually If Russia really wanted to "sink" Biden all that it would need to do is noisily
support him openly. The rabid Russophobia would do the rest: Unfortunately most of of Americans
are spoon fed neoliberal propaganda and don't care much about if it's real or not. That reminds
me the USSR where the life of people was difficult enough not to pay attention to Communist
Party slogans and propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the FBI director, the Russians' primary goal seems to be not only to " sow divisiveness and discord ," but to trash Democratic nominee Joe Biden – along with " what the Russians see as a kind of anti-Russian establishment " – through social media, " use of proxies ," state-run media, and " online journals ." ..."
"... Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats even suggested Congress create another election integrity body to supervise the vote in November, apparently concerned the existing authorities – all 54 of them, one for each state plus four federal entities tasked with keeping meddlers, foreign and domestic, shut out – weren't enough. ..."
"... "Crowd pleasing claims" is spot on the money. Sounds like the FBI has been tasked to lay some groundwork for the "after party". He knows what he is doing. ..."
"... Nothing new from the man who was Comey's assistant AG when Comey was Deputy Attorney General. ..."
Russia is reprising its still-unproven 2016 election meddling efforts, this time targeting
Democratic challenger Joe Biden, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, who gave no
evidence to support his crowd-pleasing claims.
Wray told the House of Representatives that Russia is taking a " very active " role
in the 2020 US election, claiming Moscow " continues to try to influence our elections,
primarily through what we call malign foreign influence " during a Thursday hearing on
national security threats.
According to the FBI director, the Russians' primary goal seems to be not only to " sow
divisiveness and discord ," but to trash Democratic nominee Joe Biden – along with
" what the Russians see as a kind of anti-Russian establishment " – through
social media, " use of proxies ," state-run media, and " online journals ."
Wray contrasted 2020's alleged meddling with that of 2016, which he claimed involved "
an effort to target election infrastructure ," presenting no evidence to back up
either current or past claims – other than that the FBI or other intelligence agencies
had made the same claims in the past. There is no actual evidence that Russia interfered with
election infrastructure in 2016.
While four years of similarly flavored conspiracy theories blaming Russia for Donald
Trump's 2016 win have come up empty-handed, the paucity of real-world evidence for 'Russian
meddling' has not stopped Wray and other US intel officials from hyping it up as a major
threat to the integrity of the democratic process.
The National Counterintelligence and Security Center suggested last month that, while
Russia would interfere in the election in favor of Trump, China and Iran would meddle on
behalf of Biden – implying Americans couldn't vote at all without doing the bidding of
a foreign nation.
Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats even suggested Congress create another
election integrity body to supervise the vote in November, apparently concerned the existing
authorities – all 54 of them, one for each state plus four federal entities tasked with
keeping meddlers, foreign and domestic, shut out – weren't enough.
TWOhand 5 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:49 PM
"Crowd pleasing claims" is spot on the money. Sounds like the FBI has been tasked to lay
some groundwork for the "after party". He knows what he is doing.
danko79 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:22 PM
Can't feel anything but sympathy for those that are so easily influenced. If/when Biden
loses, perhaps blaming his lack of ability to string a few words together might be more
relevant than any kind of imaginary foreign interference.
Terry Ross 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:43 PM
Nothing new from the man who was Comey's assistant AG when Comey was Deputy Attorney General. Wray made it clear
when sworn in for position of FBI head that he believed Russia had interfered to help Trump win 2016 election. The only
question that remains is why Trump picked him for the job.
Karl Marx said that " Philosophers have hitherto only
interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it ." I doubt very much that
you will know which changes you need to make if you don't have a very good idea about your
starting point. In his book Factfulness and in his many excellent online presentations, the
late Swedish Professor of International Health Hans Rosling identifies a lot of the ways things
have gotten better , especially for the world's poorest.
Suppose, for example, that you encounter the name " Milton Friedman ,"
perhaps in connection with lamented "neoliberalism" and maybe in connection with human rights
abuses perpetrated by the brutal Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Friedman has been denounced
as the "father of global misery," and his reputation has taken another beating in the wake of
the fiftieth anniversary of his 1970 New York Times Magazine essay " The Social Responsibility of Business is to
Increase its Profits ," which I suspect most people haven't read past its title. But what
happened during "The Age of Milton Friedman," as the economist Andrei Shleifer asked in
a 2009
article ? Shleifer points out that "Between 1980 and 2005, as the world embraced free
market policies, living standards rose sharply, while life expectancy, educational attainment,
and democracy improved and absolute poverty declined."
Things have never been so good, and they are getting better , especially for the world's
poor.
In 2008, there was a bit of controversy over the establishment of the Milton Friedman
Institute at the University of Chicago, which operates today as the Becker Friedman Institute (it is also named for Friedman's
fellow Chicago economist Gary Becker ). In a
blistering
reply to a protest letter signed by a
group of faculty members at the University of Chicago, the economist John Cochrane wrote, "If
you start with the premise that the last 40 or so years, including the fall of communism, and
the opening of China and India are 'negative for much of the world's population,' you just
don't have any business being a social scientist. You don't stand a chance of contributing
something serious to the problems that we actually do face." Nor, might I add, do you stand
much of a chance of concocting a revolutionary program that will actually help the people
you're trying to lead.
2. What makes me so sure I won't replace the existing regime with
something far worse?
I might hesitate to push the aforementioned button because while the world we actually
inhabit is far from perfect, it's not at all clear that deleting the state overnight wouldn't
mean civilization's wholesale and maybe even perpetual collapse. At the very least, I would
want to think long and hard about it. The explicit mention of Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara in
the course description suggest that students will be approaching revolutionary ideas from the
left. They should look at the results of populist revolutions in 20th century Latin America,
Africa, and Asia. The blood of many millions starved and slaughtered in efforts to "forge a
better society" cries out against socialism and communism, and
macroeconomic populism in Latin America has been disastrous . As people have pointed out
when told that "democratic socialists" aren't trying to turn their countries into Venezuela,
Venezuelans weren't trying to turn their country into Venezuela when they embraced Hugo Chavez.
I wonder why we should expect WLU's aspiring revolutionaries to succeed where so many others
have failed.
3. Is my revolutionary program just a bunch of platitudes with which no
decent person would disagree?
In 2019, Kristian Niemietz of London's Institute of Economic Affairs published a useful
volume titled Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies , which you can
download for $0 from IEA . He notes a tendency for socialists and neo-socialists to pitch
their programs almost exclusively in terms of their hoped-for results rather than in terms of
the operation of concrete social processes they hope to set in motion (on this I paraphrase
my intellectual hero Thomas Sowell ).
Apply a test proposed a long time ago by the economist William Easterly: can you imagine
anyone seriously objecting to what you're saying? If not, then you probably aren't saying
anything substantive. Can you imagine someone saying "I hate the idea of the world's poor
having better food, clothing, shelter, and medical care" or "It would be a very bad thing if
more people were literate?" If not, then it's likely that your revolutionary program is a
tissue of platitudes and empty promises. That's not to say it won't work politically–God
knows, nothing sells better on election day than platitudes and empty promises–but you
shouldn't think you're saying anything profound if all you're saying is something obvious like
"It would be nice if more people had access to clean, drinkable water."
... ... ...
7. How has it worked the other times it has been tried?
Years before the Russian Revolution, Eugene Richter predicted with eerie prescience what
would happen in a socialist society in his short book Pictures of the Socialistic Future (
which you can
download for $0 here ). Bryan Caplan, who wrote the foreword for that edition of Pictures
and who put together the online " Museum of Communism ," points out
the distressing regularity with which communists go from "bleeding heart" to "mailed fist." It
doesn't take long for communist regimes to go from establishing a workers' paradise to shooting
people who try to leave. Consider whether or not the brutality and mass murder of communist
regimes is a feature of the system rather than a bug. Hugo Chavez and Che
Guevara both expressed bleeding hearts with their words but used a mailed fist in practice
(I've written before that "irony" is denouncing Milton Friedman for the crimes of Augusto
Pinochet while wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. Pinochet was a murderous thug. Guevara was, too).
Caplan points to
pages 105 and 106 of Four Men: Living the Revolution: An Oral History of Contemporary Cuba
. On page 105, Lazaro Benedi Rodriguez's heart is bleeding for the illiterate. On page 106,
he's "advis(ing) Fidel to have an incinerator dug about 40 or 50 meters deep, and every time
one of these obstinate cases came up, to drop the culprit in the incinerator, douse him with
gasoline, and set him on fire."
... ... ...
9. What will I do with people who aren't willing to go along with my
revolution?
Walter Williams once said that he doesn't mind if communists want to be communists. He minds
that they want him to be a communist, too. Would you allow people to try capitalist experiments
in your socialist paradise? Or socialist experiments in your capitalist paradise (Families,
incidentally, are socialist enterprises that run by the principle "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.")? Am I willing to allow dissenters to advocate my
overthrow, or do I need to crush dissent and control the minds of the masses in order for my
revolution to work? Am I willing to allow people to leave, or will I need to build a wall to
keep people in?
10. Am I letting myself off the hook for questions 1-9 and giving myself
too much credit for passion and sincerity?
The philosopher David Schmidtz has said that if your best argument is that your heart is in
the right place, then your heart is most definitely not in the right place. Consider this quote
from Edmund Burke and ask whether or not it leads you to revise your revolutionary plans:
"A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood. He would feel some
apprehension at being called to a tremendous account for engaging in so deep a play, without
any sort of knowledge of the game. It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is
directed by insolent passion. The poorest being that crawls on earth, contending to save
itself from injustice and oppression is an object respectable in the eyes of God and man. But
I cannot conceive any existence under heaven (which, in the depths of its wisdom, tolerates
all sorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting, than an impotent helpless
creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other
qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling
for battles which he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can never
exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order to render others
contemptible and wretched." (Emphasis added).
By Diana Bruk , a Russian-American journalist living in New York, who has written for The
New York Times, The Paris Review, Cosmopolitan, Esquire and Elle, amongst other
publications.
Many people who previously would have never considered voting for Donald
Trump will now do so due to the excesses of the social justice brigade. The Left's failure to
understand basic human psychology could decide the election.
I've always considered myself a soft Liberal. But the last few months have really brought
out my conservative side, and I'm not the only one. I've recently spoken to several working
class people who were told they were being laid off just before getting an email saying the
company was looking to "diversify its staff," and their responses were all the same:
"F**k this, I'm voting for Trump."
One of my issues with social activism has always been that it centers around an idea and
doesn't take basic human psychology into account. I understand that racism in America exists
and should be eradicated. I understand and agree with the fact that there should be more people
of color in white collar positions. I also understand that white, working-class people have
families to feed and bills to pay, and that the only natural response to being fired and
replaced by a person of color is to vote for Trump as a means of revenge.
I'm ashamed to say I've had to fight off the same thoughts in the last few weeks. I'm white
and well-educated, so, by Liberal standards, I'm automatically privileged. But I don't have
family money to fall back on, and need and want to work. I used to get a decent amount of
assignments and opportunities from a Facebook group for female writers, but, lately, every post
says "BIPOC writers only." Theoretically, I'm all for it. If I were lounging around
daddy's pool posting socially aware updates all day, I'd be even more for it. But I'm not and I
also need to eat.
Russian-American immigrants have been more pissed off than I've ever seen them lately, and I
understand why. In addition to all of the usual issues, they have to deal with feeling like
they're black and white at the same time. To be light-skinned means getting fired or otherwise
attacked for not being a person of color. But to have an accent and need to work to make a
living makes you a minority. Social media makes it seem like everyone is either a 'Karen' or
'Straight Outta Compton,' but there's a lot of in between, and those are the people who are
being forgotten. And they're the ones who vote.
When I tell my social justice friends that there are a lot of working class white people who
feel marginalized right now, their response is always the same: "Well, that's how black
people have felt for a long time." I totally get that and I agree. But there's a difference
between justice and revenge. And it's also an election year. The Black Lives Matter movement is
important, but it's so poorly timed that, were I a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the
Republicans were behind it all along.
So this is my message to all of my social justice friends: I know you mean well, but be
smart about this. None of us wants Trump to get re-elected. We're already stuck with Acceptable
Under the Circumstances Joe Biden because of all of the in-fighting between Elizabeth Warren
supporters and Bernie Sanders aficionados.
You have to understand that being antagonistic is just going to make the Other Side feel
defensive and lash out. This is, once again, basic human psychology, and it will not get you
the results you want, and then you're just going to whine and moan about it as usual.
I saw a viral Simpsons clip recently that summed things up nicely. An elephant runs through
the Republican National Convention, which has banners saying "We want what's worst for
everyone" and "We're just plain evil." Then it runs through a Democratic National
Convention, which has banners saying "We can't govern" and "We hate life and
ourselves." I get that you feel guilty for being white and wealthy and having a lot when
others have so little. Recognize that, own it, and stop being so self-righteous about it.
Recognize that posting hateful comments on the walls of people whose opinions differ from
yours is cyber-bullying, which you are purportedly against. Recognize that hating on people who
are having anxiety attacks over wearing masks and the general situation means bullying people
with mental health issues, which you are also purportedly against. And recognize that if you
are going to make large swaths of people feel attacked by Democrats, you are pushing them right
into Trump's stiff, unstable embrace.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
President Trump has accused Joe Biden of being a puppet of the "radical left." But the US'
most prominent leftist, Bernie Sanders thinks Biden isn't leaning left enough. His concerns
seem to be falling on deaf ears, though.
Trump has said that Joe Biden, a centrist democrat with nearly five decades of experience in
Washington, is a "puppet of the radical left movement that seeks to destroy the American way
of life." Central to Trump's argument is Biden's refusal to strongly condemn the wave of
violence that's accompanied 'Black Lives Matter' protests, as well as his pledge to roll back
Trump's tax cuts should he win in November.
Creepy Joe used to be a stanch neoliberal, who promoted open militarism, empowerment of
multinationals at the expense of working people; two feature of neofascism.
The Left justifies extreme and violent action by framing Trump as an existential threat to
America...
It might not seem immediately apparent that Joe Biden would have anything in common with
insurrectionary anarchists. After all, Biden has been deeply entrenched in the uppermost
echelons of American political power for nearly five decades straight -- whereas
insurrectionary anarchists generally seek to overthrow those systems, by violent force if
necessary.
The former Vice-President is not exactly the type you would imagine clad in all-black
combat-style street apparel, hurling commercial-grade fireworks at police officers. Rather, he
drafted the infamous 1994 omnibus crime bill in concert with the National Association of Police
Organizations. He is even known to venerate the arcane institutionalist ethos of the US Senate
-- whereas to insurrectionary anarchists, such institutions could only be tools of
oppression.
But the Trump Era has an odd way of bringing about unexpected ideological convergences. In
the announcement video that formally kicked off his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden
paid homage to what he called the "courageous group of Americans" who descended upon
Charlottesville, VA in August 2017 to confront an assembly of Right-wing rally-goers. Among
that "courageous group" were Left-wing activist factions broadly classified under the banner of
"antifa".
For Biden, what transpired in Charlottesville was a "defining moment," and formed the basis
for his decision to launch a third campaign for the presidency at age 76. While Biden did
herald generic American idealism in that announcement video -- which would be anathema to most
insurrectionary anarchists -- in the gravity he assigned to the Charlottesville episode, he
also affirmed a core tenet of the "antifa" worldview: the notion that a uniquely pressing
fascistic threat has gripped the country, and crushing this threat is a matter of unparalleled
world-historic urgency.
Certainly, if you picked any "antifa" member at random, there'd be an almost 0% chance that
they would express any kind of personal enthusiasm for Joe Biden. But there'd be a virtually
100% chance that they'd express a great deal of enthusiasm for the theory that "fascism" is an
accurate characterisation of America's current state of governance. Biden would be similarly
enthused to present a variation of this analysis, albeit from a slightly different ideological
angle. He typically intones things like, "This is not who we are", rather than "All Cops Are
Bastards".
Still, where Biden is united with "antifa" is in assigning such outsized importance to the
role of small-time "fascist" agitators like the ones who gathered that weekend three years ago
in Charlottesville (despite ultimately being outnumbered by Left-wing activists) on account of
the validation they are purported to have received from Donald Trump. For both Biden and
"antifa," this dynamic constitutes the chief prism through which contemporary American
political affairs must be viewed.
And for both Biden and "antifa," this mode of analysis has been hugely successful. "Antifa"
has succeeded in stoking nationwide insurrectionary fervour on a scale unseen in decades. Given
their opposition to Trump as the alleged fascist-in-chief, as well as their appropriation of
the "Black Lives Matter" protest mantle, they've received an extraordinary amount of mainstream
liberal legitimation.
Democratic Party operatives have even gone so far as to exalt "antifa" activists as the
modern-day equivalents of US soldiers fighting in World War II -- while apparently exhibiting
no embarrassment for invoking this comparison.
Another clear beneficiary of the "fascism" panic, somewhat paradoxically, has been Biden. A
supreme irony of the outsized role that "anti-fascism" has played in post-2016 US political
discourse -- as popularised by both liberals and leftists, who often claim to be at odds with
each other but nonetheless overwhelmingly agree on the underlying "fascism" prognosis -- is
that it has ultimately limited the possibility of actual Left-wing policy reform.
Democratic presidential primary voters had been traumatised by the non-stop barrage of
Trump-related hysteria churned out each and every day by profit-driven corporate media outlets,
and laboured under the sincere belief that Trump's America bears some bonafide relation to
Weimar Germany. As such, a plurality were understandably uninterested in foundational reform to
the Democratic Party.
That was bad news for socialist Bernie Sanders, who ended up losing handily in the 2020
primaries to a former Vice President whose entire campaign was predicated on little more than
restoring the pre-2016 Democratic Party to power.
And in a way, you can't particularly blame those Biden voters. Because if your main sources
of information tell you for years on end that the reins of state have been seized by an
out-and-out fascist, who is fuelling a siege of "Nazi" street agitators, whatever deficiencies
the Democratic Party might have at the moment are of little or no concern. Now even Sanders
himself has called for a "united front" against Trump ahead of the election, seeming to suggest
that the precedent of Francisco Franco is historically apt. Wasn't the whole problem with
Franco that he couldn't be voted out?
Never mind that Trump would have to be quite a feckless fascist to allow himself to be
constantly maligned in the country's major media, plotted against by his own administration
underlings, and impeached. The decidedly unsexy reality is that Trump has been a fairly weak
executive, at least relative to his predecessors in the postwar era.
But his radically unorthodox communications style belies any dispassionate assessment of
this record, thus the fascism-mongering persists more-or-less unabated. And for all the
warnings of a Reichstag Fire moment always supposedly being around the corner, the past six
months of Covid and riots were a missed opportunity for any genuine fascist seeking to
consolidate power. Trump appears largely content with issuing inflammatory tweets.
So as riots continue around the country, and corporate news networks describe post-protest
scenes with raging infernos as "mostly peaceful", the temptation can be to write this off as
mere partisan side-taking. Certainly there's an element of that -- most journalists desperately
don't want to see Trump win in November.
But thanks to the prevailing "fascism" framework, their opposition to Trump isn't just a
matter of ordinary election-year preference. It's imbued with existential,
civilisation-altering significance. How could anyone in their right mind not do everything
within their capacity to ensure the defeat of fascism? Once you accept the premise that fascism
does in fact accurately describe the current state of American governance, all bets are off --
journalistically and otherwise.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
So even if the "anti-fascists" in the equation are burning down cities, they will still
never exist on the same moral plane as the actual "fascists" whose champion occupies the White
House. Hence, riots which result in the destruction of huge swaths of Kenosha, WI magically
become a "mostly peaceful" affair according to CNN and the New York Times .
Yes, journalists also presumptively ascribe a certain virtue to any protests that occur with
the imprimatur of "Black Lives Matter". But racial disparities have been a fact of American
life since the dawn of the republic. The unavoidable explanation for why they've taken on such
frantic energy in the past several months is the alleged spectre of fascism, namely Trump. With
a Democratic President, even one as vanilla as Biden, there will doubtless be future race-based
controversies. But they won't have the cosmic weight as those that occur when a "fascist"
president also looms.
Adding to the growing list of ironies, Trump's primary conception of the presidency has less
been Fuhrer, than "Pundit-in-Chief", whereby he proudly brandishes the role of world's loudest
media critic -- with media criticism having been one of his life-long passions. Given that
experience, Trump knows how to expertly pry at tensions in how pundit narratives get
constructed, and the "peaceful protest" cliché provides all the material that could ever
be desired in that respect. Kayleigh McEnany, in tweeting a photo of a
recent Trump air hanger rally in Pennsylvania, described the attendees (only half-jokingly) as
"peaceful protesters".
The reason she did this is because if one follows the recent patterns of media nomenclature,
any and all "peaceful protesters" should be painstakingly accommodated, even if their
gatherings produce widespread arson attacks or increase the Covid-19 infection rate. There is
no impartial explanation for why the "peaceful protests" of this past summer deserved praise,
adulation, and rousing defences from the standpoint of pandemic mitigation. Again, only does
this make sense when inserted into the blinkered fascism vs. anti-fascism context.
One wonders if these protesters and rioters have ever paused to consider why it is that so
many establishment media outlets are so consistently eager to advocate on their behalf, with
the phrase "largely peaceful" having been stretched well past the point of absurdity. And one
also wonders why so many powerful forces are so willing to join in affirming their
"anti-fascism" worldview -- up to and including, in his own way, Joe Biden. For all the talk
about dismantling systems of oppression, those who actually wield power in 2020 America seem to
view the "fascism vs. antifascism" dichotomy as awfully convenient to their own self-preserving
interests.
In short black people are used as pawns in the political struggle between two neoliberal
clans fighting for power, using students without perspectives of gaining meaningful employment as
a ram. We saw this picture before in a different country. And riots do reverse gains achieved in
civil right struggle since 1960th, so they are also net losers. Racial tensions in the USA
definitely increased dramatically.
Notable quotes:
"... Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO allies. ..."
"... This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that must be eradicated. ..."
"... The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes in fear ..."
"... There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it alone. ..."
"... Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the leaders ..."
Here's your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project",
and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning tell us about what's going on in America
today?
They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people They
suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws They
alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race
war They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are inciting
racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to office in 2016
and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into
a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive
outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned,
insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide
riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. "Critical
Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White Supremacist" warning are as
much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling
of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of "ideology", and all three are being used
to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as "Americans".
The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history,
their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed
by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important
than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative "Reset"
that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds
of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive
element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda
saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don't expect the strategy will
ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging
and unapologetic.
Let's look more carefully at what is going on.
On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a draft report stating that
"White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States". According to an
article in Politico:
" all three draft (versions of the document) describe the threat from white
supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S. , listed above the
immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups . John Cohen, who oversaw DHS's
counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts' conclusion isn't
surprising.
"This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS,
the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related
threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white
supremac y and other far-right ideological causes," he said .
"Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social,
ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United
States," the draft reads. "Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists
will pose the most persistent and lethal threat."..(" DHS
draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat " Politico)
This is nonsense. White supremacists do not pose the greatest danger to the country, that
designation goes to the left-wing groups that have rampaged through more than 2,000 US cities
for the last 100 days. Black Lives Matter and Antifa-generated riots have decimated hundreds of
small businesses, destroyed the lives and livelihoods of thousands of merchants and their
employees, and left entire cities in a shambles. The destruction in Kenosha alone far exceeds
the damage attributable to the activities of all the white supremacist groups combined.
So why has Homeland Security made this ridiculous and unsupportable claim? Why have they
chosen to prioritize white supremacists as "the most persistent and lethal threat" when it is
clearly not true?
There's only one answer: Politics.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding. In this case, the honchos are
invoking the race card ("white supremacists") to divert attention from their sinister
destabilization program, their looting of the US Treasury (for their crooked Wall Street
friends), their demonizing of the mostly-white working class "America First" nationalists who
handed Trump the 2016 election, and their scurrilous scheme to establish one-party rule by
installing their addlepated meat-puppet candidate (Biden) as president so he can carry out
their directives from the comfort of the Oval Office. That's what's really going on.
DHS's announcement makes it possible for state agents to target legally-armed Americans who
gather with other gun owners in groups that are protected under the second amendment. Now the
white supremacist label will be applied more haphazardly to these same conservatives who pose
no danger to public safety. The draft document should be seen as a warning to anyone whose
beliefs do not jibe with the New Liberal Orthodoxy that white people are inherently racists who
must ask forgiveness for a system they had no hand in creating (slavery) and which was
abolished more than 150 years ago.
The 1619 Project" is another part of the ideological war that is being waged against the
American people. The objective of the "Project" is to convince readers that America was founded
by heinous white men who subjugated blacks to increase their wealth and power. According to the
World Socialist Web Site:
"The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of
American history is rooted in race hatred -- specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of
"black people" by "white people." Hannah-Jones writes in the series' introduction:
"Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country. "
This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the
genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and
development . Hannah-Jones's reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive
racial antagonisms from innate biological processes .where does this racism come from? It
is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American "white people." Thus, it
must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions .
. No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting
race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear
responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided
arguments." ("The New York Times's 1619
Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history", World Socialist Web
Site)
Clearly, Hannah-Jones was enlisted by big money patrons who needed an ideological foundation
to justify the massive BLM riots they had already planned as part of their US color revolution.
The author –perhaps unwittingly– provided the required text for vindicating
widespread destruction and chaos carried out in the name of "social justice."
As Hannah-Jones says, "Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country", which is to
say that it cannot be mitigated or reformed, only eradicated by destroying the symbols of white
patriarchy (Our icons, our customs, our traditions and our history.), toppling the existing
government, and imposing a new system that better reflects the values of the burgeoning
non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil
unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.
All of these goals conveniently coincide with the aims of the NWO Oligarchs who seek to
replace America's Constitutional government with a corporate Superstate ruled by voracious
Monopolists and their globalist allies. So, while Hannah-Jones treatise does nothing to improve
conditions for black people in America, it does move the country closer to the dystopian dream
of the parasite class; Corporate Valhalla.
Then there is "Critical Race Theory" which provides the ideological icing on the cake. The
theory is part of the broader canon of anti-white dogma which is being used to indoctrinate
workers. White employees are being subjected to "reeducation" programs that require their
participation as a precondition for further employment . The first rebellion against critical
race theory, took place at Sandia Labs which is a federally-funded research agency that designs
America's nuclear weapons. According to journalist Christopher F. Rufo:
"Senator @HawleyMO and
@SecBrouillette have
launched an inspector general investigation, but Sandia executives have only accelerated
their purge against conservatives."
Sandia executives have made it clear: they want to force critical race theory,
race-segregated trainings, and white male reeducation camps on their employees -- and all
dissent will be severely punished. Progressive employees will be rewarded; conservative
employees will be purged." (" There is a civil war erupting
at @SandiaLabs ." Christopher F Rufo)
It all sounds so Bolshevik. Here's more info on how this toxic indoctrination program
works:
"Treasury Department
The Treasury Department held a training session telling employees that "virtually all
White people contribute to racism" and demanding that white staff members "struggle to own
their racism" and accept their "unconscious bias, White privilege, and White
fragility."
The National Credit Union Administration
The NCUA held a session for 8,900 employees arguing that America was "founded on
racism" and "built on the blacks of people who were enslaved. " Twitter thread here and
original source documents
here .
Sandia National Laboratories
Last year, Sandia National Labs -- which produces our nuclear arsenal -- held a
three-day reeducation camp for white males, teaching them how to deconstruct their
"white male culture" and forcing them to write letters of apology to women and people of
color . Whistleblowers from inside the labs tell me that critical race theory is now
endangering our national security. Twitter thread here and original source
documents
here .
Argonne National Laboratories
Argonne National Labs hosts trainings calling on white lab employees to admit that they
"benefit from racism" and atone for the "pain and anguish inflicted upon Black people. "
Twitter thread here .
Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security hosted a Training on "microaggressions,
microinequities, and microassaults" where white employees were told that they had been
"socialized into oppressor roles. " Twitter thread here and original source
documents here
." (" Summary of
Critical Race Theory Investigations" , Christopher F Rufo)
On September 4, Donald Trump announced his administration "would prohibit federal
agencies from subjecting government employees to "critical race theory" or "white privilege"
seminar. ..
"It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent
millions of taxpayer dollars to date 'training' government workers to believe divisive,
anti-American propaganda ," read a Friday memo
from the Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought. "These types of 'trainings'
not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its
inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce The
President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using
taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions."
The next day, September 5, Trump announced that the Department of Education was going to see
whether the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project was being used in school curricula
and– if it was– then those schools would be ineligible for federal funding.
Conservative pundits applauded Trump's action as a step forward in the "culture wars", but it's
really much more than that. Trump is actually foiling an effort by the domestic saboteurs who
continue look for ways to undermine democracy, reduce the masses of working-class people to
grinding poverty and hopelessness, and turn the country into a despotic military outpost ruled
by bloodsucking tycoons, mercenary autocrats and duplicitous elites. Alot of thought and effort
went into this malign ideological project. Trump derailed it with a wave of the hand. That's no
small achievement.
Bottom line: "Critical Race Theory", "The 1619 Project", and Homeland Security's "White
Supremacist" warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is
based. The "anti-white" dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the
country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work
together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a "racial" smokescreen that conceals
the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that
was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working
class "populist" movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform
the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO
allies.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer
that must be eradicated.
A good article, but no mention of who exactly these oligarchs are. Or why so many of them
are Jewish.
Or why so many Zionist organisations support BLM and other such groups.
Mike, not mentioning these things will not save you. You will still be cancelled by
Progressive Inc.
This seems like a good explanation of what is happening. I wonder whether too many people
will fall for the propaganda, though. It is the classic effort to get the turkeys to support
thanksgiving.
The deserved progress and concessions achieved by the civil rights struggles for the Black
community is in danger of deteriorating because Black leadership will not stand up and
vehemently condemn the rioting and destruction and killing, and declare that the BLM movement
does not represent the majority of the Black American culture and that the overexaggerated
accusations of "racism" do not necessitate the eradication and revision of history, nor does
it require European Americans to feel guilt or shame. There is no need for a cultural
revolution. The ideology and actions of BLM are offensive and inconsistent with American
values, and Black leaders should be saying this every day, and should be admonishing about
the consequences. They should also use foresight to see how this is going to end, because the
BLM and their supporters are being used to fight a war that they can never win. And when it's
over, what perception will the rest of America have of Black people?
@sonofman g to TPTB. Better to have an amorphous slogan to donate money to than an actual
organization with humans, goals and ideas which can be held up to the light and critically
examined.
The whole sudden race thing is a fraud to eliminate the electoral support Trump had
amassed among blacks before Corona and Fentanyl Floyd. In line with what Whitney says, the
globalists need to take down Trump. And the race card has always been the first tool in the
DNC's toolkit. When all else fails, go nuclear with undefined claims of racism.
Almost every big magazine has a black person on the cover this month. Probably will in
October too. Coincidence? Sure it is.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I'm shocked that they're trying to sell this Q-tier bullshit about Trump fighting the deep
state.
The reality about Trump is that he is the release valve, the red herring designed to keep
whitey pacified while massive repossessions and foreclosures take place, permanently
impoverishing a large part of the white population, and shutting down the Talmudic
service-based economy, which is all that is really left. It is Trump's DHS that declared a
large part of his white trashionalist base to be terrorists.
The populist majority never had anyone to vote for. This system will never give them one.
They aren't bright enough to make it happen.
Agree. Barack Obama in particular will go down in history a real disgrace to the legacy of
the US presidency. He is violating the sacred trust that the people of the United States
invested in him. What a fraud!
Good post Mr. Whitney especially about "white supremacy" garbage .which has only been
going on since the 90s! You know, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elohim City and Okie City, militias,
"patriot groups," etc. This really is nothing new. And, since so many remember the "white
supremacy" crapola was crapola back in the 90s, I'd say everyone pretty much regardless of
race over the age of 40 knows there is, as it says in Ecclesiastes in the Bible, "there is
nothing new under the sun." And, if you home schooled your kids back then, then you kids know
it as well. Fact is this: the DHS as with every other govt. agency is forced to blame "white
supremacy" for every problem in this country because who the heck else can they blame? Jews?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahh when pigs fly After all, Noahide just might be around the
corner ..
Sheriffs have a lot of legal power. Ultimately, the battle is privatized money power
vs Joe Citizen/Sheriffs.
This sheriff is working a Constitutional angle that says: Local Posse (meaning you.. Joe
citizen) working with the Sheriff department to protect your local community. Richard Mack is
teaching other Sheriffs and (some Police) what their Constitutional power is, and that power
doesn't include doing bidding of Oligarchs.
Sheriffs are elected, and their revenue stream is outside of Oligarchy:
So Donald Trump suddenly discovers that racial Bolshevism is the official policy of
his own executive branch – a mere 3 years and 8 months after assuming the
position
... Looks like the same old flim-flam they pull every four years. No matter who wins, the
Davos folks continue to run the circus and fleece the suckers dry.
Because it is. Substitute "the ethnic Russian middle class are class enemies" for
"Anglo-American are all racists" and there you have it. Permission for a small organized
minority to eliminate a whole class on ideological grounds...
I live in a former communist country in Eastern Europe with corrupt politicians, oligarchs
and organized crime.
America was a country with a minor corruption and in which the oligarchs, although
influential, were not united in a small group with decisive force. Now America is slowly
slipping into the situation of a second-hand shit-hole country.
Is that I can see the situation more clearly than an American citizen who still has the
American perception of his contry the way it was 30 years ago.
Essential thing:
1) The current situation cannot exist without the complicity of the secret services and
the police. The heads of the secret services are either part of the cabal or close their eyes
in fear .
2) There can be no single oligarch. It must be a larger group but very united by fear and
a common goal. This can only be achieved if they are all Jews or Masons. Or both under a
larger umbrella like some kind of pedo-ritual killing-satan worshiper. Soros can't do it
alone.
3) Of course politicians are corrupt and complicit but usually they are not the
leaders
4) BLM are exactly the brown shirts of the new Hitler.
Soon we will se the new Hitler/Stalin/ in plain light.
Thirty black children murdered recently; zero by police / BLM & 'the media' say
nothing: https://www.outkick.com/blm-101-volume-7-the-lives-of-innocent-black-kids-do-not-matter/
BTW:
– Last year, the nationwide total for all US police forces was 47 killings of unarmed
criminals by police during arrest procedures.
– 8 were black, 19 were white.
Though blacks, relative to their numbers, committed a vastly higher number of crimes, hence
their immensely greater arrest rate.
@Justvisiting urally, it is nonsense -- nasty, power-hungry, censorious nonsense.
It is the opposite of scientific or empirical thought -- science can not accept theories
which are not capable of falsification. (Take astrology -- actually, don't ! -- what ever
conclusion it comes to can never be wrong : Dick or Jane didn't find love ? Well, one
of Saturn's moons was retrograde & Mercury declensed Venus (I don't know what it means
either) . or Dick went on a bender & Jane had a whole bad hair week.
Frankly, to play these pre-modern tricks on us is just grotesquely insulting. That some are
falling for it is grotesquely depressing.
Another ringer from Mike Whitney! Keep 'em comin', brother.
We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem.
We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad
logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an
extremely impressive ideological campaign.
Yup. TPTB have been grooming BLM/Antifa for this moment for at least 3-4 years now, if not
longer. Here's a former BLMer who quit speaking out three years ago about the organization's
role in the present 'race war':
It is very clever politics and (war) propaganda. You break down and demoralise your
enemies at the same time as assuring your own side of it's own righteous use of violence.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look
beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows.
Nailing it.
4. They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
Which of these four statements best explains what's going on in America today?
If you chose Number 4, you are right.
If we believe this – we need to act like it. These are "enemies, foreign and
domestic ". This isn't ordinary politics, it arguably transcends politics.
What hope is there without organization?
And whatever is done – don't give them ammunition. The resistance must not be an
ethno-resistance.
But he is either naive or a bad manager, as his hires are deadly to his aims. And the
management criticism is big, because as a leader that is mostly what he does.
That he gets information to affect US policy for good, from outside of his circle of
trusted personnel, is a sad state of affairs.
@Robert Dolan ds that it would have ended on day one were it not officially sanctioned
and the rioters protected from prosecution. Why hasn't the Janet Rosenberg/Thousand
Currents/Tides Foundation connection with the BLM/DNC/MSM cabal, as well as with Antifa and
social media, been the major investigation on Fox News? Why haven't Zuckerberg, Zucker, et al
been arrested for incitement to commit federal crimes, including capital treason to overthrow
the duly elected president? (Just a few rhetorical questions for the hell of it.) What's so
galling is that the cops and federal agents are being used as just so many patsies who are
deployed, not to protect, but deployed to look like fools and be held up for mockery as
pathetic exemplars of white disempowerment.
The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the
oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use
them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding.
Agree, but where is President Trump? He was supposed to appoint undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries and Schedule C whippersnappers on whose
desks such outrages are supposed to die.
I've thought from the beginning that this lack of attention to "personnel as policy" --
with Trump overestimating the ability of the ostensible CEO to overcome such intransigence --
was one of his major failures. I am sympathetic, as there are not many people he could trust
to be loyal to his agenda, much less to him, but this is a disaster in every agency
Few years ago I watch a clip secretly recorded in Ukrainian synagogue where Rabi said
"first we have to fight Catholics and with Muslims it will be an easy job" ...
Thanks to Mr Whitney for being able to cut through the fog and see what's going on behind
it. The term "white supremacist" wasn't much in public use at all until the day Trump was
elected then suddenly it was all over the place. It's like one of those massive ad campaigns
whose jingle is everywhere as if some group decided on it as a theme to be pushed. They're
really afraid that the white working class population will wake up and see how the country is
being sold out from underneath their feet hence the need to keep it divided and intimidated.
Like all the other color revolutions everywhere else they strike at the weak links within the
country to create conflict, in the US case it's so-called diversity. There's billions
available to be spent in this project so plenty of traitors can be found, unwitting or
otherwise, to carry out their assignments. The billionaire class own most of the media and
much else and see the US as their farm. They have no loyalty whatsoever and outsource
everything to China or anywhere else they can squeeze everything out of the workers. They
want a global dictatorship and admire the Chinese government for the way it can order its
citizens around.
You are exactly right. Trump is doing his part (knowingly or unknowingly, but probably
knowingly) to accomplish the NWO objectives. He was not elected in 2016 in spite of NWO
desires, as most Trump supporters think, but rather precisely BECAUSE of NWO desires.
The NWO probably also wants him to win again this year, and if so then he will win. The
reason the NWO wanted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
@Trinity While I tend to agree with you that it looks like a race war, the question is
why is it happening now? If it were just a race war promoted by radicals in BLM and Antifa,
it does not explain the nationwide coordination (let's face it the faces of BLM and Antifa
are not that smart or connected), the support and censorship of the violence by the MSM and
the support of Marxist BLM by corporations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
This is a color revolution in the making and may come to a peak after Nov. 3rd. Whitney is on
to something, there is much more going on behind the "smoke and mirrors" and AG Barr (if he's
not part of it) should be investigating it.
They indicate that powerful agents -- operating from within the state– are
inciting racial violence to crush the emerging "populist" majority that elected Trump to
office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to
transform America into a tyrannical third-world "shithole".
I keep reading such nonsense in the comments above. the so-called populist majority does
not get it, Trump is not placed here to stop the Globalist agenda, that is an electioneering
stunt. Look at what he has actually and really done.
How has he stopped the Globalist move forward?? By the Covid plandemic being
allowed to circle the globe and shut down the US economy and social norm? By moving our high
tech companies to Israel? Giving Israel and their Wall Street allies what is left of US
credit wealth? Draining the swamp with even more Zio-Neocon Swamp creatures in the govt than
ever? Moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all requests per Netanyahu's wish list? A real
anti-Globalist stand? Looting the Federal Reserve for the Wall Street high fliers, who
garnered more wealth during the crash test run of March-April and are sure to make out with
even more for the coming big crash?
Phoney stunts of stopping immigration or bashing China. Really? China is still rising
propelled by Wall Street and Banker funds. I have not seen any jobs coming home, lost more
than ever in US history this year. Only lost homes for the working and middle classes.
How is Populist America standing up for their constitutional rights which is being
shredded a little more each day? Standing up for their Real Interests, which are eroded and
stolen on an almost daily basis by Trump's NY Mafia and Wall Street Oligarchs. Jobs gone for
good and government assistance to the needy disappearing, as that is against the phoney
Republic individualism, that you must make it on your own. Right just like the big goverment
assistance always going to the big money players and banks, remember as they are too big
to let fail!
Dreaming that Trump is going to save White America from the Gobalists is just
bull corn . From whom BLM? Proven street theatre that will disappear on command. I
actually have come to learn that some Black leaders are speaking out intelligently for street
calm and distancing themselves from BLM.
Problem with the USA is the general population is so very dumbed down by 60 years of MSM
– TV s and Hollywood mind control programming that the public prefers professional
actors like Reagan and Trump over real politicians, and surely never chose a Statesman or
real Patriotic leader. the public political narrative is still set by Fox , CNN and
MSNBC .
The deep state is so infiltrated and overwhelmed with Zio and Globalist agents, that it is
now almost hopeless to fix. Sorry to point out but Trump is best described as the Dummy
sitting on his Ventriloquist's lap (Jared Kushner).
Situation is near hopeless as even here on Ron Unz Review the comments are so
disappointing, almost 80% are focused on the Race as the prime issue and supportive of Trump
fakery (not that I support Biden and Zio slut Kamil Harris either).
In sum, beyond putting their MAGA hats on, White America is more focused more on
playing Cowboy with their toy guns, AR's and all than really getting involved politically to
sort things out to get American onto a better track. Of course, this is not taken seriously
as it might call for reaching out to other American communities that are even more
disenfranchised: African- Americans and Latinos.
@David Erickson nted him in 2016 (and probably wants him to win again) was primarily to
neutralize the (armed) Right in this country so they wouldn't effectively resist the COVID-19
scamdemic lockdown tyranny and BLM/Antifa riots.
Covid and BLM/ANTIFA are just window dressing for the financial turmoil. "Look over here
whitey, there's a pandemic" and "look over here whitey, there's a riot" is much preferred to
whitey shooting the sheriff who comes to take his stuff.
Wave the flag and bible while spreading love for the cops, and the repossessions and
evictions should go off without a hitch. Yes, Trump is a knowing participant.
"My impression is that BLM, Antifa and other protestors are well aware of this"
Like all good Maoists the cult white kids of antifa rigidly adhere to the mission statement
and stick the inconvenient truth in the back of their mushy minds. BLM ... is a mercenary.
Can you imagine any other groups rioting and destroying American cities for over 3 months?
Imagine if the Hells Angels or some other White biker gang was doing what Antifa and BLM are
doing? Hell, imagine if it were a bunch of Hare Krishnas pulling this shit off? Hell, I think
the local mayors, police, and other law enforcement employees wouldn't even take this much shit
even if the rioters were Girl Scouts. We are talking 3-4 months of lawlessness, assaults,
rapes, murders ( cold blooded premeditated murders at that) and still the people in charge let
this shit go on night and day. IF the POTUS doesn't have the authority or the power to stop
shit like this from going on then what the hell do we even vote for anyhow? Granted, I see the
reason for not being ruled by a dictatorship, but who in the hell can justify letting these
riots go on? One can only assume that both the republicants and the demsheviks are fine with
these riots because no one seems in a hurry to shut them down or arrest the hombres funding
these riots. Who is housing and feeding the rioters? Who is paying their travel expenses? I'm
sure most everyone in Washington knows who the people are behind these riots but don't expect
any action anytime soon.
This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond
the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that
must be eradicated.
That's true to a large degree, but
It is indeed an attempt to liquidate the working and lower middle class. Most of the
American working and lower middle class, obviously not all, is White. So predictably we have
these calls for White Genocide. Agreed and good to see the tie-in with the Coronavirus Hoax
lock downs, too, which also spread the devastation into minority communities under the guise of
public safety.
The one question that remains unanswered is why the major cities were targeted for
destruction. Obviously these are the playgrounds of the oligarchs and have been decimated. We
will learn soon enough.
The Reverend William Barber is the only genuine black leader I am aware of.
And he makes a pointn of not speaking only for blacks, but for all disadvantaged communities,
including poor whites. IMO he is the real deal, and I very much hope he takes the lead in
articulating genuine community values of respect and equality for all, including basics such as
decent health care and food access.
The pressure exerted on someone like Barber by the BLM forces in the media and other
institutions is enormous.
I wish Ron Unz would invite him to write something for the UR.
After ample media jaw-jawing over whether the Democratic presidential nominee would loudly
and proudly repudiate some of the present violent protesting in America's streets, Joe Biden
(if briefly) denounced the hard Left on Monday. "Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not
protesting. Setting fires is not protesting," the former vice president said in Pittsburgh, in
a rare day trip from Delaware; he has rarely traveled since the dawn of COVID-19 in the United
States. "None of this is protesting -- it's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it,
should be prosecuted."
"Violence will not bring change," Biden continued. "It will only bring destruction. It's
wrong in every way. It divides, instead of unites. It destroys businesses -- only hurts the
working families that serve the community. It makes things worse across the board, not better."
And, in the signature line of the speech, Joe Biden summed up a lifetime of political appeal:
"You know me. You know my heart. You know my story. Ask yourself, do I look like a radical
socialist with a soft spot for rioters?"
It was effective. Still, Biden's address Monday hardly tied up all loose ends.
After his speech, fresh polling implied additional trouble for his campaign.
Emerson College , respected in the field, released research that found President Trump down
only two percent in the contest, with a double digit performance with African-Americans and
support among Hispanics nearing forty percent, both surprising. It's one poll, but it's
startling stuff. Since Biden declared his candidacy in 2019, his duel with Donald Trump has
been one-sided.
Despite press incentives to couch the race as anybody's game, Trump vs. Biden so far had had
all the makings of a rout, and without a traditional campaign, even a boring one at that (a
shocking statement on anything that involved Donald Trump). From the president's termination of
internal pollsters last year that showed him to the ex-veep losing badly, to Biden's astonishing,
intimidating comeback in the primary to the Democratic nominee's record of utter political
dominance since crisis opened up in America, it had not been a pretty picture for the White
House.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.406.0_en.html#goog_1525384837 00:06 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But that's now plainly shifted. Some partisans in early summer made the case that
relative administration restraint on violent protests in America's cities (including the
capital of Washington, D.C.) would lay bare the nature of certain left-wing tactics.
Politically, at least, it's beginning to look prescient. While overdone analogies to the mayhem
of 1968 abound -- the Nixon-Humphrey race occurred in a time closer to World War I than the
current year -- it's clear, now, that some devotees of the Democrats are, in fact, undermining
the cause.
Americans are fleeing the
city. Bad news for the donkey: some might argue that's a tacit rejection of liberal
politics. And it's certainly a reality Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien is licking his chops
to exploit. Urban America is almost monolithically controlled by the Democratic Party. And, in
a stunning reversal after decades of urban triumph, the city has become a political albatross.
Biden notoriously made his bones in his early political life as a sensitive ear on the
anxieties, reasonable or not, of white suburbanites. Speculation about senility aside, he would
seem to know what's up.
That's why Biden made a tactical error, in later veering off-message -- after the initial
upbraiding of his own side. He repudiated violence, but then engaged in both-siderism. He
implied the canard that anti-fascist chaos has been met with equal, odious might by the far
Right. It hasn't. The most recent, known victim of political violence was a
Trump-supporting man in Portland, Oregon. Whatever you think of his politics, he was
apparently essentially executed in the streets of a major American city.
Images of burned-out ruins in Kenosha, Wisconsin permeate cyberspace. Add in, for instance,
insane reports (if true) of laser attacks on law enforcement, and it's not hard to see how this
gets dicey in a hurry for the Democrats. The party's monofocus on police killings of
African-Americans, an essential issue, falls flat with the public when there is a failure to
also address the larger toxic brew that is the country's problems right now. So, true to form,
Biden strayed further from his initial path by talking, at bizarre length, about Russian
President Vladimir Putin and the dubious
Russian bounties story, where plenty of regional experts say the dust is far from settled.
"Donald Trump is determined to instill fear in America," Biden closed. "That's what his entire
campaign for the presidency has come down to: fear."
The former vice president then declined to take questions, failing to allay fears that he
only speaks when he absolutely has to.
Senator Harris did not say "riots'. To claim that she did is to promote a clear falsehood.
She said "protests". No American should have a problem with protests.
I don't really like either candidate and was all set to write in another name as a protest
(Andrew Basevich). Here is what changed my mind:
https://cwbchicago.com/2020... Click on the embedded video. This attack was folllowed up
by another vicious attack on a senior a couple of days later:
https://cwbchicago.com/2020...
I am not expecting any miracles in a second Trump term but I am one of many voters who
think Biden is a mere placeholder for the more radical Harris.
Trump's best hope for re-election are a) more examples of urban unrest/local politicians
failing to keep order and b) Biden continuing to show he is losing his marbles, particularly
in a debate. He will probably get both, but he would help himself out by hesitating just a
bit every time he feels like shooting off his mouth, which turns of a lot of people,
particularly wavering voters.
T he analysis behind the polls conducted is lacking any sort of empirical anchor and is
otherwise hopelessly biased. That's why they shared it with a reporters: both serve the same
clients, who are not interested in objective analysis, only in winning the election, no matter
what "
Kolanovic then asks what caused this initial collapse and then full recovery of Trump's
odds. His response: "we believe it is largely due to two effects: 1) the impact of the degree
of violence in protests on public opinion and voting patterns and 2) a bias in polls due to
Trump voters being more likely to decline or mislead polls", both factors we discussed
extensively over the past week ( here
and
here ).
Then, after laying out the dynamics our readers are already familiar with, Kolanovic says
that " momentum related to the Wasow effect will continue in favor of Trump, unless Democrats
pivot away from their stance regarding demonstrations. This may not be easy however, given that
top Democrats have called for daily demonstrations (e.g. Kamala Harris) and rallied their base
around the theme of defunding police and would need to effectively adopt Trump's policy after 3
months as a reaction to polls. Some party officials already rationalized or promoted the
behavior."
Then there is the question of turnout: here Kolanovic makes a critical point saying that "
turnout strongly depends on the left wing of the party ('Bernie bros', Marxist elements, etc.),
which would be alienated by such a shift" [toward demonstrations].
Of course, the fading impact of Covid will also have an impact on the election: "Another
important driver in determining both the market direction and election outcome is the
progression of COVID-19. Figure 2 shows that daily US COVID-19 cases also correlate with Trump
betting odds. New COVID-19 cases rate has been declining by about ~20,000 cases/day per month.
Given that there are no very large states that have yet to see widespread outbreaks that can
significantly boost new cases, this will likely set the pandemic on course to subside in time
for the election. Declining cases may further provide a boost to Trump's election odds.
Finally, Kolanovic notes that the last important driver of election odds will be the outcome
of presidential debates: "Currently, top Democrats are calling for the historically
unprecedented action of cancelling debates. Cancelling debates would likely not bode well for
Biden, as recent polls suggest that 61% of voters think Biden should address the question of
dementia publicly, and 52% are either not sure or think that Biden has the condition."
And while the JPM strategist concedes that "a lot can happen in the next ~60 days to change
the odds" he currently believes "that momentum in favor of Trump will continue, while the most
investors are still positioned for a Biden win. Implications could significant for the
performance of factors, sectors, COVID-19 winners/losers, as well as ESG. "
* * *
With just over two months left, it remains to be seen if Trump's momentum persists but what
we found unquestionably hilarious is that shortly after Kolanovic's warning was publicized,
none other than Nate Silver who predicted the 2016 would be won by Hillary (see
here and here ),
though granted
with some caveats and far
less vocally than his even more clueless peers who had all
predicted a Hillary landslide , had a meltdown on twitter, slamming the two core arguments
behind Kolanovic's opinion, proceeding directly to ad hominem attacks, calling Marko a "
financebro " to wit:
"both of these propositions are almost entirely lacking in evidence, to the point where
they're more superstitious than empirical, but are an interesting window into the mindset of
techbros and financebros who are buying up Trump shares on prediction markets."
The meltdown continued for several more tweets, and culminated with the following scathing
attack: " A chart like this is nonsense, and the analysis behind it is lacking any sort of
empirical anchor and is otherwise hopelessly confused. It's amazing that they shared it with a
reporter because they thought it would make them look smart."
Nate, chill out "pollbro" and stop pretending like there is some profound, abstruse and
complex science involved here - there isn't - and that only certified grand druids of polling
have a right to opine on the future. If anything, you are the one who should shut up, instead
of trying to "look smart" by bashing Kolanovic, who at least lays out his logic and -
ultimately - his clients will decide if he is right or wrong with their wallet. It's called
skin in the game: if Marko is right, he will be rewarded, if he is wrong he may lose his job.
You, on the other hand, were hopelessly wrong in 2016 and yet here you are pretending you have
some arcane "technical and domain expertise."
What really prompted Silver's implosion? It appears that despite his catastrophic track
record from 2016, Nate still believes he somehow holds a monopoly on forecasting and
"analyzing" polls and thus Kolanovic's upstaging of Silver was taken especially personally,
even though we are shocked that people still care and listen to what Silver has to say.
Incidentally, Nate, it wasn't you but this website that explained for much of
2016...
...
why the polling results in 2016 were meaningless and why people should not rely on what they
predicted. We were right, you were wrong.
Oh and for those who care or keep record of such things, Silver's latest take - perhaps
having learned a thin gor two from the 2016 fiasco - is that " Biden is slightly favored to win
the election ."
So what does happen next? Well, the good news is that in just a few weeks we will know who
is right and wrong. If Trump's polling suddenly reverses and Biden steamrolls the president no
Nov 3, well then it won't be the first time that a "
once in a decade" opportunity to bet on a reversal has gone wrong. On the other hand, we
sincerely hope that if Trump is victorious on Nov 3 that Nate Silver finally finds a job that
he is good at.
"... The "humanitarian intervention" in Libya having ended in debacle and war crimes (including the execution of Muammar Gaddafi) in which NATO was clearly involved, it was back to the old Cold War mission of "containment." ..."
US foreign policy elite wants Biden & detests Trump because President failed to launch new NATO missions to justify its existence
One reason for the extraordinary hostility of the foreign policy insiders' brigade toward President Trump is that he has not wasted
his time conjuring up new missions to justify NATO's continued existence.
Instead, he has promised to withdraw 12,000 US troops from Germany and, to add insult to injury, he has demanded that NATO member
states increase their financial contributions toward the upkeep of the military alliance ostensibly there to "protect"
them.
This is sacrilege to a foreign policy elite that have spent the last 70 years worshipping at the altar of NATO.
"US troops aren't stationed around the world as traffic cops or welfare caseworkers -- they're restraining the expansionary
aims of the world's worst regimes, chiefly China and Russia," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., fumed.
Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice
expressed alarm about the
"continued erosion of confidence in our leadership within NATO, and more efforts that call into question our commitment, and
more signals to the authoritarians within NATO and Russia itself that this whole institution is vulnerable."
Trump,
according to Nicholas Burns, former US ambassador to NATO and current adviser to Joe Biden, has cast America's military allies
primarily as a drain on the US Treasury, and he has aggressively criticized Washington's true friends in Europe -- democratic leaders
such as France's President Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel -- even as he treats Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping,
Kim Jong Un, and other 'authoritarians' around the world with unusual tact.
Seventy former Republican national security officials recently issued a statement accusing Trump of having "disgraced America's
global reputation and undermined our nation's moral and diplomatic influence." And -- horror of horrors! -- Trump "has called
NATO 'obsolete.' "
Not only has Trump failed to spell out a new mission for NATO, the one mission of sorts he has come up with -- extraction of more
funds from NATO member-states -- is calculated to cause mutual recriminations within the alliance. Trump regularly boasts that he
has cajoled NATO to cough up an additional $130 billion a year "and it's going to be $400 billion," he recently warned.
To the denizens of Washington's foreign policy think-tanks, pressuring NATO member states to come up with more money is a dangerous
business. It could have the undesirable effect of forcing them to wonder whether devoting scarce resources to NATO -- particularly
now following the Covid economic downturn -- is a sound investment.
It is no secret that ever since the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO has been desperately
searching for a reason to justify its existence. The alliance has expanded its membership from 16 to 30 in 20 years, while failing
to put forward a convincing reason, other than inertia, for staying in business.
To be sure, there were and are threats -- cybersecurity, mass migration, human trafficking, narcotics, nuclear proliferation,
international terrorism -- but it was never clear how a narrowly-focused military alliance would be able to address them unilaterally.
NATO has thus been forced to engage in some vigorous head-scratching.
During the 1990s, we had the "humanitarian intervention" craze. This led to the NATO bombing of Bosnia-Herzegovina in
1994 and 1995 and, more horrifically, to the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Neither operation achieved anything that could not have
been achieved years earlier -- and without the use of force.
In 2001, NATO got in on the Global War on Terror. After 9/11 NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked Article 5 of the
North Atlantic Treaty, declaring that the terrorist attack on the US was an attack against every NATO member.
When the United States retaliated by invading Afghanistan in October 2001, NATO was on hand to assist. In December, it established
something called the International Security Assistance Force, the nebulous mission of which was to "assist the Afghan Government
in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance."
Next came Iraq. Despite the vocal opposition of France and Germany to the 2003 invasion, NATO, in no time got involved. In 2004,
it established NATO Training Mission-Iraq, the aim of which was supposedly to "assist in the development of Iraqi security forces
training structures and institutions so that Iraq can build an effective and sustainable capability that addresses the needs of the
nation." One of its tasks was to train the Iraqi police. However, as WikiLeaks' Iraq War Logs
disclosure revealed, Iraq's
finely-trained police conducted horrific torture on detainees. Neither NATO's Afghanistan nor its Iraqi mission covered itself in
glory.
With the Democrats returning to power in Washington in 2009, NATO was back in the "humanitarian intervention"
business.
Its bombing of Libya in 2011 destroyed government, law and public order, institutions that before the intervention had ensured that
the people of Libya were able to go about their daily lives free from the fear of death, not to mention the spectacle of slave markets.
The "humanitarian intervention" in Libya having ended in debacle and war crimes (including the execution of Muammar Gaddafi)
in which NATO was clearly involved, it was back to the old Cold War mission of "containment."
Following the February 21, 2014, coup in Kiev and the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia, NATO's new mission was very much
like its old. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen promised that: "We will have more planes in the air, more ships on
the water, and more readiness on the land. For example, air policing aircraft will fly more sorties over the Baltic region. Allied
ships will deploy to the Baltic Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean and elsewhere."
Six years on, it's clear that there simply aren't enough armed conflicts in the world to justify the continued existence, not
to mention huge expense, of such a gargantuan military organization. NATO has therefore resorted to seizing on the latest fashionable
social and cultural issues to prove how up-to-date it is.
For example, NATO has added "climate change" to its repertoire. NATO's 2010 Strategic Concept
declared that "Key environmental
and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs will further shape the
future security environment in areas of concern to NATO and have the potential to significantly affect NATO planning and operations."
One would have thought that the most effective way NATO could contribute to minimizing global warming would be to cut back on
armaments, military exercises and naval and air patrols. But no, apparently the solution to "climate change" is more NATO,
not less.
Then came the issue gender equality. "Achieving gender equality is our collective task. And NATO is doing its part,"
said Mari Skåre, the NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security, in 2013. In March 2016, on International
Women's Day, NATO held a so-called "Barbershop Conference" on gender equality. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg took the
opportunity to declare that gender equality was a frightfully important issue for the alliance because "NATO is a values-based
organization and none of its fundamental values -- individual liberties, democracy, human rights and the rule of law -- work without
equality .We learned in Afghanistan and in the Balkans that by integrating gender within our operations, we make a tangible difference
to the lives of women and children".
Definitely a "tangible difference to the lives of women and children" : As a result of NATO's bombing campaigns in Yugoslavia
and Libya, thousands of women and children lost their lives. In Libya, for example, NATO helped deliver perhaps thousands of women
into the hands of ISIS.
This is how Human Rights Watch in 2017 described the record of ISIS rule in Libya:
"In the first half of 2016, fighters loyal to ISIS controlled the central coastal town of Sirte and subjected residents to
a rigid interpretation of Sharia law that included public floggings, amputation of limbs, and public lynchings, often leaving the
victims' corpses on display."
Trump's failure to articulate a new mission for NATO, combined with his desire to extract more and more funds from the 29 member
nations, puts the military alliance in a very vulnerable position. With no new mission and no obvious threats to Europe on the horizon
-- or at least none that NATO seems capable of addressing -- its member states, sooner or later, are bound to question the value
of belonging to an organization, with such high membership fees and so few benefits. No wonder the foreign-policy cognoscenti are
fulminating and praying for a Biden presidency.
One of the reasons the foreign policy crowd detests Trump is that he hasn't wasted his time trying to invent some "new mission"
for NATO. Where Trump differs from his predecessors is that he hasn't bothered trying to invent some new reason for NATO's continued
existence: Clinton had Yugoslavia, Bush Afghanistan & Iraq, Obama Libya. Trump hasn't identified any "new mission"
for NATO.
Maybe because there isn't one.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! Michael Chan 3 hours ago Presidentials elections in the US
are a joke. The voters are given two choices: either Trump or Biden. Both are bad. They can only choose between who they think is
less bad, knowing full well that they will regret their choice the minute they leave the voting booth. So, half of the voters will
choose not to vote. And it seems that one of the two candidates will be happy if more than 90% of the voters choose not to vote.
Reply 2 CHEVI789 Michael Chan 2 hours ago You are lead to believe you have a choice, the fact is they are the same evil that both
are controlled by the same group. Reply T. Agee Kaye 4 hours ago Good article. If true, NATO will want a doozy of a conflict to make
up for lost time / earnings. Reply 2 MarkG1964 4 hours ago The problem is that the Trump administration has failed everywhere. Talks
with North Korea have stalled, and even President Moon in South Korea is losing patience with US policy. Sanctions and tariffs against
China have failed miserably, as it's left a record number of US farmers facing bankruptcy, has not helped to reduce the US trade
deficit with China, or persuaded US manufacturers to relocate back to the US. In Venezuela, every attempt to replace President Maduro
with Gaido has fallen short. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria continue unabated, with no end in sight. Whether it's Biden
or Trump, the US can't afford another four years of the same. Reply Jeff_P 5 hours ago The purpose of NATOs existence is to provide
the US with cannon fodder for its hegemonic designs. Nothing else. Reply 1 Bob 3 hours ago the USA should let Europe defend itself.
Save us taxpayers billions of dollars Reply Krieger 3 hours ago NATO = Neocon America's Terrorist Organization Reply 1 CHEVI789 2
hours ago Now tell me if america is not the tyrant and dictator of the world. I really feel sorry for the good americans who's name
is tainted by the evil running their country, being the you know who. Reply shadowlady 1 hour ago Clearly the old farts in Washington
DC are still stuck in the Cold War era, the US taxpayers can't continue to police the world with US military.
George Szamuely is a senior research fellow at Global Policy Institute (London) and author of Bombs for Peace: NATO's
Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia. Follow him on Twitter
@GeorgeSzamuely
'Mostly peaceful protests' are like the 'moderate rebels' in Syria - propaganda
constructs that do not exist in the real world. The people who owned the burning cars and
whose businesses were destroyed will not be relieved by such phrasing.
Joe Biden's attempt to swing Republican voters to his side
has failed . At the same time he has rejected many of the issues progressives favored.
This will hurt the election turn out the Democrats will need. Add to that the unrest which
plays into Trump's hands. The Democrats who
fear that are right :
"There's no doubt it's playing into Trump's hands," said Paul Soglin, who served as mayor
of Madison, on and off, for more than two decades. "There's a significant number of
undecided voters who are not ideological, and they can move very easily from Republican to
the Democratic column and back again. They are, in effect, the people who decide elections.
And they are very distraught about both the horrendous carnage created by police officers
in murdering African Americans, and ... for the safety of their communities."
Trump, of course, is positioning himself as the antidote to urban unrest. "So let me be
clear: The violence must stop, whether in Minneapolis, Portland or Kenosha," Vice President
Mike Pence declared in his Republican convention speech Wednesday night, with Trump looking
on. "We will have law and order on the streets of this country for every American of every
race and creed and color."
Republicans had chided Joe Biden and other Democrats for not calling out the violence in
the aftermath of the Blake shooting. Biden immediately addressed the shooting, but didn't
condemn the ensuing violence until Wednesday in a video posted on social media.
Despite Trump's failure to bring the pandemic under control his job approval rating
continues to be high
while Biden's lead in the polls
is shrinking . The United States seem to have a higher tolerance for avoidable death by
guns or viruses than other societies have. It is not the only point that makes it exceptional .
@ Posted by: Jason | Aug 27 2020 22:43 utc | 93
But that was the whole point of Biden entering the race: to stop Bernie Sanders from
winning the nomination. It was never intended to be a pro-blue collar move to win back the
Rust Belt.
Just to give you an idea of how the liberals are shitting in their pants of fear of a
communist revolution in the USA: some days ago, the MSM published some articles about how
Trump betrayed the blue collar workers. It lasted one day. They never touched the subject
again, so far.
I've said this from the beginning. Trump is the Globalists Elites Trojan Horse (pretending
to be otherwise with rhetoric but not action) . The DNC is throwing the election. How else
can anyone explain Biden/Harris?. Trump couldn't have picked better himself. This is all fake
wrestling. For those still stuck in the 2 party paradigm, you have my sympathy. Life must
seem so confusing to you. Double up on the blue pill and all will be well. Ignorance really
is Bliss
"'Mostly Peaceful' Rioting And Looting Is Helping Trump's Campaign"
The title of this blog post does inadvertently raise a provocative question--not only who
politically benefits from the looting and rioting, but also who is actually behind it?
During the George Floyd protests, there was evidence that the POLICE across the USA were
deliberately destroying property--including police officers attacking a Target department
store or even their own police car!
Just as there are False Flag attacks where America and its assets (like those
"Pro-Democracy" jihadists in Syria) stage attacks that they blame on others (like the 2018
chemical attack in Douma, Syria or the Maidan regime change op in Ukraine in 2014), so too
will America instigate looting and violence inside its own borders to be blamed on a
convenient patsy like ANTIFA or Black Lives Matters protesters.
It would not be a surprise if some or even much of the looting and violence that people
whine about is actually being perpetrated--or at least deliberately provoked--by the police
or their sockpuppets and assets:
Anyone who thinks b here is rooting for the fall of the Empire; I got a bridge to sell
that you can jump from when you wake up and realize the Empire is more powerful than ever
with Trump as king.
Remember how riots started in Ukraine and Syria? All it takes is a group of
infiltrators from the outside to start the fire and snipers here and there. Oh yes, it's
definitely true that the violence helps Trump. He knows it, he stokes it, and as the law
and order President who's going to put out the fires, he needs some barn burners starting
those fires.
Trump is putting on a big political show production using government property unethically,
the taxpayers' property, the better to fool everyone into voting for the most authoritarian
and corrupt administration that will ever rule U.S.A. and the world.
You know, if Hit ler lived in this era he'd put on a spectacular show just like Trump with
all the surround cinema and patriotic trappings and desperate people would fall for it all
over again. How easy it is to fool people today. Rah-rah, U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
Dingbats falling for the same b.s. again.
Yeah, sure, the chaos and violence is great for Trump's poll numbers, perfect for
distracting from the mess he made with Covid (the only real test to his Presidency) and you
better believe he's going to do everything in his power to stoke the fire all the way while
he delivers his law and order, only-I-can-restore-peace-and-security message.
Notice how b was so quick to draw a parallel between Syria's shet disturbers and
antifa...only at that time he claimed those Syrian protesters/rioters were paid salafi a.q.
rioters and operators.
So antifa are the radicals to blame, is that how you wanna play it now??? Now it's not
paid rioters and radical right-wing barn burners making justified protests look like a major
security threat?
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me!
You are being fooled again by a crass, immoral, hypocritical master manipulator and b is
carrying his water twisting truth into a pretzel.
While tens of thousands of people were dying from Covid, Trump was on the golf course
multiple times, dismissing Covid as a flu that would be gone by Easter!
Dumb, stupid people falling for the CON TWICE!
P.S. I'm surprised you didn't go all the way and equate antifa with Al-Qaeda...oh, wait.
YOU DID.
@ Jackrabbit | Aug 27 2020 18:36 utc | 16 quote
"Does the unrest really reflect an "Empire in decline" or a Deep State gambit to introduce
control measures in anticipation of a war?"
it's a good question jr... either way it implies both as i see it.. in fact, i think the 2
go hand in hand... but i frame it more the former way then the later..
after thinking about this more i will concede b is german just like i am a canuck, and
perhaps we are reading it wrong and the racial tension especially when it comes to police
actions seems to be a real problem in the usa... i will say this - b is writing on what is of
real concern and framing it with the title is indeed also very relevant.. i tend to look at
this like @kadath earlier in thinking it is too soon to really comment here on this, but i do
note @ moe lesters quote " It's merely a coincidence that all 3 victims of the white
supremacist were also white & a further coincidence that all 3 were convicted felons with
records of violence." is worth pondering for a moment..
and yeah, i read karlof1's article and numerous comments and everyone else's too for that
matter.. nothing is ever easy and simple to take apart as i see it.. i continue to believe
the usa is in a serious state of decline and as some others - clueless joe and etc have
stated - civil war seems all but assured when looking at this...
@ 93 jason.. thanks for your comments.. they are also very relevant...
Well, yeah, Biden straight up has dementia. Depending upon the time of day he probably
thinks it is the 1970s again and he's back in Scranton. But Biden would enter office with a
"normalcy" credit from the world, like Obama entered office with his "peace"
credit and Nobel Peace prize. The US will be able to get away with lots more drone killings
and bombings without international criticism if Biden wins. With Trump remaining in office
and bullying the empire's vassals the US will get more resistance in its international
slaughter campaigns. A more immediate example of this is that with Biden in office that hag
Merkel will no longer be torn between East and West and will instead fully turn West.
Sure, in the longer view there is no difference between Trump and Biden, but in the
shorter term I think Trump will give us more pain but for a shorter period of time, while
Biden will drag the same amount of pain out over a longer period. You want that rotted tooth
of imperial decay extracted agonizingly quickly, or slow and over the course of much more
time? There's gonna be lots of pain either way.
Of course, I cannot vote for pain, either slow or fast, so I think Howie gets my
vote.
Lets not forget numbers. Most of the population in the US is not really effectd by the
protests. Like major leaguue sports companies come out with statements about racism etc. That
is such an easy out. In the day of images it looks and sounds good but in the end is
meaningless. In the US today it honestly will take corporations taking a firm stand and using
their position to change things. As it stands most americans do not encounter the riots
anymore than we tall about endless wars. The news needs something to fill the space and the
politicians use it for points. Did compaines know or take part in the systemic oppression,
yes they are the cause (some are as in financial companies). I see no plan to stop the source
of the issue and it starts with the elected officials. I am not seeing much movement there,
it will not be resolved till it effect more people and the bottom line of companies and major
league sports. Those groups will get the elected officials to change. Unfortunately there is
more Kenosha's in our future.
I see the usual suspects have all now conceded that Trump will win and the Democrats
wanted this to happen.
Talk about "stretching to fit."
It never dawns on these people that the Democrat party is indeed populated by totalitarian
morons who genuinely thought that chaos in urban centrals would reflect poorly on Trump. The
estab. believed that with the "mishandling" of the corona pandemic - which is itself a
dubious claim as states themselves have the means and the authority to enact measures through
reasoning that might have made the Fed response a moot point - that the chaos in the streets
would effectively offer up the finishing blow on a double whammy that would end POTUS'
chance.
The fact that these posters can not even entertain the occam's razor aspect of what I
describe above is indeed frustrating.
Ted Wheeler in Portland, and Gov. Kate Brown, with her absolutely muted response to the 80
days of rudderless demonstrations, have realized that the Golem is out of control and is now
trying to pull back to heel. Too late, guys. Idiots!
As are other Dem executives in states the U.S. over.
There are many many actors in these interesting times.
The urban, the rural, the conservatives, the libs, police unions, political and education
establishment, local governments, the Fed...
Grasping at straws, no one seems to want to cut to the heart. But this situation is ripe
for assigning your worldview onto it and then saying, "Look, it fits!"
But you can't argue the point reasonably that DJT isn't, actually!, playing 4-D Chess.
Remarkable dude, that one.
"... 'Mostly peaceful protests' are like the 'moderate rebels' in Syria - propaganda constructs that do not exist in the real world. The people who owned the burning cars and whose businesses were destroyed will not be relieved by such phrasing. ..."
"... Joe Biden's attempt to swing Republican voters to his side has failed . At the same time he has rejected many of the issues progressives favored. This will hurt the election turn out the Democrats will need. Add to that the unrest which plays into Trump's hands. The Democrats who fear that are right ..."
"... he sole focus on Antifa as the problem Imo just shows the power of the media and politicians to shape the narrative. ..."
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Wednesday he hasn't done enough to focus on damages caused
by some city protests over the last three months and the fallout from coronavirus. He
called on the community to help him come up with better solutions to city issues.
During the last months the Magnificent Mile in Chicago
was looted - twice. Yesterday new riots and looting occurred in Minneapolis after a rumor
of another police killing incited some people :
Police Chief Medaria Arradondo tried to dispel rumors that spread on social media about the
death of the unidentified Black man, who was suspected in a Wednesday afternoon homicide
and fatally shot himself on the Nicollet Mall as officers approached several hours later.
His death, which was captured on city surveillance video and released by police within 90
minutes, nonetheless sparked protests and unrest in the heart of downtown.
The video confirmed the police account of what happened and showed the man glancing over
his shoulder before pulling out the gun and firing, then collapsing to the ground as a
half-dozen witnesses ran away with their hands in the air. The officers, one of whom had
his gun drawn, shooed a remaining witness away and kicked the suspect's gun away before
performing chest compressions.
Last Sunday police in Kenosha, Wisconsin proved to be too incompetent to arrest a man
they had already had under control . They shot him 7 times into the back when he was
trying to get into his car. Nights of rioting followed. Buildings were burned down and businesses
were looted.
Yesterday a white teen with a semi-automatic weapon had the stupid idea to join others in
'protecting the businesses' in Kenosha from further looting. He ended up killing two people
and wounding more after he was attacked by some of
the rioters. The teen was arrested and he is facing charges but I doubt that he is guilty of
more than sheer stupidity and manslaughter in self defense.
The cycle of violence will likely continue. There are too many racist in the police and the level
of U.S. police training seems to be abysmal. There is also too much tolerance for violence
within the general community.
Politically this plays into Trump's law and order campaign. The Democrats have lauded
Black Live Matters and the protests but have hardly spoken out against the rioting and
looting that comes with them.
This CNN chyron from yesterday
evening is an expression of their position:
'Mostly peaceful protests' are like the 'moderate rebels' in Syria - propaganda
constructs that do not exist in the real world. The people who owned the burning cars and
whose businesses were destroyed will not be relieved by such phrasing.
Joe Biden's attempt to swing Republican voters to his side
has failed . At the same time he has rejected many of the issues progressives favored.
This will hurt the election turn out the Democrats will need. Add to that the unrest which
plays into Trump's hands. The Democrats who
fear that are right :
"There's no doubt it's playing into Trump's hands," said Paul Soglin, who served as mayor
of Madison, on and off, for more than two decades. "There's a significant number of
undecided voters who are not ideological, and they can move very easily from Republican to
the Democratic column and back again. They are, in effect, the people who decide elections.
And they are very distraught about both the horrendous carnage created by police officers
in murdering African Americans, and ... for the safety of their communities."
Trump, of course, is positioning himself as the antidote to urban unrest. "So let me be
clear: The violence must stop, whether in Minneapolis, Portland or Kenosha," Vice President
Mike Pence declared in his Republican convention speech Wednesday night, with Trump looking
on. "We will have law and order on the streets of this country for every American of every
race and creed and color."
Republicans had chided Joe Biden and other Democrats for not calling out the violence in
the aftermath of the Blake shooting. Biden immediately addressed the shooting, but didn't
condemn the ensuing violence until Wednesday in a video posted on social media.
Despite Trump's failure to bring the pandemic under control his job approval rating
continues to be high
while Biden's lead in the polls
is shrinking . The United States seem to have a higher tolerance for avoidable death by
guns or viruses than other societies have. It is not the only point that makes it exceptional .
Posted by b on August 27, 2020 at 17:39 UTC |
Permalink
thanks b... it really looks like an empire in fast decline.... i don't believe the usa
constitution took into consideration the idea of corporations... also as you note - the
tolerance for violence or death as with covid is indeed much greater... i guess more people
have to have guns as it is in their constitution, and so much for public medicare... it is
like a dream about public finance and somewhere way off in the distant future... i don't
believe it is going to matter who wins this coming election, as the divisiveness is so
pronounced, it will be hard to build bridges.. it seems like no one is interested in building
bridges between the opposing sides either... all the politicians are mostly looking after
corporations and special interest lobbies - israel and etc. etc... sad kettle of fish...
Very fair analysis, I enjoyed this piece. You are absolutely right, the terrible training
and general ineptitude of the police is at the core of the problem. The protesters recognize
this and there are many salient examples to fuel the outrage. However, the solutions they
call for don't address this root problem and alienate many moderate voters. Defund the
police? This will make the police more responsible? The whole thing is a mess with no real
solutions in sight.
In my opinion, the problem is the hiring and personnel practices in US police departments.
Police officer is a critical job, you must often make snap judgments in tense situations, and
you have the power to do violence to others. But police officers are paid similarly to car
mechanics, not even as much as many private security guards! The most responsible and wise
Americans do not become police officers, they pursue other careers where their talents are
better rewarded. Then, if a great person makes it into the police force, there is no way to
distinguish themselves by excellent performance and rise quickly through the ranks. The red
tape in the personnel system is suffocating. The best officers leave for private
opportunities, leaving the police force to make do with the rest.
Given the US political system, where decisions are made based on which simple slogan can
rally the crowd, I don't see any hope of this improving. It would take a redesign of the org
structure and personnel management of the entire system. Far more likely that leaders make
some symbolic, token changes so they can claim to have "done something." The dysfunction of
the US government is starting to be noticeable in almost every area...
Thanks for this insightful essay and thanks for the last link to the chilling must read
essay by Larry Romanoff on the Unz Review. I simply don't know the answer to the multiple
problems faced by the US but isn't that the job of the professional politicians? It seems
none would even begin to address any of the mind blowing issues raised by Romanoff. In a
previous era many of those crucial issues would be career ending third rail, touch and die.
Times have been forever changed by events. I have the feeling the general populace won't put
up with the present archaic and parasitical structures for long. Hang on for a bumpy
ride.
The conclusion is unfortunately correct, but t he sole focus on Antifa as the problem
Imo just shows the power of the media and politicians to shape the narrative. Who do you
believe is more dangerous, Antifa or White Supremacist militias? The Feds are well aware that
WS groups are using the protests to destroy property and trying to set off a race war, but
the media and politicians are remarkably silent about the role of White Supremacists in the
violence, unless something happens that is too hard to ignore, like 'Umbrella Man.'
... as for antifa, what exactly have they done? who are they? is there an
organization?
My pet theory is that they are an off-shoot of JDL. Ready to turn any legitimate protest into
a riot for the evening news. Because Zionists need to protect the Zionist asshats that run
USA/Empire.
That's why they're (still) so mysterious. That's why the US government can never seem to
understand who they are. Antifa are the domestic "White Helmets" ready to support YOUR
protest. Except not.
the problem is
a. the hiring and personnel practices in US police departments by sabre <= @ 5.
b. the inner economic contradictions arising from secular decline. <= vk @ 7
c. media focus on Antifa <= according to B.
d. events and failures orchestrated to heightened economic oppression <= norecovery @
21
e. Business as usual while the country burns AU1 @ 34
f. repressive authoritarian state militancy and Trump @ 37..
g. All three shooting victims <= self-defense<= white, <= felons. gm 48
h. A JDL offshoot.. Jackrabbit @ 58
I say the problem of "unsatisfied rising discontent" is to be expected When anyone in a
democratic society fails to be heard, by all concerned, little recourse remains to those with
a grievance but to ....XXXXX
A very strong constitutional issue exists in these riots =>. The First Amendment
<=was not in the Federalist construct of Aristocrats and the corporate empires they owned.
The effort to control America is hidden deep inside the words and court interpretations since
the Constitution of the United States of America was imposed on Americans.
The Aristocrats in America wanted a British Colonial government without British
Aristocrats ; they wanted a government with a strong army so it could protect them from
Angry Americans! The Aristocrats and their corporations still in America after Britain was
defeated wanted to control the profits that could be made in America, much in the same
fashion as the British Colonial Government had helped its corporations, investors, and
bankers before the war to control who got the profits that were made in America.
The Federalist wanted a government the Aristocracy could use to exploit America ;
the federalist wanted to govern the behaviors and direct the toils of those in America in
such a way that only one federal government could do. In fact the so called Framers wanted a
royal government, tried to make George Washington, King.
Remember the Declaration of Independence was in 1776 , the America states defeated
the British Government in 1778, the Constitution of the USA did not come into being until
1788. During that 10 years John Hanson was the first President of the United States of
America.. Samuel Huntington, Thomas McKeeny, and others were President of the United States
of America. The British were gone, George Washington was appointed general to remove the
British corporations, Investors, and bankers from America, that was accomplished in 1778. The
American Aristocrats wanted to own America. George Washington was selected to be the general
of the Army because his wealth made him famous enough to attract mercenaries to fight the
British at Valley Forge. At the time the Constitution in Philadelphia was developed, George
was in Mt. Vernon.
The Aristocratic Convention in Philadelphia, was a meeting, designed to terminate
involvement by the newly emancipated American in American politics. The result of the
Convention in Philadelphia was a document which outlined how control of America could be
returned to the American Aristocrats, a document which would make the Aristrocrat powerful
again, the same Aristocrats who had previously used the British Government, to control
Americans. Check it out what were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the
like doing in America while America was a British Colony (before 1776)? The Aristocrats
wanted a government that would allow America Aristocrats to direct and a government they
could use to control Americans.
The anti-federalist tried to refuse ratification of the denial to be against the
peoples involvement in their own government but the best the anti-federalist could do
against, the strong powers behind the Constitution, was to force the Federalist to add to
their regime change Constitution ten basic promises, <=these promises were in the form of
amendments and are known as the Bill Of Rights [BOR]: Anyway the first amendment of the BOR
reads.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.. But, but but it does not say Congress will make every law necessary to
enforce the protection of the first Amendment.
So why can't those who are protesting be allowed to live so they can be heard? Why can't
their grievances be listed and placed on the national ballot? Let everyone be heard.. explore
every aspect of their concerns and accommodate those with a Grievance to rejoin our
democratic society, ask the nation to settle the issues dissenters have ? When the
Aristocrats use the government to impose their will on risings, they do so by eliminating
bystander awareness and deny everyone but a few to be involved; worse, they allow media to
promote, one side of the issue (no must carry rule).. this narrowing of participants happens
until nothing remains but conflict between bottom up grievance . . and top down power.. and
believe me that is the goal.. to divide and conquer.
"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the
Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the
United States".
Amazing that Pelosi is suddenly aware of her duty.
Thank you karlof1 - LMFAO - coffee all over the keyboard.
Perhaps Pelosi should take her own advice and discuss this belief of hers with Debbie
Wasserman Schultz. After all Schultz promoted the Awan family spy and blackmail ring to other
members of the Democrat caucus in Congress.
Another swamp pond yet to drain, take note Barr, there is still a lot of work ahead ha ha
ha.
Among the most notable highlights at last night's Republican National Convention, Senator
Rand Paul delivered a blistering take down of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's
foreign policy, which Paul linked to multiple wars under Democrat administrations spanning
decades (going back to Clinton's bombing of Serbia).
"I fear Biden will choose war again," Paul
asserted . "He supported war in Serbia, Syria, Libya. Joe Biden will continue to spill our
blood and treasure. President Trump will bring our heroes home."
"If you hate war like I hate war, if you want us to quit sending $50 billion every year to
Afghanistan to build their roads and bridges instead of building them here at home , you need
to support President Trump for another term," said Paul, who has long been a fierce critic of
former President Obama's foreign policy, including overt intervention in Libya, and covert
action toward destabilizing Syria.
He slammed Biden as a hawk who has "consistently called for more war" and with no signs
anything would be different.
Interestingly, Sen. Paul has also in the recent past led foreign policy push back against
President Trump - especially over the two times Trump has bombed Syria following alleged Assad
chemical attacks, which Paul along with other anti-interventionists across the aisle like Tulsi
Gabbard questioned to begin with.
But it appears Paul is firmly supportive of Trump's newly
released 50-point agenda for his second term outlining the Commander-in-Chief will "stop
endless war" and ultimately bring US troops "home." The plan still emphasized, however, the
administration will "maintain" US military strength abroad while 'wiping' out global
terrorism.
"President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start
one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Compare
President Trump with the disastrous record of Joe Biden, who has consistently called for more
war ," Paul
said further.
Back during the primaries in 2016, Paul and Trump sparred intensely over national security
questions:
He also highlighted Biden's unrepentant yes vote to go to war in Iraq .
"I'm supporting President Trump because he believes as I do that a strong America cannot
fight endless wars. We must not continue to leave our blood and treasure in Middle East
quagmires," Paul concluded.
Elsewhere in the approximately four-minute speech, Paul said Trump will fight "socialists
poisoning our schools and burning our cities."
Cluster_Frak , 7 hours ago
Obama was a warmonger and so is Biden. They love war and doing everything possible for the
next war to be on the home ground.
Davidduke2000 , 7 hours ago
Obama had skeletons in his closet, he did what the neocons want, Trump gave them the
embassy and other shenanigans.
Izzy Dunne , 2 hours ago
And so is Trump. They are all warmongers, because war is what the US does...
Weihan , 7 hours ago
Paul is right.
Biden knows who butters his bread. At least candidate Trump - in principle - stood for
opposition to the deep state's monstrous agenda.
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Obama are despicable warmongers. Their administrations were
responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the list
would have gone on and on had it not been for Trump.
Remember Biden's 1992 Wall Street Journal article titled:
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order."
JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 7 hours ago
Rand was the only guy I watched last night and he was on point. I did not disagree with
anything he said.
kulkarniravi , 8/26/2020, 2:33:07 PM
You can diss Obama all you want, but he signed a peace accord with Iran and Trump reneged
on it. Iran is not the villain, at least not when compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. And
what's the deal with Cuba?
d_7878 , 6 hours ago
Rand on Trump:
"Are we going to fix the country through bombast and empty blather?
"Unless someone points out the emperor has no clothes, they will continue to strut about,
and then we'll end up with a reality TV star as our nominee."
"Donald Trump is a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag"
"Have you ever had a speck of dirt fly into your eye?""[It is] annoying, irritating and
might even make you cry.
"If the dirt doesn't go away, it will keep scratching your cornea until eventually it
blinds you with all its filth. A speck of dirt is way more qualified to be president."
Trump is a "fake conservative."
mike_1010 , 7 hours ago
Trump might be talking peace, but he has increased US military spending significantly more
than previous presidents. He also tore up the US peace agreement with Iran and nearly
triggered a US war with Iran by assassinating one of their top generals.
If any president is going to start a war with Iran, then it's Trump. And such a war would
dwarf any recent wars USA has fought. Because Iran is three times bigger than Iraq in terms
of their population, and they've been preparing for a possible US attack for decades.
Perhaps Biden might start a small war here or there. But Trump goes big on anything he
does. If he starts a war, then it's going to be either with China or Iran.
So, neither Biden nor Trump is to be trusted, when it comes to war. But I'd say that Trump
is the bigger danger compared to Biden. Because if Trump starts a war, then it might end up
being a nuclear war.
Airstrip1 , 6 hours ago
Rand Paul needs to ask himself if the pot is blacker than the kettle.
How can he expect people to believe this disingenuous claptrap ?
The USA is an Empire-building Crime Cartel.
Dims or Reps are just frontmen managers for the Mob.
chopsuey , 7 hours ago
Ron and Rand. The dog and pony show. The alternative. They say what you want to hear.
I say
Phuck OFF Ron and Rand. You had many many years to do something (anything) about the
endless "wars" and in reality, they are not really wars. They are ruthless invasions of
vulnerable countries whereupon natural resources are contained, the culture and its symbolic
treasures are destroyed/stolen and thousands to millions are killed in the name of USA. These
unwarranted invasions are justified with lies and fraud and deceit.
Washington DC is the military capital of the world doing the dirty work of the elite. And
its soldier are your kids and grandkids.
Wake the Phuck UP people. It will not end until they have achieved their objectives. You
are fodder for their cannon.
Dragonlord , 7 hours ago
Biden voted for war in Iraq and supported Obama aggression in Libya, Syria, etc and he is
disappointed that Trump did not help Kurd to wage war against Turks for their
independence.
ConanTheContrarian1 , 7 hours ago
Not sure. Trump has to play ball with established Deep State interests while he tries (I
hope) to set things right. So, yes, questions will abound for some time.
takefive , 7 hours ago
whatever the reason, he is now part of the swamp. and that's why he's in a tough
re-election battle with a stiff.
Ex-Oligarch , 3 hours ago
You have it exactly wrong. If Trump were really part of the swamp, they wouldn't be
fighting so desperately to prevent his re-election. They wouldn't have spent three years on
the Russiagate failed coup, they wouldn't have gone through the ridiculous partisan
impeachment exercise, they wouldn't have torpedoed the economy over coronavirus, and we
wouldn't have organized race riots in all the democrat strongholds.
LaugherNYC , 3 hours ago
Rand Paul is just about the only grown-up in American politics.
How much bettter off would the USA be with a Paul/Gabbard ticket?
But ANYTHING is better than Joe Biden. Literally ANYTHING.
Well...assuming Hillary were dead or incapacitated,
DaVinciCode , 7 hours ago
It's happening. Yugoslavian girl give dire warning to Americans.
This all happened in her country the same way.
PLEASE LISTEN - it is coming to the USA and the West
I agree with the Yugoslav girl's premise that the powers that be have been deceptively
employing a divide-and-conquer strategy to get the American people to fight among themselves
rather than confront their own corrupt government, but I do not buy into the conclusion drawn
that the solution lies in trusting the head of the government (in this case Trump) to do
right by the people.
As George Carlin famously said, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it!" The American
people are not going to be able to fix the problems now confronting them by voting for one
uniparty politician over another any more than the Yugoslav people were
wick7 , 7 hours ago
The Democrats will get their regime change war no matter what. If Biden is elected they'll
continue the Syrian war that has cost 800,000 innocent lives so far. If Trump is elected
they'll try to have one here to take him down.
yojimbo , 7 hours ago
Afghani GDP - $20bn. US military spending - $50bn.
They must have the best services in the world!
yesnomaybe , 7 hours ago
That video clip from the 2016 GOP debate is classic... as Paul questions Trump attacking
personal appearances, Trump flat out denies it, and then proceeds to do just that in his next
breath.
In all seriousness, Rand is a stand up guy and would make a great president.
Maghreb2 , 7 hours ago
Ru Paul has as much chance of stopping this war as Rand Paul. If he was a threat to the
people starting it he would be getting the **** bashed out of him or shot dead by a mad man.
Don't see many people talking about auditing the Fed outside of Texas anymore.
He's got a point. Biden's son is in Ukraine milking it high on crack cocaine like a
senators son should in the new Roman Emperor. Ukrainian color revolution and CIA long war
strategy means he has set up shop there permanently like a little princeling. Same as
princess Kushners wonderful tour of the Middle Eastern courts to meet his boyfriends. Old
days they would both have be poisoned to death or strangled as children for disrespecting the
senate.
Real rules of Eastern European politics are Nationalist winding up dead in dust bins
behind the American Embassy and Russians threatening to switch of the gas and freeze everyone
to death every winter. Footage of hard man dictator Lukashenko showing up at opposition
protests with an assault rifle is broadcast to school children. I'd like to see Hunter Biden
and Jared Kushner show up to something like that.
Truth is Trump is a ******* liar. the Moment they started to shut down Rammenstein airbase
they moved forces close to the Belarus border to pull another color revolution right in front
of Putin. Trump and the Republicans are just stooges for the Zionist mafia. They are playing
war scare but its too piss take for anyone now. Polish and Baltic States are NATO and have
their own prerogative. They just push people closer to war.
Rand Paul should worry about the Civil War that should come after the election.
Aint no senators sons for that game....
DEDA CVETKO , 5 hours ago
Thank you, Rand, for remembering the little Serbia -- twice (in both World Wars) America's
fiercest and most loyal ally, and now a roadkill of the Clinton Foundation and Madeleine
Albright,
the new owner of Kosovo.
The nations that sadistically massacre and dismember their friends and allies do not have
a future, nor the right to claim any.
Scipio Africanuz , 5 hours ago
Again Senator Paul, we don't do self deception..
In almost four years, how many legions have been repatriated home, or how many of the
existing wars have been ended?
All we've observed, is an escalation of hybrid wars, reducing in some, kinetism, and
increasing death tolls via other means, and in some, increased covert kinetism..
Your candidate brazenly murdered a top general of a nation not at war with the US..
Imagine Senator Paul, if Iran had murdered Petraeus, would the US not have declared
war?
That the Iranians didn't significantly escalate, was NOT due to fear, but back channel
advocacy and energetic remonstrations by adult folks..
If you believe Biden is worse than your candidate who's done worse, in terms of brazen law
abrogation, then why aren't you a candidate, or is it that you'd prefer partisanship to
patriotism?
Look within your party for corollary and accomplice warmongers, and leave Biden alone
after all, you do have a rabid warmongering Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton as party
colleagues, no?
Senator Paul, there's principle, character, and integrity and then there's opportunism,
partisanship, and betrayal..
Of nobility..
Anyhow, you're sovereign and thus, fully entitled to your choices, we simply point out
inconsistencies between what you espouse, and what you support..
Character, Senator Paul, is destiny..
Cheers...
Anthraxed , 4 hours ago
Trump has dropped more bombs than Obama at the same time in his term.
You're in complete denial if you think Trump has stopped any of the wars. And yes, he is
expanding the wars to a much larger country.
Trump's first veto was a bill that would have stopped the Yemen war.
Reality is like Cryptonite for Trumptards.
quanttech , 4 hours ago
lol, 10 minutes ago I was being accused of being Antifa, and now I'm a Trumptard.
Definitely doing something right.
Yes, Trump is a war criminal extraordinaire. He dropped a MOAB. He removed controls on
civilian casualties. He dropped 7400+ bombs on Afghanistan in 2019.... 60% of the casualties
were civilians, mostly children.
He also stupidly listened to his generals when they told him to kill Sulemani. BUT... when
the Iranians retaliated (and they DID retaliate, injuring dozens of US soldiers) Trump
de-escalated. Similarly, when the Iranians downed a drone, the generals wanted to retaliate -
Trump asked how many Iranians would die. The generals said 150. Trump said it didn't make
sense to kill 150 people for downing a drone.
Trump is a moron who is completely out of it most of the time. But when he pays attention
for a moment, he's against a a war with Iran.
Now, if I'm a Trumptard, then you're a Hillaryhead. My question to you is... where would
we be if Hillary was president? Answer: at war with Iran. Another question: where will we be
if Biden is president?
Dull Care , 3 hours ago
How much authority do you think Trump has over the foreign policy? Not a rhetorical
question but I have yet to see an American president run for office advocating a more
interventionist foreign policy yet it doesn't change greatly no matter who is in office.
Trump often carries a big stick but he's nowhere near as reckless as his predecessors.
The one thing we know is Trump is hostile to the Chinese government and hasn't turned
around relations with Russia.
quanttech , 1 hour ago
"... I have this feeling that whoever's elected president when you win, you go into this
smoky room with the twelve industrialists capitalists scum-***** who got you in there. And a
big guy with a cigar goes: 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy Assassination from
an angle you've never seen before - It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the
screen comes up, and they go to the new president: 'Any questions?'"
- Bill Hicks, Rant in E-Minor (1993)
Observer 2020 , 5 hours ago
The spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of
Biden and his fellow death cult reprobates is depthless. One need know nothing more about
them that they have become so detached from reality as to regard abortion, partial birth
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, generational genocide, genocide, of the white race,
unremitting sociocultural warfare and the balkanization of this nation as being virtues.
Anyone who would even begin to contemplate supporting Biden or any of his fellow Fifth
Columnists should be regarded as being too demented or otherwise Bidenesque to be competent
to vote.
12Doberman , 5 hours ago
Biden has a record showing him to be a Neocon...and that's why we see the neverTrumpers
supporting him.
Musum , 5 hours ago
And Pompeous is 10X worse than Biden. And he serves as Trump's Sec. of State.
Of course, he's just a viceroy serving on behalf of the kosher people.
ted41776 , 8 hours ago
it's not what the president chooses
it's what chooses the president
conraddobler , 8 hours ago
This has lost all it's entertainment value.
Hollywood and the Postman was a more realistic view, in that movie I believe the warlord
was a former copier either salesman or technician, can't remember but it's more likely a guy
like that would have leadership capabilities than these clowns would.
invention13 , 1 hour ago
It saddens me that people can just go about their business in this country without giving
a thought about the men and women who are getting injured and coming home stressed out and
addicted to painkillers. Also that the real motive for continued military involvement in the
ME is that some people are making tons of money off it. We need our own version of Smedley
Butler these days.
It is all decadent beyond belief.
mrjinx007 , 1 hour ago
That MF no good SOB war mongering no good neocon SOB Shawn did everything he could to get
RP to agree with him that we need to continue with the policy of regime change.
Rand just basically told him to shut the f up and stop blowing the Neo-cons' erections. It
was precious. You know how people like this ******* Hannity get their funding from. Deep
state, MIC, and all the f'king Rino's like Tommy Cotton.
gm_general , 2 hours ago
Thanks to Hillary and Obama, Libya is a complete mess and black people are being sold as
slaves there. Let that sink in.
Commenting on the spotlight that U.S. intelligence officials have placed on both countries'
interference efforts (along with Iran's), Pelosi and Schiff declared that the analysis
"provided a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three
countries of unequal operational intent, actions, and capabilities together."
In particular, they charged, the actions of Kremlin-linked actors seeking to undermine Vice
President Biden, and seeking to help President Trump" were glossed over.
Pelosi stated subsequently, "The Chinese, they said, prefer (presumptive Democratic nominee
Joe) Biden -- we don't know that, but that's what they're saying, but they're not really
getting involved in the presidential election."
... ... ...
Also alleging that Chinese agents are increasingly active on major social media platforms --
a study from research institute Freedom House,
which reported that :
"[C]hinese state-affiliated trolls are apparently operating on [Twitter] in large numbers.
In the hours and days after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of
Hong Kong protesters in October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported, nearly 170,000
tweets were directed at Morey by users who seemed to be based in China as part of a
coordinated intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, there have been multiple suspected efforts by
pro-Beijing trolls to manipulate the ranking of content on popular sources of information
outside China, including Google's search engine Reddit,and YouTube."
Last year, a major
Hoover Institution report issued especially disturbing findings about Beijing's efforts to
influence the views (and therefore the votes) of Chinese Americans, including exploiting the
potential hostage status of their relatives in China. According to the Hoover researchers:
"Among the Chinese American community, China has long sought to influence -- even silence
-- voices critical of the PRC or supportive of Taiwan by dispatching personnel to the United
States to pressure these individuals and while also pressuring their relatives in China.
Beijing also views Chinese Americans as members of a worldwide Chinese diaspora that presumes
them to retain not only an interest in the welfare of China but also a loosely defined
cultural, and even political, allegiance to the so-called Motherland."
In addition: "In the American media, China has all but eliminated the plethora of
independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities. It
has co-opted existing Chinese language outlets and established its own new outlets."
Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but trivial politically. As of 2018, they
represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters, and they belonged to an Asian-American
super-category that reflects the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible
voters in the country.
Most live in heavily Democratic states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts, but
significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where many of the 2016
presidential election margins were razor thin, and many of which look up for grabs this year,
like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
More broadly, according to the Hoover study:
"In American federal and state politics, China seeks to identify and cultivate rising
politicians. Like many other countries, Chinese entities employ prominent lobbying and public
relations firms and cooperate with influential civil society groups. These activities
complement China's long-standing support of visits to China by members of Congress and their
staffs. In some rare instances Beijing has used private citizens and companies to exploit
loopholes in US regulations that prohibit direct foreign contributions to elections."
But even more thoroughly overlooked than these narrower forms of Chinese political
interference is a broader, much more dangerous type of Chinese meddling that leaves Moscow's
efforts in the dust. For example, U.S.-owned multinational companies, which have long profited
at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China, have just as
long carried Beijing's water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S.
political campaigns. The same goes for Wall Street, which hasn't sent many U.S. operations
overseas, but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese
market.
These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American
political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks -- which garb their special interest
agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship.
Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown
nose China in search of profits that it's made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material
deemed offensive to China.
... ... ...
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on
economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.
The essay makes the important observation that no one at the convention spoke in support
of skilled blue-collar jobs. Thus, their plan is to NOT bring the globalized manufacturing
jobs home, and, globalize (use migrants) the non-manufacturing jobs by offering free college
to all rather than a Germany-like trade-school track. After all, how hard can it possibly be
to become an electrician?
Yawn. We have 2 party tyranny. The real power controls both parties. Trumps done a great
job for those in power. DNC told to stand down, so they are running Demented Biden and some
scary lady
Reading CS Lewis "That Hideous Strength"
"Don't you understand anything? Isn't it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a
fierce Right both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That's how we get things
done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and
a Right racket in the Left papers. If it's properly done you get each side out-bidding the
other in support of us -- to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we're non-political. The
real power always is."
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a
permanent underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the
multinational carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow
coalition while white, working class people will be seen as a potential threat to the
emerging new order .
Well put, Mike Whitney.
I would note the following:
a. Plenty of non-whites becoming leery of globalism and all its lies, which means more
than a few will vote for Trump in the (I think mistaken) view he actually wants to stop it.
Delay, maybe; stop it, no.
b. We have a situation here that could be similar to South Africa in the recent past, but
I am not aware of any bands of "youths" raping and pillaging their way through America's
agricultural areas. From what I can see, the urban USA is seceding from country USA. What
might change this is a serious food shortage, power outages, and the like. White folk in the
country better do some serious prepping, if they have not already.
c. There has never been a better time for a real Third Party in America. If Trump loses,
the only reason will be a broad realization that Red and Blue are both in plutocrat
pockets.
d. It would help if this potential Third Party was specifically aimed at the American
worker and the unique "displacement" all of them have over the last forty years. Base it as
broadly as possible. Any nation's population has a pyramid earning structure and the strength
of the base is a measure of how well those above will live. Right now the base is about to
disappear.
This country has had a one party tyranny for decades it's just becoming more obvious.
But the real situation is the Republican and Democrat parties are just two sides of the
Deep State coin.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two
parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of
fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
The author misses the unique opportunity that now exists. The GOP under GW Bush, McCain,
and Romney was a clone of the DNC, yielding a two headed uniparty.
Trump has opened the door that could bring back a true two party choice.
There have been no new wars under Trump. The #NeverTrump NeoConDemocrats have angrily
returned to their ancestral home in the DNC. The two parties have a true substantive
difference on this point:
-- The DNC is the foreign intervention party.
-- The GOP is moving away from NeoCon contamination.
If you want to avoid foreign wars, you need to vote for the GOP. All we have now is a
corner stone. It will take votes over multiple election cycles to build walls and lock in
this position. This is not about Trump's personality. It is about long-term change.
It is really funny when Biden talks about torture... It is difficult to teach an old neocon
dog new tricks.
Notable quotes:
"... "The brave citizens of Belarus are showing their voices will not be silenced by terror or torture," ..."
"... "The U.S. should support Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya's call for fair elections. Russia must be told not to interfere -- this is not about geopolitics but the right to choose one's leaders." ..."
Joe Biden may be an uncertain election away from becoming president, but he's already
tweeting like one. Following an entirely predictable script, Biden demanded that Russia "be
told not to interfere" in Belarus' affairs.
"The brave citizens of Belarus are showing their voices will not be silenced by terror
or torture," Biden tweeted on Wednesday. "The U.S. should support Sviatlana
Tsikhanouskaya's call for fair elections. Russia must be told not to interfere -- this is not
about geopolitics but the right to choose one's leaders."
Here are a few takeaways from the Democratic Convention:
The Democrats are running on the
same platform they ran on in 2016. The Democrats put style above substance, flashy optics above
ideas or issues. The Democrats think that hollow tributes to "diversity" and "inclusion" will
win the election. The Democrats have abandoned white, working class voters opting instead for
people of color. The Democrats have learned nothing from Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016.
In 2016, Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she failed to see
her support was eroding in the key Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump won all three states with a measly 77, 651 votes total. All three states were expected to
go Democrat but flipped to the GOP due to Clinton's support for free trade and immigration
policies that cost jobs and imposed unwelcome demographic changes on the working people of
those states. The Democrats and Hillary have never accepted the factual version of how the
election was lost. Instead, they fabricated a conspiracy theory about Trump colluding with
Russia. Although the Mueller Report proved that the claims of meddling were baseless, Clinton
and the Dems continue to trot them out at every opportunity. On Tuesday at the convention,
Hillary again reiterated the lie that Trump stole the election. She said:
"Vote like our lives and livelihoods are on the line, because they are. Remember: Joe and
Kamala can win 3 million more votes and still lose. Take it from me. We need numbers so
overwhelming Trump can't sneak or steal his way to victory."
The determination on the part of the Democrats to mischaracterize what actually happened in
the election is not a trivial matter. It suggests that deception is central to their governing
style. Party leaders do not think their supporters are entitled to know the truth but rather
believe that events must be shaped in a way that best serves their overall political interests.
For Democrats, lying is not a personal failing, but an opportunity for enhancing their grip on
power. This is from an article in The Guardian:
"Donald Trump's electoral college victory rests on the shoulders of more than 200
so-called "pivot counties" across the US. That is, counties that voted for Barack Obama only
four years earlier. The most decisive of these swings occurred in Pennsylvania's Luzerne
county, nestled in the north-east part of the state There, voters gave Trump a nearly
20-point victory after going for Obama by almost 5% in 2012. But Trump's win in Luzerne
was also noteworthy for its magnitude. His 26,000 vote plurality in Luzerne comprised almost
three-fifths of his plurality in the state as a whole, and with it Pennsylvania's 20 coveted
electoral votes ." ("
The Forgotten review: Ben Bradlee Jr delivers 2020 lessons for Democrats" , The
Guardian )
Critical battleground states tilted in Trump's favor because Democratic policies had
decimated their communities and eviscerated their standard of living. Author Ben Bradlee Jr.
explains this phenom in his book "The Forgotten" which should be required reading at the DNC.
Here's a clip from the review at the Guardian:
"The Forgotten documents the ravages of deindustrialization, lost jobs, crime and drugs.
It captures the sense of displacement tied to a changing and less monochromatic America.
Once upon a time, Luzerne was home to coal and textiles, dominated by Protestants from
Wales and Catholics from Ireland and continental Europe. Not any more. Luzerne is poorer and
smaller, for many a less recognizable place. Not surprisingly, immigration and Nafta come in
for constant criticism. " (The Guardian)
This is the real reason Hillary was defeated. Russia had nothing to do with it. The Dems
abandoned the white working-class people who had always voted for them and began to cobble
together their Rainbow coalition. When Hillary denounced these people as "Deplorables", it
forced more of them to join Trump team. The rest is history. Here's more from the same
article:
"In the absence of a recession, however, the party stands to face the same electoral
map it did in 2016. In fact, Ohio now looks an even tougher nut to crack. Much as the
Democratic base loathes the president, reality cannot be wished away. Luzerne would be a
good place for the party to start addressing this reality. " ( The Guardian
)
The point we're trying to make is that the effectiveness of the Democrat Convention can only
be measured in terms of its impact on potential voters. So, why have the Dems shrugged off any
effort to reach out to the people who could help them win?
It's not that complicated. The Dems are merely abandoning the people who, they believe, will
leave anyway as their globalist economic agenda becomes more apparent putting more downward
pressure on overall living standards. It's worth noting, that when Obama left office in 2016,
this process was already well-underway. According to a Gallup poll, 71 percent of the people
said they were dissatisfied with the way things were going. (in Obama's last year.) Only 27
percent said they're satisfied. So, even though Obama's personal approval ratings remained
high, his handling of the economy was extremely unpopular. (except on Wall Street, of
course.)
During this same period, the PEW Research Center conducted a survey titled: "Campaign
Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S" which showed why
Trump was steadily gaining on Hillary. Here are a few excerpts from the report:
"Among GOP voters, fully 75% of those who support Donald Trump for the Republican
presidential nomination say life for people like them has gotten worse "
"GOP voters who support Trump also stand out for their pessimism about the nation's
economy and their own financial situations: 48% rate current economic conditions in the U.S.
as "poor.
"Within the GOP, anger at government is heavily concentrated among Trump supporters
– 50% say they are angry at government "
"Among Republicans, a majority of those who back Trump (61%) view the system as unfair
among Trump supporters, 67% say trade agreements are bad thing "
"Half of Trump supporters (50%) say they are angry at the federal government . Anger at
government – and politics – is much more pronounced among Trump backers than
among supporters of any other presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat " ("
Campaign Exposes Fissures Over Issues, Values and How Life Has Changed in the U.S ", PEW
Research Center)
So, a higher percentage of Trump supporters think they are getting screwed-over by an unfair
system. They think "free trade" only benefits the rich, they think the government is
unresponsive to their needs, they think the system is rigged, and they're really, really
mad.
So, which speaker at the Democrat Convention addressed the concerns or complaints of white
working-class people who now almost-universally harbor these same feelings??
No one, because no one in the Democrat party plans to do anything about these issues, in
fact, just the opposite. Now that the Dems have been subsumed by Wall Street and their big
globalist donors, things are going to get dramatically worse for working people who will see a
vicious attack on essential social services and programs as soon as the election is over. The
massive build-up of debt– by mainly Democrat Governors who deliberately drove their
states into bankruptcy at the behest of Fauci's Vaccine Gestapo– will now be met by a
growing demand for austerity on a scale unlike anything we've experienced in the last century.
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a permanent
underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the multinational
carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow coalition while white,
working class people in America's heartland –with their strong sense of patriotism–
will be seen as a potential threat to the emerging new order.
It's clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way they
have branded struggling workers as "white nationalists" and "racists". But is it true or are
the Democrats and their deep-pocket allies preemptively denigrating these people and supporting
BLM rioters to head-off growing resistance to their strategy of total control through
widespread mayhem, decimation of the economy and extermination of the American middle class?
Author CJ Hopkins summed it up like this in a recent article at The Unz Review:
"What we are experiencing is not the "return of fascism." It is the global capitalist
empire restoring order, putting down the populist insurgency that took them by surprise in
2016.
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution, the fake apocalyptic plague, all the
insanity of 2020 it has been in the pipeline all along. It has been since the moment Trump
won the election. No, it is not about Trump, the man. It has never been about Trump, the
man
GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump not because he is a threat to the empire , but
because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly
aggressive "woke" ideology . It is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap
is determined to crush, no matter how much social chaos and destruction it unleashes in the
process.. ." (" The White Black
Nationalist Color Revolution" , CJ Hopkins, The Unz Review )
Bingo. It is the "populist resistance to global capitalism" that is the defacto enemy of the
Party elite, the same elites who conspired with senior-level members of the Intelligence
Community, the FBI, the DOJ and the Obama White House to spy on the Trump Campaign, infiltrate
the presidential transition, and to try to topple the elected government. And while the coup
plotters have still not been brought to justice, they are now within spitting distance of their
ultimate objective, which is seizing executive power and using it to crush the fledgling
opposition, impose a one-party system of government, and transform America into a corporate
superstate ruled by Global Capital. Here's a clip from an article by Gary D. Barnett at Lew
Rockwell:
"By the end of this next planned phase of the 'virus' scare, a global reset of the world
economy will be ready to launch. This reset will be mammoth in scope, as everything we have
known will be restructured. Those out of work in the final stage will most likely stay out of
work, pushing the dependency state to new levels sought by the ruling class. Controlling
the population will be a key component of the plan, including population size, birth rates,
movement, and personal contact among individuals. The elimination of normal human interaction
is sought, and this is only the beginning . The ultimate goal is total control, and every
tool in the box of the tyrants will be used to gain that control. Restraint by the ruling
class will be non-existent, as this staged reset is now going forward at a very accelerated
pace." (
"The Economic Insanity of This Coronavirus Pandemic Plot and the Coming Global Reset ",
Lew Rockwell )
The coup plotters have chosen the candidates they want to carry out the next phase of their
operation. All they need now is to win the election.
American main stream media is not informing and reporting but is actually Goebbels-like
propaganda for the Democrats. Fox is only retaliating with opposing views. Imagine Walter
Cronkite being advocate for one party – that would be scandalous. However the present
insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no guts to stand up against
their owners disloyalty to this country.
Insightful overview. Giraldi explores the most important topic in American life. And one
of the most neglected: MSM distortions, omissions, sanctimony, propaganda, deception and
gaslighting. Stomach-turning drek –all of it.
Americans are in a half-Zombie state because of what they see on TV, and cannot discuss on
social media.
Hollywood, elite media, and Big Tech are the gatekeepers [ of the neoliberal power].
The shysters at WPO and NYT think that once they have misdirected the voters for their
goal into voting for Joe Biden, it can pick up things where they left off and fix it without
any problems but what they don't realize is that the train has left the station and now it's
barreling down the dark abyss from where there is no return to safety.
It took balls for Carlson to have Anya Parampil on his show last night. He has had her on
before, so he knows what she is like she tells it like it is. He will get shit for that.
I don't think he agrees with everything she said but agrees with some of it.
@Tommy Thompson he military is responsible for or how Israel is treated, how corporations
are handed free billions upon billions, etc, and its largely business as usual. All the noise
about Trump the disruptor is just that, noise. He hasn't disrupted anything of note.
As long as the two political parties exist, voting is for people who want to believe a
lie. Deep down they know, absolutely know, that the system is rigged but they can't let
themselves fully believe that because that would mean there is no hope. They would realize
that they live in a sophisticated soft military dictatorship that has stolen $21 Trillion
dollars and is the actual gov't of the country. That realization is unpalatable and
hence rejected.
However the present insects on CNN, MSNBC, NYT or WP and other dishonest outlets have no
guts to stand up against their owners disloyalty to this country.
It's not a simple as that. All the media people know that it's a rotten system, but if
they step out of line – they lose their jobs – and make themselves unemployable
anywhere else.
IMO it's not a question of standing up – which is pointless – but using
organized subversion. After all, this is what Jewry have been doing for decades in targeting
Anglo run organizations and it works. It's your friend and collaborator who is really your
enemy.
"... Right now globalization train was derailed. by both trade war with China and, especially, COVID-19. Especially by the latter, which proved to be a long term factor. ..."
"... Nationalists are on the rise globally as a reaction on to excesses and failures of neoliberalism. Neoliberal ideology is dead and now is subject of nasty jokes. That affects Biden more then Trump. ..."
"... But the new Cold war with China is yet another nail into the coffin of neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... If deterioration of the standard of living of the USA middle class continue unabated, people in 2020 will turn against the establishment and that does not increase chances for Biden, who greatly contributed to neoliberalization of the country and as such carry much of the responsibility for consequences. ..."
Economic landscape changed. From late 1980th to 2020 the America economy was
"neoliberalized". The low-profit activities and supply chains were moved to low wage
countries, while Western multinationals consolidated the dominance in research,
development and marketing, as well as intellectual property rights. Using IMF and World
Bank the USA established hegemony over the countries of former USSR and many others
converting them into debt slaves.
Right now globalization train was derailed. by both trade war with China and,
especially, COVID-19. Especially by the latter, which proved to be a long term
factor.
Nationalists are on the rise globally as a reaction on to excesses and failures of
neoliberalism. Neoliberal ideology is dead and now is subject of nasty jokes. That
affects Biden more then Trump.
But the new Cold war with China is yet another nail into the coffin of neoliberal
globalization.
If deterioration of the standard of living of the USA middle class continue unabated,
people in 2020 will turn against the establishment and that does not increase chances for
Biden, who greatly contributed to neoliberalization of the country and as such carry much
of the responsibility for consequences.
Racial relation landscape drastically changed. The consequences of riots are not
totally clear. But polarization increased and that does not favor Biden one bit. I do not
know what Dem strategists think but this factor alone might change the results of the
elections.
Whether one views the so called Woke ideology as black racism or not, it s a powerful
shot in Trump's hand and might create Bush/Gore situation in Florida. Note that Trump the
last month collected more money then Biden.
IMHO those two factors will determine the elections and operating within 2016
framework no longer provide any insights. Dem convention failed to acknowledge any of
those two factors and parading Floyd parents was a very questionable move.
I centrally would prefer even senile Biden and incompetent but arrogant Kamala to
Trump, but right now situation for Dems looks more and more precarious. Looks like
pendulum of public opinion started to swing back and can kick Biden/Kamala tandem.
Run75441 , August 20, 2020 6:12 am
likbez:
About 1960-something wages started to become a smaller component of manufacturing, it
was either investment or leave because of US overhead. Nationalism is nothing new and is
the result of a failure to recognize the needs of people. It has been around decades
before neoliberalism was even a word. Even John Adams observed that to be poor and
unnoticed is a crushing burden to the mentality of people. Prison Psychiatrist Gilligan
noted that shame, the very shame and loss of respect experienced by those who commit
crimes will not only cause them to hurt others but to injure themselves.
The issue is the ever continuing inequity between the classes which causes people to
strike out at the establishment enforcing it.
"... McLaughlin and Associates, a national survey research group requested by Trump to examine the findings, said the results were an effort on the part of "Democratic operatives" to "counter the enthusiasm of Trump voters." Meanwhile, the right-leaning polling agency, Rasmussen, reported that Trump enjoys a 44 percent approval rating, which reflects the usual margin of difference. ..."
"... At the same time, many people must be wondering how Joe Biden, 77, has been able to garner such glowing poll numbers. After all, when the former vice president finally ventured to speak in public after an 88-day disappearing act, it only served to make people question the possibility of his "cognitive decline," a subject the mainstream media seems unwilling to consider in any great depth. ..."
"... Although the United States has certainly suffered from a double whammy of Covid-19 and race riots, the situation does not appear to be as bleak as the media would have everyone believe. In May, for example, analysts expressed disbelief as the economy added 2.5 million jobs, with the unemployment rate declining to 13.3 percent from 14.7 percent. Market watchers had been anticipating a loss of 7.25 million jobs and an unemployment rate of 19.0 percent. Meanwhile, Wall Street continues to weather the storm. ..."
In an era of fake news, can we trust the MSM polls that show Trump badly trailing Biden in the race for the US presidency?
Consult just about any US media resource and a trend is quickly discernible: Donald Trump is sagging in popularity while his likely
Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, soars like an eagle. Are these polls really to be believed?
Is there a conflict of interest greater than that of the US media conducting a public opinion poll on Donald J. Trump?
It appears to be a self-indulgent activity, a bit like climate change activists gathering opinions on the merits of air travel,
for example, or a New York Yankees fan organizing a poll to determine who the best baseball player was, Babe Ruth or David Wright.
In other words, those asking the questions may be very tempted, in deference to their own prejudices, to get the answers they
seek.
Perform a quick Google search on 'Trump poll numbers' and you will likely experience some deja vu. As in 2016, when the media
showed Trump trailing far behind Hillary Clinton, the same media want us to believe that the presidential incumbent is now eating
Joe Biden's dust on the road to the White House.
The New York Times, for example, in an opinion poll it
conducted
in cahoots with ultra-liberal Siena College, showed Biden ahead of Trump by 14 percentage points, pulling 50 percent of the vote
compared with just 36 percent for the president.
In another survey, this one
carried out by USA Today and Suffolk University, Trump garnered 41 percent to Biden's 53 percent. What the poll failed to say,
however, is that in 2016, the editorial board at USA Today took the unprecedented step of taking
sides in that year's presidential race, declaring Trump "unfit for the presidency."
Suffolk University, meanwhile, is situated in snobby Boston, Massachusetts, a formidable Democratic stronghold where Hillary Clinton
secured 60 percent of the 2016 vote compared to Trump's 32.8 percent. No chance of bias there.
Then there was the poll by CNN,
which Trump regularly slams as 'fake news,' where it was said that the incumbent leader was trailing Biden by a whopping 14 points.
The Trump campaign, arguing that just 25 percent of the contacted respondents were Republican, condemned the survey as "defamatory,
and misleading" with the goal of creating "an anti-Trump narrative."
McLaughlin and Associates, a national survey research group requested by Trump to examine the findings,
said the results were an effort on the
part of "Democratic operatives" to "counter the enthusiasm of Trump voters." Meanwhile, the right-leaning polling agency,
Rasmussen, reported
that Trump enjoys a 44 percent approval rating, which reflects the usual margin of difference.
It's important to note that the media, which has a snarling political dog in the Trump-Biden fight, follows up on its dubious
polls with stories based on those very same polls. CNN, for example,
aired a segment that asked, 'What would happen if Trump lost in November but refused to leave office?' Even Fox News, considered
to be 'Trump friendly,' wondered if Trump would drop out of the race due to low poll numbers.
At the same time, many people must be wondering how Joe Biden, 77, has been able to garner such glowing poll numbers. After all,
when the former vice president finally ventured to speak in public after an 88-day disappearing act, it only served to make people
question the possibility of his "cognitive decline,"
a subject the mainstream media seems unwilling to consider in any great depth.
Although the United States has certainly suffered from a double whammy of Covid-19 and race riots, the situation does not
appear to be as bleak as the media would have everyone believe. In May, for example, analysts expressed disbelief as the economy
added 2.5 million jobs, with the unemployment rate declining to 13.3 percent from 14.7 percent. Market watchers had been anticipating
a loss of 7.25 million jobs and an unemployment rate of 19.0 percent. Meanwhile, Wall Street continues to weather the storm.
In short, the country remains resilient in the face of unprecedented challenges, yet Trump's popularity continues to dwindle.
Does the US leader have good reason to question the media-sponsored polls that show him in the basement, exactly where Joe Biden
has been organizing his campaign from for months, or should the American people trust the findings?
Given the way the mainstream media has treated Trump over the course of his first term in office, it seems that whatever the media
reports on the most divisive American president in living memory must be taken with a very generous handful of salt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of the book, 'Midnight
in the American Empire,' How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.
My gosh! He had to have talking point notes in his call to his VP pick AND he was,
apparently unaware, holding his cell phone upside down. Perhaps he wanted her to see
something on his cell phone but, if so, he would have had the image on screen before
positioning it that way. One would think his handlers would be better at event staging. On
the other hand, perhaps they are deliberating signaling – I really don't know.
I wonder what is going through Harris's mind? How about "This idiot is MY boss?" or "I
wonder when I will be moving into the White House?".
I watched most of the convention, and thought it was well done. My main concern is that most
of the arguments made against Trump – and the election will primarily be about Trump, not
Biden – were more persuasive to people who are already solid Biden voters. If you are
still thinking about voting for Trump, hearing that he is divisive, authoritarian, and
incompetent is unlikely to change your mind. You've heard those arguments a million times.
What types of arguments will work? Remind people who voted for Trump that he lied to them
about Social Security, health care, and taxes. People hate being lied to. They *hate* feeling
that politicians are playing them for suckers. Find a former Trump voter who is willing to say
"I voted for Trump because he said he would strengthen Social Security and give us better
health care. I believed him, and if he had done that I would still be on his side. But he lied.
He lied. Maybe I should have seen that coming. I see it now."
The most common mistake in political argument is to assume that other people see things the
same way you do. They don't – that's why they disagree with you in the first place.
EMichael , August 18, 2020 10:27 am
You missed this?
""In 2016, Trump promised he would stand with working families. He said that he would
'drain the swamp,' take on Wall Street and powerful special interests," Sanders said. "He
would protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and, by the way, he would provide
health care to 'everybody.' Well, none of it was true."
Believing in any of the 500 or so stooges residing in the palaces of congress and senate
is to believe the puppet show dolls are moving of their own accord.
This woman has a Netflix move made of her initial stages of canvasing to get elected to the
congress AND it is being shown free on u-tube. Or the false prophets like Bernie Sanders and
Trumps of the show for creating the false dichotomy needed for the con to be a bit
believable.
The other made-up heroes are war veterans who do not say the actual truth about the reasons
for US wars overseas.
None are genuine.
A scripted kabuki theater for the gullible with hero figures and antagonists without a shred
of truth .
A hundred years from now we perhaps shall see the names of the real and the walk-by
players!
"A CBS News poll found that 56 percent of Democrats wanted to hear Mr. Clinton speak,
while 63 percent wanted to hear from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York
Democrat and vanguard of the emerging left wing.
"It's been 25 years since he's been president," said Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary
Clinton's first campaign manager in 2008. "He ran much more as a conservative; he governed
much more as a conservative. The party now has moved further left than it has ever
been.
Are y'all sure that the DNC doesn't represent the more effective evil, being alligned with
big tech, our traitorous IC, warmongering military brass, political identitarians?
DNC last night really hit on those "resistance boomer erogenous zones." What a perfectly apt
description for the DNC's messaging. Still would infinitely rather have current POTUS. And it
looks like I will get my wish.
So Youtube(=Google) allows the Democrats free campaign publicity (through CNN) but not the
Republicans? Important in 2020 because Covid-19 limits conventions to virtual mainly.
There has never been a real choice in the American elections. Whatever one can say against
the DNC line-ups, one can say much more against the other side as well. Of course the whole
show, on both sides, is a cringfest. By the way have you heard that the couple pointing guns
at protesters are scheduled to speak at RNC? Now that is a true cringfest. Happy day to
everyone!
That must be Chinese interference. The US propaganda operation that is called intelligence
says China is backing sleepy Joe.
But don't worry, the Russians are backing Trump so they'll get him on youtube ... so as long
as the Iranians don't take youtube down so no one becomes pres.
That'd be a pain. Everyone standing around waiting for the Iranians to put youtube back on
so they could have an election.
"The United States its also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance,
they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere (1922-1999), President of Tanzania
Mass media throughout the western world are uncritically passing along a press release from
the US intelligence community, because that's what passes for journalism in a world where God
is dead and everything is stupid.
Look at how many words -- including these -- it has generated. All, over something that in
the end, is irrelevant to any US citizen, since their vote does not count.
The show must go on. Keep entertaining yourselves with, he said, she said. Grand ole show
it is too, where everybody gets paid.
The show, the circus, is a running jobs program. Everybody gets paid. The talking heads on
the TV, get paid. Photographers, get paid. The bus drivers, get paid. The carpenters setting
up the podiums, get paid. The electricians, get paid. The political consultants, get
paid.
"... Virtually every election brings us change! Change of name, change of faces, change of semantics, no real meaningful change! The 'old guard' behind the scenes are still in place! ..."
"... I thought that by now Martin Luther King words will be honored by having a country where an individual is not judged by their color but the contents of their character. Tired of first black this or first white that. They are all controlled by the establishment ..."
"... I've heard in the Youtube Jimmy Dore Show that Kamala was in charge of corruption investigations, but that she didn't put into trial Joe Biden nor other establishment corrupted figures... That may explain why she has been chosen... ..."
"... Wait, let me check if I got it. A possible new POTUS was selected by her senile master, who is not expected to last through his term, for her skin color and Indian ancestry? ..."
"... Her selection was first & foremost due to her allegiance to the banks, Deep State, MIC, corps, oligarchs, & foreign lobbies. ..."
"... In the primaries Harris didn't win one primary, got 2% of the vote, and only 5% of the Black vote. ..."
"... This article gives her way too much credit. She is mediocre in every way. ..."
California Senator Kamala Harris crashed and burned early in the Democrat primary process,
never recovering from the debate drubbing she took from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. She
became Joe Biden's running mate anyway.
"Tulsi" was trending on social networks shortly after the announcement that Harris
would be Biden's choice for vice president should Democrats win in November. That's not
surprising, since their famous clash from July 2019 was one of the most memorable moments of
Harris' short-lived presidential bid, widely credited with sinking her candidacy.
That day, Gabbard calmly took Harris to task over her prosecutorial past, pointing out
that she was responsible for getting thousands of African-Americans locked up on draconian
drug sentences, even as Democrats clamored for criminal justice reform and racial
justice.
Harris tried to brush that off, insisting she was a top-tier candidate while Gabbard was a
nobody polling in single digits. Yet her ratings never recovered, and she called her campaign
off by early December – long before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary –
citing lack of funds.
With polls showing Democrats favored to win the White House – though they also
showed that in 2016, and things turned out differently – the identity of Biden's
running mate was a hot topic. Biden himself is 77 and even Democrat operatives have been
content to keep him hidden"in the
basement" and speak as little as possible. He is on the record as saying he would not
seek a second term, if elected – and is considered unlikely to serve out the first.
Given all that, it was widely understood that Biden's running mate would be the Democrats'
actual candidate for the top job. Though Biden had already said it would be a woman,
advocates of racial identity politics absolutely insisted that it be a person "of
color" as well.
As part-Jamaican and part-Indian, Harris checks off those boxes – although her claim
to be African-American failed to sway black voters
during the Democrat primaries.
The viral video of the August 2019 takedown of "Kamala the cop" appeared to be
the perfect balm for progressives frustrated by her elevation, coming at a time when
Democrats have widely embraced the calls to "defund the police."
That radical idea arose from the weeks of protests and violent riots following the May
death of George Floyd, an African-American man, in Minneapolis. Soon Democrat-led cities
across the US were declaring that police were irreparably and systemically racist, and needed
to be replaced by social workers or something yet to be "reimagined."
With Harris' entire political career as a prosecutor, it was clear on Tuesday that the
mainstream media machine would have to work overtime to
make her fit into that narrative. Denouncing any criticism of Harris as "racist"
or "sexist" will be just the start.
PublicEnemy_1 16 hours ago
Empty promises of change, same thing Obama touted.
Tex2020 PublicEnemy_1 2 hours ago
Virtually every election brings us change! Change of name, change of faces, change of
semantics, no real meaningful change! The 'old guard' behind the scenes are still in place!
chakraweu PublicEnemy_1 8 hours ago
It is quite a pathetic attempt by Biden to 'woo' minorities.. yeah a half Indian, half
Jamaican senator is supposed to represent black minority in the US? Why not just take
another White person as help all people as expected by the office?
Btw, both parents of
Kamala Harris are highly educated with doctorates from top US universities. How many
minorities do such families represent ?
Madex 18 hours ago
I thought that by now Martin Luther King words will be honored by having a country where
an individual is not judged by their color but the contents of their character. Tired of
first black this or first white that. They are all controlled by the establishment
Blue8ball713 Madex 1 hour ago
Yeah BLM got one problem the B in it. Correct without racism it would be 'Life matters'
getdav Madex 10 hours ago
That's the racist Democrats for you. Remember, they were the party of Jim Crow. Abraham
Lincoln was the first Republican president. All this calling Republicans racist is pots and
kettles.
Pro_RussiaPole 17 hours ago
Seems like the democrats want Trump to win. They keep on selecting such terrible
candidates. They really are a politically stagnant party, with no ideas. Granted, Trump is
acting like a regressive dolt, but at least it's something different. Each day he at least
entertains us with nonsense. Biden just makes you feel old before your time.
ECO SOLUTIONS 17 hours ago
I've heard in the Youtube Jimmy Dore Show that Kamala was in charge of corruption
investigations, but that she didn't put into trial Joe Biden nor other establishment
corrupted figures... That may explain why she has been chosen...
jholf Hanonymouse 15 hours ago
Biden & Harris will bring change all right, 25 to 50 cent raises for every one. Just
like Trump did by draining the swamp and turning it into the garden of parasites,....
uhhhh, I mean paradise it is now.
Sertorio 18 hours ago
Kamala Harris is the daughter of a mixed race Jamaican father and an Indian mother. What
makes her "black", I wonder. And why must Americans always refer to a person's "race", as
if being simply a person wouldn't be enough. In my country (Portugal) nobody would give a
damn about Kamala's ethnicity, and she would be simply considered a good or bad politician.
Our present Prime-Minister's father was from Goa (India) and his mother an European
Portuguese. In spite of his skin being rather dark, nobody in his right mind in Portugal
would call him "black". He is just the Prime-Minister...
Tex2020 Sertorio 2 hours ago
The US is so obsessed by race, we attach color to everything! This too, is an act of
racism!
Odinsson Sertorio 3 hours ago
Kamala Harris is just a bad politician who slept her way into political power. She shows
bad morals and bad judgement.
Paulino Avina 13 hours ago
Why the emphasis on a "woman of color?". Kamala Harris ain't black. She's just a former
prosecutor who victimized blacks, Chicanos and immigrants. Same story here in Austin.
jangosimba 13 hours ago
Kamala has too much baggage, she will be dissected, chewed up, and spit out without much of
a thought. The One Party system in the US doing its usual to keep the people in the dark
and busy chasing rainbows.
Mistermal 12 hours ago
Kamala is the Finnish word for terrible. ' nuff said.
John J Rambo 13 hours ago
America just needs another war. It'll be fine after that.
Sana4va 11 hours ago
I'm just trying to understand America's race categorizing. Her father is black; her mother
is of South Asian descent. what makes her more black than Asian. Her skin tone and hair are
more like Asians. Shouldn't she be classified as Asian? I'm all confused.
Reilly 11 hours ago
Yep, underneath the wrapper is the same ole, same ole.
venze chern 13 hours ago
Biden and Harris lash out at Trump: War of dirty words, fraudulent accusations, ugly
smears, base insults between opposing parties have just begun. Nothing strange, that is the
characteristic and nature of political world, of human obnoxious and unscrupulous chase for
power and fame..
No_pasaran 13 hours ago
Wait, let me check if I got it. A possible new POTUS was selected by her senile master, who
is not expected to last through his term, for her skin color and Indian ancestry?
demsolib No_pasaran 8 hours ago
Her selection was first & foremost due to her allegiance to the banks, Deep State, MIC,
corps, oligarchs, & foreign lobbies. They also needed a Black female, but that's a
secondary qualification.
Dwayne_Dibley 13 hours ago
But he only, ONLY picked her because she is a woman and NOT white. That's Racist.
Tee878 14 hours ago
Obama two or Obama lite but nothing changes as in hope but no change.
jholf Jeffrey Perkins 16 hours ago
One can expect the prison for profit industry to grow exponentially, MS Harris is not a
racist, all colors are welcome into the legal system,...as clients.
ArthurL913 15 hours ago
This is just one loser picking another that was solely based on race and sex. In the
primaries Harris didn't win one primary, got 2% of the vote, and only 5% of the Black vote.
And she's from a far left state that's already in the win column for the Dems, so what's
the net gain? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Does anyone really think people are going to
vote for a demented and incoherent Biden with a VP candidate waiting in the wings who's
only qualifications are her race and sex? Lotsa luck.
Enlightened One 18 hours ago
This article gives her way too much credit. She is mediocre in every way.
"I'm literally thinking of voting red right now," Silverman tweeted Tuesday, after
the news about Harris broke. " I used to say 'I'm so blue I make the sky look red.' I
haven't changed. The left has."
"... The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have clearly diminished over time. ..."
"... The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab for presidential power. ..."
"... Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare. ..."
How do the Democrats benefit from the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests?
While the protests are being used to paint Trump as a race-bating white supremacist, that is
not their primary objective. The main goal is to suppress and demonize Trump's political base
which is comprised of mainly white working class people who have been adversely impacted by the
Democrats disastrous free trade and immigration policies. These are the people– liberal
and conservative– who voted for Trump in 2016 after abandoning all hope that the
Democrats would amend their platform and throw a lifeline to workers who are now struggling to
make ends meet in America's de-industrialized heartland.
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats
biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have
clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not"
be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they
feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as
ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for
quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and
derailed Hillary's ambitious grab for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings, for example, Democrats have offered nearly
blanket support for protests that have inflicted massive damage on cities and towns across the
country. In the eyes of many Americans, the Dems support looks like a tacit endorsement of the
arson, looting and violence that has taken place under the banner of "racial justice". The Dems
have not seriously addressed this matter, choosing instead to let the media minimize the issue
by simply scrubbing the destruction from their coverage. This "sweep it under the rug" strategy
appears to be working as the majority of people surveyed believe that the protests were "mostly
peaceful", which is a term that's designed to downplay the effects of the most ferocious
rioting since the 1970s.
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any
attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the
Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as
they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country,
shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing
populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise
Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic
changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30
years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling
social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media as
ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated to
make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this theme in a speech he
delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes,
erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of
our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our
cities."
Author Charles Burris expanded on this topic in an article
at Lew Rockwell titled America's Monumental Existential Problem:
"The wave of statue-toppling spreading across the Western world from the United States is
not an aesthetic act, but a political one, the disfigured monuments in bronze and stone
standing for the repudiation of an entire civilization. No longer limiting their rage to
slave-owners, American mobs are pulling down and disfiguring statues of abolitionists,
writers and saints in an act of revolt against the country's European founding, now
re-imagined as the nation's original sin, a moral and symbolic shift with which we Europeans
will soon be forced to reckon."
The statue-toppling epidemic is vastly more disturbing that the the looting or arson, mainly
because it reveals a ideological intensity aimed at symbols of state power. By tearing down the
images of the men who created or contributed to our collective history, the vandals are
challenging the legitimacy of the nation itself as well as its founding "enlightenment"
principles. This is the nihilism of extremists whose only objective is destruction. It suggests
that the Democrats might have aspirations that far exceed a mere presidential victory. Perhaps
the protests and riots will be used to justify more sweeping changes, a major reset during
which traditional laws and rules are indefinitely suspended until the crisis passes and order
can be restored. Is that at all conceivable or should we dismiss these extraordinary events as
merely young people "letting off a little steam"?
Here's how General Michael Flynn summed up what's going on on in a recent article:
"There is now a small group of passionate people working hard to destroy our American way
of life. Treason and treachery are rampant and our rule of law and those law enforcement
professionals are under the gun more than at any time in our nation's history I believe the
attacks being presented to us today are part of a well-orchestrated and well-funded effort
that uses racism as its sword to aggravate our battlefield dispositions. This weapon is used
to leverage and legitimize violence and crime, not to seek or serve the truth .The dark
forces' weapons formed against us serve one purpose: to promote radical social change through
power and control."
I agree. The toppling of statues, the rioting, the looting, the arson and, yes, the
relentless attacks on Trump from the day he took office, to Russiagate, to the impeachment, to
the insane claims about Russian "bounties", to the manipulation of science and data to trigger
a planned demolition of the US economy hastening a vast restructuring to the labor force and
the imposition of authoritarian rule; all of these are all cut from the same fabric, a tapestry
of lies and deception concocted by the DNC, the Intel agencies, the elite media, and their
behind-the-scenes paymasters. Now they have released their corporate-funded militia on the
country to wreak havoc and spread terror among the population. Meanwhile, the New York Times
and others continue to generate claims they know to be false in order to confuse the public
even while the people are still shaking off months of disorienting quarantine and feelings of
trepidation brought on by 3 weeks of nonstop social unrest and fractious racial conflict.
Bottom line: Neither the Democrats nor their allies at the Intel agencies and media have ever
accepted the "peaceful transition of power". They reject the 2016 election results, they reject
Donald Trump as the duly elected president of the United States, and they reject the
representative American system of government "by the people."
So let's get down to the nitty-gritty: Which political party is pursuing a radical-activist
strategy that has set our cities ablaze and reduced Capitol Hill to a sprawling warzone? Which
party pursued a 3 year-long investigation that was aimed at removing the president using a
dossier that they knew was false (Opposition research), claiming emails were hacked from DNC
computers when the cyber-security company that did the investigation said there was no proof of
"exfiltration"? (In other words, there was no hack and the Dems knew it since 2017) Which party
allied itself with senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA, NSA and elite media and worked
together collaboratively to discredit, surveil, infiltrate, entrap and demonize the
administration in order to torpedo Trumps "America First" political agenda, and remove him from
office?
Which party?
No one disputes the Democrats right to challenge, criticize or vigorously oppose a bill or
policy promoted by the president. What we take issue with is the devious and (possibly) illegal
way the Democrats have joined powerful elements in the Intelligence Community and the major
media to conduct a ruthless "dirty tricks" campaign that involved spying on members of the
administration in order to establish the basis for impeachment proceedings. This is not the
behavior of a respected political organization but the illicit conduct of a fifth column acting
on behalf of a foreign (or corporate?) enemy. It's worth noting that an insurrection against
the nation's lawful authority is sedition, a felony that is punishable by imprisonment or
death. Perhaps, the junta leaders should consider the possible consequences of their actions
before they make their next move.
What we need to know is whether the Democrat party operates independent of the Intel
agencies with which it cooperated during its campaign against Trump? We're hopeful that the
Durham investigation will shed more light on this matter. Our fear is that what we're seeing is
an emerging Axis–the CIA, the DNC, and the elite media– all using their respective
powers to terminate the Constitutional Republic and establish permanent, authoritarian
one-party rule. As far-fetched as it might sound, the country appears to be slipping inexorably
towards tyranny.
Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to
boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an
impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to
the surface as never before.
If so, those revelations are long overdue.
It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the
victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue
as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.
Today's Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and
not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous
strategy.
Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the
CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.
It should not be necessary to say but in today's hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything
other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented
Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.
As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.
They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment
campaign.
It may be that whistleblower
Ed Snowden's revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem
with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that
Trump was being 'really dumb " in daring to question Intel's faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.
"Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost
its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the
Intel agencies.
Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel's unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent
a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.
The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power,
financial and influence agenda that
goes
far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.
Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a
July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel
veterans and its cronies:
Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.
And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of
Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the
American public safe.
There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to 'know'
was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?
As a result of the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham
appear
hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains
among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama's Oval Office.
Barr's earlier comment before the Senate that " spying did occur' and that '
it's a big deal' when
an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie
Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.
With the stark realization that none of the DNC's favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have
now focused on a July 25th
phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump allegedly ' pressured ' Zelenskyy to investigate
Joe Biden's relationship with Burisma, the country's largest natural gas provider.
Zelenskyy, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected
to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department's
role in the
overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Trump's first priority on July 25th was
Crowd Strike , a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking
of its server.
The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its
server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection.
One can only speculate those chickens may be coming home to roost.
Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a
CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden,
publicly released a
Complaint against
Trump.
House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi announced
the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process. The Complaint is suspect since
it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi's statement as sufficient to initiate a formal
process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary
Committee.
Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what
amounts to
clandestine meetings , taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower's
identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn
in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.
The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic
transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning,
Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the
Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the
Espionage Act of 1917 .
As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and
DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General's report is due at week's end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer
serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?
"... I think the issues regarding the abuse of others material is valid, and it reflects something about the nature of his positions and responses to: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Libya and of course the Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democratic party had the opportunity to run a more decent, forward looking candidate both in 2016 and 2020, but in both cases presented us with insiders who feel entitled to the nomination simply because of seniority and name recognition. ..."
"... Don't need that history when the real Biden was on display with the corrupt and ugly Ukraine kickback and extortion scheme. ..."
You have got to be kidding!! Not only is Biden a serial liar about his background and other important things, the article didn't
even touch on his massive financial corruption during his ridiculously long career in "public service ". Not only "sweetheart
deals" for Hunter but also for his two brothers, sister and daughter and her husband. If you are so inclined, you can read all
about it in Peter Schweitzer's book, "Profiles in Corruption".
Wow! Claims that Biden dodged the draft to avoid becoming Vietnam. That do it! It did not work for Quayle, Clinton, Bush, Cheney,
and Trump. So 20 of the last 28 years we have a President that found ways of avoiding going to Vietnam! In fact avoiding wars
to helped your Presidential case? Care to ask Kerry about it?
I don't much like the character debates. They are loaded with suggestions and eventually get into all manner of speculation
of did he, did she, has she has he . . . snore. What I need to know is their integrity on policy and here VP Biden loses, he even
loses to the current executive.
Even someone as prudish as me knows, it's not hard to make a mess of some issue regardless of washed one attempts to be.
I think the issues regarding the abuse of others material is valid, and it reflects something about the nature of his positions
and responses to: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Libya and of course the Ukraine.
The current executive's weakness in the knees unless he is making personal attacks or appointing judges or some innocuous policy
move such as removing several thousand troops out of Germany which apparently were already in decline. has managed avoiding actually
making matters worse despite the hooopla ha.
Given the disastrous state we were supposed to be in -- well more disastrous ---
it is safe to say on foreign policy, the VP doesn't have much in the way to offer that would get me near 100 yards of considering
voting for him.
The snark in the comments is astounding. Biden is nasty with people who challenge him - "lying dog-faced pony soldier," anyone?
This behavior was recognized as problematic by the left before he won the nomination. These comments are also more directed at
women, too, showing his sexism. No whataboutism with Trump, please.
The Democratic party had the opportunity to run a more decent,
forward looking candidate both in 2016 and 2020, but in both cases presented us with insiders who feel entitled to the nomination
simply because of seniority and name recognition.
It's too bad the Green Party is so marginalized and the Democrats keep presenting themselves as progressive, when it is clear
they are nothing but a mouthpiece for left leaning corporate oligarchs. We might get a real choice from them otherwise.
Don't need that history when the real Biden was on display with the corrupt and ugly Ukraine kickback and extortion scheme.
Add to that the 1.5 billion Chinese investment channeled through that Hunter creature. And do not overlook Biden's participation
in Obamagate weaponizing the Intelligence Services against a political opponent (even after Trump's election and installation)
which reduced Watergate to a boy scout prank.
His first wife drove into an intersection with her young children in the car, and was hit by large truck driven by Curtis Dunn.
She, along with her infant daughter were killed; the two boys were injured. For years, Biden related the story that Dunn had "decided
to drink his lunch" and that was the cause of the tragedy. Police investigation found Dunn blameless .
Joe was approached by Dunn's family, even after he died in the 90's, begging him to clear Dunn's name. He didn't. He repeated
the slander until as late as 2007.
If someone can be destroyed for using the N -word 40 years ago (Paula Deen, call your office!) how much worse is this act by
Joe, which he took on the road for DECADES?
No one, it appears, ahs EVER questioned him about it, and called him to account for it.
So, the police investigated, determined that Dunn wasn't drinking, but Joe "knows" that he was??????
Biden received enormous sympathy for losing his wife and daughter, and the injuries to his sons. But that wasn't enough for
him; he had to embellish.
Biden is the Walter Mitty of politics. He constantly creates scenarios in which he is a hero, adored, and the center of the
story. He has to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.
I'm sure he "believes" that Dunn had a 2-martini lunch. Just like he "believes" he got arrested with Mandela, and took part
in civil rights marches and sit-ins, and had a soldier tell him he didn't deserve a medal because his buddy died.
The internet is a wonderful thing. Do some research.
I will add this to my list of reasons not to vote for Donald Trump over Joe Biden. So far, the list includes:
- Joe Biden is not as sharp as he once was
- Joe Biden treats women badly
- Joe Biden will have an aggressive foreign policy
- Joe Biden is an authoritarian
- Joe Biden and his family are corrupt
- Joe Biden is not nice (today's entry)
The stories all share the same weakness. Even if I believe every word of every thinly-sourced allegation, Donald Trump is worse
on every one of those measures.
It may be possible that Joe Biden is just as bad as Donald Trump. However, Joe Biden is a competent politician, and will put
together a competent team of people. Trump's incapable of competence. If the election comes down to a choice between two bad men,
I'll take the competent one.
Clearly you've had your head in the sand. Biden has been at the heart of the American political system's corruption for 5 decades.
Scum is too nice a word for this guy. He deserve a scaffold, not the White House. Do some research (here are some good starters):
WASHINGTON -- It was one of the few issues on which President Barack Obama and Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. disagreed -- how far to go in limiting the influence of lobbyists
in government.
The vice president privately complained that his boss's effort to slam shut the revolving
door between K Street and the administration would deprive it of experienced talent, and he
bristled when Mr. Obama's aides tried to block him from hiring a well-connected Washington
operator who had lobbied for pharmaceutical and insurance companies, credit agencies and
others.
Eight years later, that same confidant, Steve Ricchetti, is helping to run Mr. Biden's
presidential campaign. Also involved to varying degrees are other advisers, operatives,
fund-raisers and allies with deep connections to Washington's lucrative lobbying,
communications and strategic consulting industry.
That puts Mr. Biden at odds with powerful elements of his party's liberal base.
Increasingly, they are expressing concern that the military contractors, Wall Street banks and
other major corporations that paid members of Mr. Biden's inner circle while they were out of
government could hold disproportionate power in a Biden administration.
Politically, it could limit Mr. Biden's ability to cast himself as the antidote to the
anything-goes access
peddling that has proliferated in President Trump's
administration . Under Mr. Trump, lobbyists and campaign donors have not only enjoyed
access to
the highest levels of the administration , but have been tapped to lead cabinet departments
and have exerted remarkable influence over policies of intense interest to their former
employers.
"It's worrisome, broadly speaking, that a Biden administration could end up abiding by the
unfortunate bipartisan norms of putting people in posts where they oversee industries or
employers they just left," said David Segal, co-founder of the liberal group Demand
Progress.
His organization was among those that sent a
letter to the Biden and Trump campaigns this week asking them not to appoint anyone to
senior administration positions overseeing interests they served in the private sector. The
letter called out Mr. Trump's administration for taking that dynamic "to new extremes," but Mr.
Segal added that Mr. Biden's orbit includes "some folks with troubling track records."
Mr. Biden has pledged to, if elected, " expand on and codify " the Obama administration
lobbying executive order -- the same policy he had privately complained about. That plan
barred lobbyists from going to work for agencies they had tried to influence within the
previous two years, and barred departing officials from
lobbying until the end of the administration.
With scrutiny intensifying, some Biden allies are now distancing themselves from their
corporate work to better position themselves for official roles with the campaign, transition
team or in a potential Biden administration.
Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Mr. Biden's campaign, said the former vice president's ethics
proposal would be "the most ambitious" of "any administration in American history."
Mr. Bates said Mr. Biden was "deeply proud" of the ethics policies enacted in the Obama
administration, and of his work in the Senate before that "to curtail the influence of
lobbyists, money and special interests in government."
But after eight years as vice president and decades in the Senate, Mr. Biden maintains
extensive ties to Washington's permanent political class of policy and political experts who
move between government and private sector positions.
Mr. Ricchetti spent years as a registered lobbyist, and through a company called
Ricchetti Consulting Group is being paid by both the Biden campaign and
AT&T, his only corporate client over the last nine years. Anita Dunn, Mr. Biden's chief
campaign strategist, was also still doing work for AT&T last month.
As of Saturday Ms. Dunn is taking "an official leave" from her firm, which had been paid
millions in recent years to help an airline advocacy group, while also providing communications
advice to an
Israeli spyware firm and the fugitive Nissan
executive Carlos Ghosn , for whom the firm
had been registered to lobby . It ended all those client relationships in the past
year.
A leading candidate to become defense secretary,
Michèle A. Flournoy , started a firm whose website lists work for financial services, technology and
pharmaceutical companies. The former C.I.A. and Obama national security official
Avril Haines , who consulted for the data-mining company Palantir, on Saturday resigned
from Ms. Flournoy's firm to begin work on Mr. Biden's transition team.
None of these advisers are registered as lobbyists, reflecting a trend in which major
corporate and foreign players hire former officials as consultants, or as legal counsel,
allowing them to use their connections and expertise, while avoiding the notoriety and
disclosure requirements that come with formal lobbying. This phenomenon was exacerbated by Mr.
Obama's lobbying policy.
Mr. Biden's more liberal challengers for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senators
Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, both campaigned against K
Street, in part, to differentiate themselves from the candidate they now support.
Ms. Warren proposed
a plan that would expand the definition of lobbying to include consultants and lawyers who try
to influence government, while barring corporate lobbyists from joining the government for six
years. Supporters of Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are
pushing Mr. Biden's team to go further than he has on those issues.
Mr. Ricchetti -- a self-effacing fixer likely to occupy a top position if Mr. Biden is
elected -- personifies the prevalence of influence industry veterans in Mr. Biden's orbit that
concerns progressives.
He rose to prominence as a liaison to the Senate under President Bill Clinton. He left the
White House in 1995 and opened a lobbying shop where he specialized in health care, with a
goal, a person close to him said, of getting back into government once he had set up his family
financially.
He was recruited to return to the White House in 1998 by the then-White House chief of
staff, John D. Podesta. Mr. Ricchetti sold his firm to Mr. Podesta's brother Tony,
until recently one of the town's best-known lobbyists.
In 2001, after Mr. Clinton left office, Mr. Ricchetti opened a new boutique lobbying firm,
Ricchetti Inc.
Within two years, he had compiled a client list that included General Motors, Experian, the
American Hospital Association, AT&T, Eli Lilly, Nextel, Novartis, Pfizer and Fannie Mae,
the quasi-governmental mortgage lender whose late entry into the subprime housing market
exacerbated the 2008 financial crisis.
When Mr. Ricchetti backed Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, aides to her rival
for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama, seized on Mr. Ricchetti's $120,000-a-year contract
with General Motors. The Obama campaign connected his work to an $8 million earmark Mrs.
Clinton secured for the company's New York operations as a senator, a claim Mr. Ricchetti has
denied.
But Mr. Ricchetti, whose discursive and regular-guy style mirrors Mr. Biden's, was viewed
with skepticism in the Obama White House even after he had satisfied the two-year lobbying
cooling-off period required by Mr. Obama's policy. When Mr. Biden settled on Mr. Ricchetti to
help run his office in late 2011, the White House aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe flatly
rejected the idea, according to people close to the situation.
A short, intense scrap ensued, ending only when Mr. Obama gave into Mr. Biden's argument
that he had the "right" to pick his own top deputy, several former aides recalled.
Mr. Ricchetti was hired and by late 2013 was officially appointed Mr. Biden's chief of
staff. Over the next few years, he essentially took control of Mr. Biden's post-presidential
life, setting up a network of nonprofits and academic institutions that would serve as a base
of operations, negotiating the former vice president's lucrative book deal, and, most
important, helping to set up the initial structure of the 2020 campaign, according to aides and
Biden associates.
While the campaign's internal policy allows consultants like Mr. Ricchetti to continue
receiving outside income from approved sources like his consulting arrangement with AT&T,
some of Mr. Biden's top advisers have begun leaving the influence industry to join the
campaign, and possibly a future administration.
Jake Sullivan, who has been helping to develop the Biden campaign's policy positions and
moderating virtual fund-raising
events , resigned this year from a part-time job at the
consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners . At the firm, he had negotiated with labor leaders
on behalf of the ride-hailing company Uber to try to exempt its drivers from being classified
as full-time employees in California.
On Saturday, Antony J. Blinken, a deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration who
is running Mr. Biden's foreign policy operation, joined the campaign full time and took an
unpaid leave of absence from his role as a managing partner in WestExec Advisors, a firm he
co-founded with Ms. Flournoy.
Aaron Keyak, who was named
director of Jewish engagement for Mr. Biden's campaign last month, took a leave from his
public affairs firm, Bluelight Strategies.
Early in the Trump administration, the firm had been paid $10,000-a-month for Mr. Keyak's
help waging a public affairs campaign against the Gulf state of Qatar by Elliott Broidy, a
Republican donor who owns a defense consulting firm. Federal investigators have since looked
into whether that campaign
violated foreign lobbying laws , but Mr. Keyak has not been interviewed by prosecutors, the
Biden campaign said.
Some Democrats argue a Biden administration would be wise not to wall itself off from people
with both government and private sector experience.
"We can't all go to think tanks, or into academia, and you wouldn't want to fill the
government entirely with people who came from ivory tower institutions that are detached from
the mechanics of Washington," said James P. Rubin, who had served as a foreign policy adviser
to Mr. Biden in the Senate and then moved to the State Department in the 1990s before becoming
a registered lobbyist.
In an effort to ease potential hurdles to joining a Biden administration, Mr. Rubin in
recent weeks terminated his lobbying
registrations for a range of clients.
Mr. Rubin argued that Mr. Biden's decades of experience in government meant aides would be
less able to shape his worldview, but he nonetheless contrasted the years of public policy
experience inside and outside government of many Biden advisers to the relatively less
experienced set of advisers around Mr. Trump.
"I'd like to think that now we have to acknowledge that having expertise is good," he
said.
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
The examples and incidents illustrating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's
failing faculties can no longer be ignored and it's inhumane for him to be allowed to campaign
to be leader of the United States.
Mercy is rarely granted to high-profile politicians. They're either lauded or pilloried,
there's no in-between – it comes with the territory. But someone has to make an exception
for Joe Biden.
The Democratic nominee has served his country, whether you agree with his values and
opinions or not, proudly and with distinction. He entered the Senate in 1973 to represent
Delaware and went on to become vice president during Barack Obama's reign.
But this is a man who, at 78 years old in November, is close to the end of his road; he's
not one who should be preparing for four or even eight years at the White House.
The reason why is quite simple: he is cognitively not there any longer.
This is no laughing matter, or a political point, or a vehicle to mock him with: mental
decline is a sad, tortuous process to watch, particularly in someone of his standing.
Earlier this week, Biden staggered on stage in his home state saying: " Good Afternoon
everyone. Welcome to Kingswood Community Center ." The event was at William 'Hicks'
Anderson Community Center.
After losing his focus for a few seconds and genuinely looking lost, he uttered: " I
didn't know where we were. "
For someone on the move a lot, it can be easy to get places mixed up – rock stars are
regularly caught shouting out a city, totally different to the one they are actually playing.
This wasn't that, Biden didn't have a clue where he was.
The heartbreaking element is that you can see he senses it, he realizes himself. That he's
aware of these episodes must be terrifying for the poor man.
It is far from an isolated incident.
Speaking not so long ago, Biden said
during an event : " He's saying that it was President (pause) my boss. " He knew he
had worked for President Obama, but just couldn't recall his name.
Then during a TV interview, when asked about Covid-19, he stated: " We have to take care
of the cure, that will make the problem worse no matter what ."
At a presidential rally in South Carolina, he announced: " Where I come from, you don't
get far unless you ask – my name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United
States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other
Biden ."
There's one particularly chilling theme that will chime with anyone who's seen elderly
relatives suffer mental decline. Biden loses his train of thought regularly, it's the most
obvious indicator – you're talking away and they end up silently staring into space.
It happened to Biden during one session on TV and after a bit of mumbling, he had to say the
only words he could: " I don't know. "
The only thing saving him from complete humiliation time after time are the printed notes,
auto-cues and his off-camera staff. When he freezes, he loses his gaze and then eventually
clicks back into gear thanks to these props.
Another crutch is that he often holds a pen or even a small notebook – which can
figuratively convey the sense of being in control.
Some may label all this as hypercritical or even blatant scaremongering, but it's eerily
similar to a harrowing speech delivered by Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev in the last months of
his reign.
His New Year address in 1979 would make even his biggest enemy sympathetic. His speech is
slurred, his staff talk to him like a child, he even changes glasses as he can't see –
it's incredulous that at the time, he was the leader of a superpower.
It's reckoned at the time he was addicted to alcohol and sleeping pills, and suffering from
the aftereffects of minor strokes.This all leads to problems with general cognitive behaviour,
and within a short time other people were running things for him, before he died in office in
1982.
President Ronald Regan was another world leader whose age caught up with him. He died of
Alzheimer's fifteen years after leaving the White House in 1989, but one of his sons is sure
that he felt the onset of the disease began when he was still in office.
In his book about his father, Ron Reagan wrote
: " My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes,
uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered ."
Britain's wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill is another whose deficiencies were
concealed.
It was only after his death that it became common knowledge that he had suffered a stroke
during his second stint at premier in the early 1950s. Some feel Churchill had a neurological
disease related to Alzheimers but that is refuted by the International Churchill Society, who
say it was progressive
dementia .
These three juggernauts prove that 77-year old Biden is only succumbing to what so many
others have. The thing is, they were all from another era when prestige and power were held as
the be-all and end-all.
The man's dignity and health has to come first. He clearly needs care, and shame on the
charlatans sending him on this presidential campaign.
That's his campaign staff and party members who are out banging the drum for him. They may
feel the end justifies the means to rid the American people of the deeply divisive Donald
Trump, but it doesn't.
Aside from politics, Biden is a husband, father and grandfather. Let him live out the rest
of his days with dignity, as a proud man, not as a laughing stock. The mainstream media, a lot
of whom are liberals with a Democratic leaning, also need to assume culpability too.
Why aren't they discussing this openly and sensibly, pleading for some humanity to be shown?
Instead, the left-leaning Democrat-supporting media simply ignore it, while those on the right
snigger away insidiously on podcasts or review shows.
They should be taking a stand and letting the whole Democratic machine know that this isn't
humane. Instead the left-leaning media act not just as cheerleaders for him, but have basically
become part of his campaign team, covering up the reality.
They're out there, pushing his campaign and ignoring his slip-ups and the reality of his
mental health, and putting a frail old man in harm. Just because they hope to claim part of the
applause for booting Trump out of the White House. It's cruel.
Fox News' Chris Wallace tried to get a one-to-one interview with Biden and would no doubt
have grilled him hard. It would have probably shattered Biden's bid and let everyone see how
badly he is struggling mentally. But what happened?
Wallace revealed: " In our interview last week with President Trump, he questioned
whether his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, could handle a similar encounter. This week, we
asked the Biden campaign for an interview and they said the former vice president was not
available ."
Joe Biden is a political puppet. An unwell one. The puppet masters need to stop and let the
gentleman enjoy his golden years with grace and dignity.
apothqowejh 6 hours ago "Terrifying for the poor man?" But he's not a poor man. He's a very
rich man, and sovis everyone else in his immediate family. They got rich through his corruption
and influence peddling. He was a criminal unqualified for high office long before he ever
started declining. Let's don't forget just who this rich man is, or how he got there.
he non-profit that sent the Democratic Party haywire during the Iowa Caucus earlier this
year has a new strategy: creating partisan news outlets in key states across the country ahead
of the 2020 election. With the financial backing of Hollywood, hedge fund managers, and Silicon
Valley, Acronym's Courier Newsroom may just change local journalism and politics forever.
Courier Newsroom , created by the
dark-money (not required to disclose donors) progressive non-profit Acronym, states that they
were created to restore trust in journalism by helping to rebuild local media across the
country. The opposite of this is true. Their true goal? Winning elections in key states.
Acronym CEO Tara McGowan, in a leaked memo obtained
by Vice, has stated that the goal of establishing Courier Newsroom is to defeat Republicans on
the new frontier of Internet political advertising. McGowan attributes Trump's 2016 success to
the campaign's ability to "shape and drive mainstream media coverage" through an influx of
internet spending. Courier seeks to counter this by challenging Trump on social media. By
definition, Courier serves as a political advertising operation for the Democratic Party rather
than a legitimate media source.
Calling for a new approach to political advertising, McGowan lambasted Hillary Clinton's
failed media strategy for its over-reliance on spending on traditional media, "In 2016, the
Hillary Clinton for President campaign raised an estimated $800 million online -- and spent a
large majority of it on television and radio advertisements." The 2016 election has proven to
be the reason for the creation of Courier Newsroom.
McGowan explicitly states that the papers are being used to boost political results, "
The Dogwood will not only function to support the flipping of both State House and
State Senate chambers in Virginia this November, but will serve as a vehicle to test, learn
from and scale best practices to new sites as we grow." The Dogwood , as of the time
of the writing of the leaked memo, was intended to be the prototype for future courier new
sites.
Courier has established news sites across key 2020 states including: Copper Courier
(Arizona), The Dogwood (Virginia), Up North News (Wisconsin), The
Gander (Michigan), Cardinal & Pine (North Carolina), The Keystone
(Pennsylvania), and The Americano (nationwide, intended for Latino audiences). Courier
extensively utilizes social media to promote stories made by the publications, generating
clicks in order to shape public voter opinion.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_884035211 Ad ends in 15s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Courier stories are written with the intent of mobilizing women and young people. McGowan
writes that Courier does this by "framing issues from health care to economic security in a way
that provides these voters with more personal and local relevance than they are often targeted
through traditional political ads." While these are real stories, they are packaged with the
intent on provoking a positive reaction from certain demographics of the population, in order
to spur them to vote for the Democratic Party this November. Courier itself has conceded that
they exist solely to challenge Republicans on social media.
Courier Newsroom Editor-in-Chief Lindsay Schrupp disagreed with the concerns regarding
journalistic integrity of its writers and service. Schrupp told The American
Conservative the following,
Courier Newsroom and its affiliated sites are independent from ACRONYM. We maintain an
editorial firewall, just like any other media company, and the managing editor of each site,
in addition to me as editor in chief, has ultimate discretion and control over content
published. Painting all partisan-leaning outlets with the same brush is dangerous and too
often creates false equivalency between very different types of newsrooms. All outlets in the
Courier Newsroom network operate with integrity and adhere to traditional journalistic
standards. It's offensive to our journalists -- many of whom have won state, regional and
national awards for their reporting -- to try to make a direct comparison to partisan outlets
on the right that often don't publish bylines, don't hire experienced or even local
reporters, don't comply with basic fact-checking standards, and don't do original reporting
in the regions where they operate. Courier aims to combat the misinformation spread by such
right-wing sites pretending to be "local news" by providing readers with transparently
progressive local reporting.
According to data from Facebook Ad Library, between May 2018 and July 12, 2020 Courier
Newsroom
spent $1,478,784 on Facebook ads on topics that include social issues, elections or
politics. Conservative
alternatives , such as the Daily Wire or Breitbart, have spent considerably less money on
Facebook advertising. Breitbart spent $11,404 since March 2018 and the Daily Wire spent
$418,578 since March 2018 according to Facebook's ad library.
Courier's political agenda is obvious. By looking into their Facebook ad-buys, Courier
Newsroom has spent extensively on vulnerable Democrats who came into office in the 2018
midterms. These pieces, while factual, highlight the accomplishments of narrowly elected
Democrats.
Among those that are frequently featured in mass ad-buys on Facebook are:
"Courier Newsroom's goal is to help elect Democrats. The site doesn't say that, but its
founder, Tara McGowan, has made this clear." Gabby Deutch of Newsguard, a journalism watchdog
focused on identifying fake news, tells The American Conservative. Deutch claims that
Courier is different from other partisan news outlets because their intentions are not clearly
stated. Courier instead argues that they are seeking to fill a void left in local
journalism.
According to The New York
Times in a story published in 2019, 1 in 5 local newspapers have been forced to shut
down forever. Political groups, such as Acronym, are poised to revitalize local journalism with
a new twist -- political advertising. Deutch warned The American Conservative of this
worrying development, "With fewer local newspapers -- a decline that's gotten even worse due to
the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic -- there's room for political groups to fill the
void, playing off people's trust in local news. So they make a site that looks like local news
but has few (if any) reporters in the state, and then create content to woo voters."
There are examples on the right side of the spectrum too, she points out, including the
conservative Star network (Michigan Star and Tennessee Star are two examples) and AlphaNewsMN,
a conservative Minnesota site. "Readers deserve to know the agenda of the websites where they
get their news."
Browsing North Carolina's Courier news site Cardinal & Pine, one finds it brands itself
as "local news for the NC community." Newsguard' s assessment of Courier, is indeed
true, with the overwhelming majority of stories highlighting the successes of North Carolina
Democrats such as Governor Roy Cooper, attacking Republicans such as vulnerable Senator Thom
Tillis, and promoting Democratic policy positions -- notably as it relates to COVID-19 and BLM
social justice protests. Similarly, Virginia's Courier news site, The Dogwood, did not publish
an article detailing Virginia's biggest scandal of 2019: Governor Northam's controversial
blackface yearbook photo. Nor can one find any reference of Tara Reade, Joe Biden's sexual
assault accuser who entered the public eye earlier this spring.
Even more striking, is that as a 501(c)(4), Acronym is not required to disclose donors.
Acronym in 2018 received $250,000 from New Venture
Fund which is managed by Arabella. Through its dark-money ties,
Arabella has raised $2.4 billion dollars since 2006, making it one of the largest
financiers in American politics. Arabella's influence came into the limelight during the 2018
mid-term elections, in which they raised the
most ever by a left-leaning political non-profit. Courier Newsroom is, in other words, entirely
funded by secret donors that likely have significant ties to the Democratic Party and the Super
PACs bankrolling the 2020 election.
Acronym has invested millions of dollars to establish these papers across the country with
plans to continue their expansion into local media across the country in preparation for the
2020 election and beyond. Acronym has claimed that they are separate from Courier and allow the
creators to produce their own independent ideas, although, tax documents have revealed them to
be full owners
.
"This is all probably legal," says Bradley Smith, former Chairman of the FEC and foremost
scholar on campaign finance. "What surprises me is that more entities–especially on the
conservative side, since the majority of traditional media already lean left–don't do
this. But there are examples on the right–for example, NRA Radio." Donors can be kept
secret, as under Citizen's United , the 'periodicals' of 501(c)(4) groups do not have
to be filed with FECA. (Federal Election Campaign Act) Smith believes organizations such as
Courier will likely be a part of a greater trend in local journalism across the country.
Pacronym, also under the Acronym umbrella, is a Democratic Super-PAC charged with the single
goal of electing Joe Biden. Pacronym ads present similar content to what one would see on a
Courier publication, focusing heavily on the failures of Trump's handling of COVID-19, the
struggling of small-businesses across key-swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin), and Joe Biden's proposed response to the virus.
Courier, with the same goal, repurposes ideas by PACs and the Democratic Party by attaching
a 'news' label for legitimacy. "The anti-Trump ads from Courier focus on the same points as
Pacronym and other Democratic political groups, but if they look like news articles, the
audience sees them differently than the same content coming from a politician," According to
Deutch
at Newsguard.
Pacronym donors are publicly disclosed, and may have present a clue into Courier Newsroom's
finances. Some notable
financiers of Pacronym include billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman, Hollywood icon
Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Kapshaw, a billionaire heiress to the Levi Strauss brand
Mimi Haas, and silicon valley's very own LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Pacronym has
targeted a $75 million-dollar digital ad campaign, primarily using Facebook, against
President Trump for the upcoming election.
Acronym is also involved in another scandal, notably the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. Shadow
Inc, also operating under Acronym's umbrella, was established with the purpose of digitally
registering and mobilizing voters. Shadow Inc's leadership primarily consisted of 2016
ex-Clinton campaign staff. Shadow Inc received a contract by the Iowa Democratic Party for
$63,183 to develop an application to help count votes in the Iowa Caucus. Shadow Inc's
application, the IowaReporterApp, failed to properly report the caucus, leading to a delayed
result. Campaigns, pundits, and election officials were confused due to the inconsistencies
found in the results.
Candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed victory despite the caucus results not having been properly
released. According to data by the FEC, Pete Buttigieg's campaign paid Shadow Inc. $21,250 for
"software rights and subscriptions" in July 2019. Acronym CEO Tara McGowan's husband, Michael
Halle, was a senior strategist for the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Michael Halle's brother, Ben
Halle, was Pete Buttigieg's Iowa Communications Director. Many have suspected foul play, or at
least incompetence.
Courier Newsroom is distinct from both fake-news and astro-turf operations that came into
the public eye during the 2016 election. Rather than produce fake content with the intent to
mislead, Courier articles are legitimate and are written by real writers. In the leaked Acronym
memo, CEO Tara McGowan claimed that the Democratic Party was losing "the media war."
In 2014 the National Republican Congressional Committee established fake news
websites and paid to boost them on Google. These websites were deceptive with the intent on
defeating the opposing candidate. Although, these websites publicly disclosed that they were
paid for by the committee at the bottom of the article. Courier's funding remains
undisclosed.
PACs, in tandem with a surge in online political advertising, have weaponized newsrooms to
present misleading news for electoral success.
Alberto Bufalino is a student at Wake Forest University in North Carolina and TAC's summer
editorial intern.
I don't know . . . It's bad enough that the republic has to deal with a broad swath of
people getting their news from terrible facebook feeds. It's why America has a president
selling beans and promoting demon sperm doctors, and why it's one of the few countries that
can't keep covid down despite it's resources.
I don't think trying to get the rest of getting our news from people that operate at the
level of Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Breitbart is praiseworthy.
You are right in principle.
We have this six hundred pound Citizens United crapping all over the room though.
I too wish that the game was played by different rules. But this is not Switzerland and we
need to win first.
Is it clear though that repealing Citizens United would change this? The Double Plus
Wealthy are already funding the top online websites to the tune of millions of dollars a
year, and the funders of the Federalist are famously anonymous despite the Federalist
basically being an arm of the Republican party/embarrassment to thinking.
I am happy though that the anonymous funders of the Courier are not sponsoring fake news
that makes their readers dumber, unlike *checks the article** the National Republican
Congressional Committee . Yowza.
Repeal of Citizens United would make it possible to regulate who funds whom. It
would not guarantee the outing of arrangements like Courier. Give me a leaked memo any
day.
Its difficult for me to speak objectively because I haven't read a newspaper in reliably
for about 40 years and even then I got very tired on news reporting always being biased to
the left and sensationalizing the news which was right around the time when real objective
investigatory news ended and commentator based news as well as entertainment news started to
take over.
Biden is the person who supports the return to "classic neoliberalism" and his support is
from groups who are interesting is kicking the can down the road.
Supporting the likely victory of Bidenismo are several groups with seemingly conflicting
interests:
The Congressional Democrats; Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler et al. Like all politicians
their main concern is the acquisition and retention of power. They act en bloc on the
orders of their leaders in whatever might be going on. This was on display yesterday in the
Barr hearing in the House. The Democrat members had been instructed to deny Barr an opportunity
to answer their questions and they did that with a great deal of posturing and faux
pique.
The true leftists; Bernie, Warren, AOC, Wheeler of Portland, the other squaddies, etc. Some
of these are members of Congress but their socialist cause is more important to them than their
political careers. These folks have the Bernie Bro masses at their backs. They have thus far
controlled just about everything in the Biden "program." But, they are not content. Biden does
not yet accept "Medicare for all," (universal single payer, not Medicare at all), and he says
that rioters should be punished. A senior Bernie staffer said yesterday that voting for Biden
is "like eating half a s--t sandwich.
The Marxist revolutionary anarchist groups; BLM and Antifa. These folks are movements rather
than hierarchical countrywide structures. Nevertheless, someone or something is supporting them
with large sums of money to fund transportation, living costs and logistical arrangements for
the purchase and stockpiling of riot supplies. A tent full of these was captured by the Feds
near the Portland court house. These groups do not adhere to either party. They want to destroy
the existing social, governmental, and financial system, but who can doubt that they favor the
Democrats as the "lesser of two weevils?"
The monied leftists in Wall Street and Silicon Valley, they are the financial engine that
drives Biden's dream. They recoil in horror from the idea of Warren and AOC playing a
significant role in a Biden government.
The Biden coven of VP possibilities. The woman chosen is likely to be president after "a
decent interval." And what a group! Demings is a former police chief! Warren - Nah! Kamala
Harris, half Indian, a formerly ferocious prosecutor and judge in California. She and Demings
will go over splendidly with the anarcho-marxist groups of Biden supporters. Susan Rice! A
"Black" person from a Portland, Maine family, descended from a West Indian sailor who came
ashore there several generations back and settled down with a Down East woman. Well, pilgrims,
whomever Joe's minders allow him to have, this person will have interests that compete with
those of all the others, including those of Biden himself.
The core of the backing of both parties are big money interests who use their wealth to gain
massive political influence as big government is what drives market concentration.
Take for example big tech. Their CEOs are testifying to Congress this week. There's no
better examples of market concentration. Yet both parties "leadership" will be working to
insure the tech monopolies are protected. When billions are used to purchase political
influence, the entire system is fully bought and paid for. Between the Obama and Trump
administrations the amount of money conjured up and handed over to the financiers is in the
trillions with a capital T. This is exactly what political influence buys when big money and
big government are locked together in a symbiotic relationship.
The Bernie/AOC wing will make a lot of noise, just like the evangelists did in the GOP. But
in my opinion we should look at the details of the legislation that actually gets enacted not
the rhetoric that is designed to distract. The fact is the working and middle class are sold
increasingly strident rhetoric to divide and distract while they're being looted blind for
generations.
Biden in my opinion is just a front for Obama's third term. Obama's team is running the
Biden campaign. Obama was very friendly to global corporate and Wall St interests. The first
person he hung out with on leaving the White House was Richard Branson.
I was asking myself the same question today when reading a Politico piece on Biden's VP
menu. I think you missed two big names: Rep. Karen Bass and Sen. Tammy Duckworth. I think
Biden's campaign are looking at the VP from the POV of how each candidate could help him in a
specific area. Let me explain my theory:
1. Karen Bass: Congressional Black Caucus head, will deliver both the congress' black votes
and will brigde between Biden's campaign and progressives and has the correct 'optics'. plus
Biden himself admitted that it was Rep. Clyburn who delivered the black votes to him, and I
think for this reason rep. Bass fits well into this situation.
2. Tammy Duckworth: war veteran, Filipino, has the support of both liberal internationalists
and and Never Trumpers. She can deliver F.P. to biden But she has no name recognition compared
to Warren and Kamala. Plus she is not a huge name anyway.
3. Kamala: has the California factor, tough on crime (independents and centrists like her
very much), Indian and Black, name recognition, has that 'presidential vibe' that makes her
naturally in charge much like how Cheney did during Bush 43's tenure. has F.P. similar to
Obama's, but not very specialized there. Maybe somewhere in-between progressive f.p. and
liberal internationalists.
4. The rest is hard to sell to the leftists, espeically to the radicals. Delmingo, Bottoms,
et. al don't strike me as VP quality material and at best are the mini version of Kamala.
5. Susan Rice is the dark horse here and is purely specialized in F.P. and nat sec affairs.
What would Biden gain from Rice, is most likely be undoing what Trump has done since 2016.
Meaning bringing back multilaterlaism, free-trade, R2P, Paris, JCPOA, and others. Although the
congressional republicans will do their best to block these attempts, there are bipartisan
issues that will be addressed like maintaining NATO, keeping troops in the ME, humanitarian
pivot to China and social engineering projects broadly, a.k.a. the continuation of forever
wars. domestically, I don't think Rice has anything to offer to Biden on domestic policy. It is
just not her forte.
...
Which brings us to this question: What is the immediate priority of Biden's campaign if he
is able to pull off the win in November 8th with regards to his pick for the VP? Domestic
concern? if the answer is yes, then it will be Karen Bass, Warren, and Kamala. But if the
priority is foreign policy, then it will be Rice and Duckworth to a lesser degree, but
primarily Rice.
My gut tells me he will pick Kamala next week instead of Susan Rice. She can deliver both,
but rice can only deliver F.P.
Given the possibility of a new (4th or 5th??!) election and the low popularity of Bibi
(21%), his handling of the Covid-19, the growing unrest of the Hasidic Orthdox Jews (his base)
with his restrictive policies, the new rounds of court hearing about his corruption (and his
wife's) and the recent escalations in northern borders it would be hard to see Bibi in office
if Biden becomes president.
I think Democrats are more favorable to the Tel Aviv aspect of Israel if you know what I
mean, than the Jerusalem aspect. Plus, Benny Gantz is already serving both as PM alternate and
war minister, and several key nat sec dems have already voiced their support of him.
I too am interested to see how the Biden admin (if elected) and Israel's relationship will
look like...
What Jack says was true in the pre Trump era. Yes, the Uniparty has been an exercise in
faux rhetorical battles distracting from a single underlying agenda in the past . But
this time it is different. Trump is the last bulwark against the sweeping away of
conservatism as a political force altogether. The ideological battle is real and the stakes
could not be higher.
It matters very much who wins, it could scarcely matter more. If the above described
witches brew of leftists gains power under the Dem standard, the US will be unrecognizable in
short order. Love him or loathe him, Trump is the only barrier to a tsunami of crazy ideas
being unleashed upon us. All in the interest of hastening the Brave New World and saving us
from our simpleminded and outmoded notions; ones like personal & state sovereignty.
Trump himself has displayed some authoritarian tendencies, but his value system does at
least appear to be rooted in humanism. The great irony of the TDS afflicted who rage against
his supposed tyrannical designs, is that very often they display utter contempt for the
millions of regular folk who voted him into power. For me, Trump is the only thing standing
in the way of the tyrannies each of the various leftist crackpot groups would unleash.
The sclerotic Dem old guard, as you say, are just interested in power and of course the
attendant opportunities for personal enrichment. By and large they have zero respect for the
actual people who they nominally serve. They are corrupt, but otherwise not the most
dangerous constituency and may well be swept away by a hard Left takeover.
The Marxists and anarchists, as always, are desperate to force us to be free and bring
about the greatest good for all. So a few (million?) may have to be re-educated or liquidated
in the process. Well that's the price of Progress. No thanks.
The financial engine; the élites of the Silicon Valley and Wall Street, see people
as mere units of account in their schemes; sources of data or sources of debt - to be
exploited by their respective systems. I see them, particularly the Big Tech and global
finance techno-fascists, as the most dangerous. Davos chair Klaus Schwab describes
a coming Fourth Industrial Revolution which will "redefine what it means to be human". What
is it with such people, why can't they just be happy with humans the way we are? All such
talk stems from the most profound of delusions; that Mankind may somehow transcend its flawed
existence thru the use of ever more sophisticated technology. Transhumanism it is called -
literally engineering ourselves into something better. And dare we ask whose definition of
"better" - in whose image are we to be remade - Bill Gates'?
Religion and spiritualism are of course the correct places to seek to be reconciled with
the seeming paradoxes of the human condition. Conservatism comes closest to embracing this
path to true happiness and rejecting the false gospel of technology-induced redemption. All
other roads lead to dystopias of one kind or another and IMO there is a great concentration
of such roads leading away from a Dem win in November.
I can't even imagine a Biden Presidency. Actually, I really can't imagine it because his
presidency will be really that of the people who are able to pull more of his puppet
strings.
If we're talking Republican women as VP picks, I find it strange that they all somehow
disreagarded Tulsi Gabbard. She's the only one who actually seemed human to me and not a
wind-up blathering doll spewing tape-recorded messages.
Such women are relentlessly hostile about male courtesies like holding a door or a chair.
I worked in parallel with a woman NIO who told me that it was unfair for me to mention my
experience of war in congressional testimony. The intent was clearly to intimidate.
I suspect, that if Biden should get elected he will only be a mouthpiece for various
puppet-masters. And when it comes to FP, lurking just off-stage, will be the Chief
puppet-master, the Hildebeast!
Before looking into Russian options in relation to the US, we need to take a quick look at
how Russia has been faring this year. The short of it would be: not too well. The Russian
economy has shrunk by about 10% and the small businesses have been devastated by the combined
effects of 1) the economic policies of the Russian government and Central Bank, and 2) the
devastating economic impact of the COVID19 pandemic, and 3) the full-spectrum efforts of the
West, mostly by the Anglosphere, to strangle Russia economically. Politically, the "Putin
regime" is still popular, but there is a sense that it is getting stale and that most Russians
would prefer to see more dynamic and proactive policies aimed, not only to help the Russian
mega-corporations, but also to help the regular people. Many Russians definitely have a sense
that the "little guy" is being completely ignored by fat cats in power and this resentment will
probably grow until and unless Putin decides to finally get rid of all the Atlantic
Integrationists aka the "Washington consensus" types which are still well represented in the
Russian ruling circles, including the government. So far, Putin has remained faithful to his
policy of compromises and small steps, but this might change in the future as the level of
frustration in the general population is likely to only grow with time.
That is not to say that the Kremlin is not trying. Several of the recent constitutional
amendments adopted in a national vote had a strongly expressed "social" and "patriotic"
character and they absolutely horrified the "liberal" 5th columnists who tried their best two
1) call for a boycott, and 2) denounce thousands of (almost entirely) imaginary violations of
the proper voting procedures, and to 3) de-legitimize the outcome by declaring the election a
"fraud". None of that worked: the participation was high, very few actual violations were
established (and those that were, had no impact on the outcome anyway) and most Russians
accepted that this outcome was the result of the will of the people. Furthermore, Putin has
made public the Russian strategic goals for 2030
,which are heavily focused on improving the living and life conditions of average Russians (for
details, see here ). It is impossible to predict
what will happen next, but the most likely scenario is that Russia has several, shall we say,
"bumpy" years ahead, both on the domestic and on the international front.
I would add that Russia should also start opening channels of communication with various
organizations in Canada, especially those in the far north. While Canada is small
politically, it is vastly bigger than the U.S. in natural resources, very strategically
located and right next door to Russia.
I really agree with you that the "blame Russia" and "blame China" thing has gotten out of
hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems doubtful to me, as the
government is still full of people who are looking out for their own interests and know that
a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that "Russian asset" would become the
all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
I think Trump can win, though, if he successfully hangs the escalating Antifa/BLM mayhem
around the Democrat's necks. Normal, salt-of-the-earth-type Americans won't vote for the
party of Maoist mayhem. I just hope their numbers are still sufficient. So, really, the
mayhem needs to worsen and get ultra-bad, and Trump needs to carefully respond with just
enough law enforcement to bait the Democrats into defending the insurrectionists and their
tactics and loudly condemning Trump's "fascist" response. Normal people will see the true
story and in the privacy of the voting booth, not vote Democrat. And if you think the other
side lost their minds after the 2016 election .
Thanks Saker – I would have loved it, had Alaska been able to hang on to the 90s
relationship with Russia. It was a perfect match, except that Russian economy { as we were
told} was just tanking, and they had no money to throw into the tourist trade. Not that us
Alaskans, expected much more than what our bush villages had to offer. lol But , I'm afraid
this will never happen again, with the Zio freaks in charge of the US. I recall when I was
flying and living in McGrath in the 90s, that a womens Russian helicopter team dropped down
to refuel and I was workin on my cessna about 50 yrds away. I saw about 6+ really good
looking Russian chicks come out of those choppers, and us guys were floored ! We started to
communicate with them, they told us that they were re -tracing the WW II lend lease route and
were headed to the lower 48. Just about the time we started getting close tho, an old Lady
colonel jumped out and put the girls in place – lol . I also remember the Magadan
hockey team came over to play against our University teams Anchorage and Fairbanks. My
neighbor here in Kryme, was on that Russian team – small world. Ya, Russia and Alaska
would be a great match today – just gotta get rid of Washington. Thanks for the
memories.
" until and unless Putin decides to finally get rid of all the Atlantic Integrationists
aka the "Washington consensus" types which are still well represented in the Russian ruling
circles, including the government."
Putin's regime is merely a less unbearable version of the Yeltsin regime, with open loot
by oligarchs replaced by less overt loot by smaller scale actors. Putin is exactly as
beholden to the neoliberal capitalist system as Yeltsin. To expect Putin to change sides as
this point is ludicrous.
" Russia and the Empire have been at war since at least 2013, for no less than seven
years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to
ignore)."
I have no idea what a "neo" Marxist is (apart from a blatant made up term to taint us by
association with the neo-Nazis), but as a Marxist, which the Saker obviously is not, it's
obvious to me that the Imperialist States of America has been at war with Russia since the
Yeltsinite attack on the Moscow parliament in 1993, and probably from the failed patriotic
coup of 1991. If we ignore the Saker's idea of a war since 2013 it's only because we know
it's twenty years out of date.
Things will never improve between Amerikastan and Russia and don't need to. Amerikastan is
sinking and will sink; Putin will, if he continues on the neoliberal capitalist track, sink
Russia as well in the end.
The video link to Sahra Wagenknecht's report was the best part of this article although
the article itself was spot on if one has any respect for reality.
I keep waiting for Germany to tell NATO and the US to get the hell out, but their
political establishment is just as corrupt as the US's.
The amount of money the US Fed Gov steals from the population in taxes and regulation or
causes loss of purchasing power by increasing debt could be much better put to use than
shoveling it into the military to murder people around the globe. The entire Fed Gov will, I
hope, disappear like fart gas as a result of the economic collapse in the making.
@Emily at was just a brutal form of monopoly capitalism that is the essence of the
Zionist syndicate we all are up against. Today piratized not privatized Russia is suffering a
less severe form but it is estimated that half Jew Putin and his oligarch cronies control ap.
30% of the Russian economy. all of this insider theft was "codified and Legalized" by Larry
Summers and the Harvard Jews. Same thing is happening in Jewmerica and moving lots faster now
with the theft under cover of the fake virus. Don't forget in 08-09 the bailout for
billionaires cost the regular economy trillions then too. No problem, the Jews at Black Rock
picked up some great bargains as they will this time.
The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot
be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed.
I would add that Putin (a masterful statesman) tamed Russia's oligarchs. The greatest fear
of America's oligarchs might well be a similar taming by a masterful American statesman.
Hence the refusal to allow anyone other than corrupted mediocrities anywhere near nominal
power in the US. And hence the entirely genuine hatred for Putin. He embodies their worst
nightmare.
"Russia will never attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western
russophobes)"
Now that team orange clown (with the full support of congress) has done away with the
doctrine of mutually assured destruction, apparently replacing it with the concept of a
"winnable" nuclear war (impliedly by way of a devastating first strike), the time may come
when Russia may have to either strike first or be struck first.
Also, what about the case where the empire is finally successful in starting a war against
Iran, for example, and the war goes badly for the empire (i.e. Iran is inflicting some
serious damage), whereupon the empire resorts to nukes. Would Russia just sit back and watch,
or would Russia then realize that the monster has to be put down?
"The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot
be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed."
In a sense that's true as far as it goes, but it really doesn't explain very much. Lots of
countries are unable to subdue, subvert or conquer other countries but that in itself doesn't
generally lead to "hatred." The simpler and more profound explanation is that the empire does
what it does because it's evil. And the evil empire is analogous to an aggressive cancer:
either the cancer wins and the patient dies, or the cancer is completely eradicated and the
patient survives. There is no peaceful coexistence with the evil empire just like there is no
peaceful coexistence with glioblastoma. You cannot negotiate with it to find some kind of a
reasonable compromise.
The US government and FRS seem to be hell-bent on destroying the value of the US $: when
someone issues debt obligations (treasuries) and then buys them himself because there are no
other takers, you cannot help smelling a rat.
The crash of the $ will hurt everyone, but some will recover faster than others. Euro and
yen would be buried with the US $, but assets in less US-dependent countries that have real
economies producing things other than hot air will likely fare better. Which leaves Russia,
big China, South Korea, and some SE Asia countries.
the US was at about the same level in 2013: "The top 10% of families held 76% of the
wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of families held 1%. Inequality worsened from 1989 to
2013"
Indications are that the worsening has only continued since then, and with all the money
being poured into the stock market by the Fed this year, 2020 is on track to be exceptionally
iniquitously inequitable.
Trump 're-election' is certain. All roads are paved toward it. In fact and so far Trump is
the best Neocon/Deep State's man they found. Stop pretending Saker!
The US is under rule by decree, not by rule of law. Looking at the original list of
grievances the Colonists had against King George, it looks like most of them are met –
and then some – by our current system of government. Can we regain our
independence?
said:
"A Trump re-election will virtually guarantee civil war, but that is still a better option
than a Biden hot war against Russia. Either way though, the country is totally fucked."
– We already have a civil war.
– Either way there will be no "hot war against Russia". That's just silly.
– And there is no "Biden" there.
– The US is much, much better off with Trump, it's not even close. Especially if you
value free speech, fighting violence, and at least some semblance of a market economy devoid
of the 'Green New Deal' scam.
after Vietnam war, Vietnam, ally of China , keep their regime in their own
hand.
The ally of North Vietnam was Russia.
China blocked the transit of Russian weapons to North Vietnam. After North Vietnam
defeated the Americans, with Russian help, China invaded North Vietnam and was defeated.
For Saker it is always about Russia, Russia, Russia Sure, Russia is a big world power, it
used to be and it is now. It is so mostly because of its military, which draws its strength
and know-how from the USSR (meaning it is not strictly Russian). However, Russia will never
again be a superpower as the USSR had been. It was possible then only because of the
(historically) unparalleled appeal of the communist ideology. Firstly and objectively, Russia
does not have an economy necessary to support such a status. Secondly, Russia has no
sufficient population which, again, is a limiting factor to its economy. Putin probably
realized that although he did not realize that the Putin-inspired immigration from the former
Muslim republic of the USSR will not alleviate the problem. But again, who would even want to
go to today's Russia if not Asiatic muslims. It will slowly but surely make Russia not much
different from the West. Muscovites, just like New Yorkers are already leaving the city,
those who can afford.
And, subjectively, Russia or the Russians don't have the most important ingredient fort the
superpower status – the MENTALITY. The recent (1990-2020) Russian history clearly
displays that. It shows that in order to realize the centuries old dreams of the few (so
called "elites") Russia as a nation and as country had put itself to the downward trajectory:
As an empire it sold Alaska; as a civilization – it destroyed itself by dismantling the
rest of the empire, the USSR. As an ally it abandoned and handed over the most Russophile
german friend and ally E. Honecker and others to the "partners" in the west. And, as an
orthodox and Slavic "brother" it betrayed and abandoned the only people that have always
loved Russia – the Serbs. As an ally it behaved recklessly and treacherously. Russia
will do the same again. So, hate Russia.
Since 2016 I've always believed Trump will be legally elected in 2020 but the DNC/Deep
State will reject the result much more forcefully and violently than they've been doing since
2016. The DNC/Deep State will establish a shadow government minus the shadow. It will not be
Joe Biden leading it but someone much younger, possibly Biden's VP choice – who was
(will be) selected to replace Biden should Biden actually win. Hell, it may even be Hussein
since he's such a treasonous pussy and easy to manipulate. The communists behind the scenes
(aren't they always such cowards) currently coordinating BLM and Antifa riots all over
America will again use rioting but with firearms and bombings. This must be met with a
military response and the violence will be nationwide. At some point either Trump declares
martial law and outright civil war ensues, or a military coup takes over with or without
Trump as a figurehead and they crush the communists and leftists while right wing militias
join in the hunt. The only wild-card is if race driven factionalism within lower ranks cause
wide divisions and some officers break away – then the whole show is over and there
will be no place safe from people with guns and bad intentions. We will be fighting over food
and gasoline. At least, like in China, there will be plenty of dogs to satisfy hunger.
Putin's difficulty is that Russia is really too important for the West to ignore.
Western elites, and not just in the US, but in the EU and the western-hemisphere in
general, are facing a problem: people are beginning to notice that human values are not
universal. This had been one of the main pillars for the existence and credibility of a
technocratic elite, specifically for the people to trust the elites to implement some
unspecified but benevolent neo-enlightenment.
Putin became truly anathema first when he rejected western neoliberal criminality
because
[Hide MORE] it was destroying his country, secondly, when he thwarted amputation
of Crimea by color revolution, and thirdly, when he kept calling out NATO/EU expansionism for
what it was. This made conversion of Russia to the neoliberal finance and 'universal value"
system even less likely than the conversion to Roman Catholicism prophesied at Fatima. Putin
decided that Russia would live by its own values, thank you very much. Russia could
still have been an arms-length ally, but Anglo-Zionist geopolitical extremism forced him to
make cause with a clearly adversarial China, and encouraged him to circumvent the western
currency system as well.
But peoples within the west were also developing this NGTOW (Nations Going Their Own Way)
attitude. Hungary and Poland were already becoming thorns in the side of the EU over the
"human value" immigration, and the elections of Trump and Brexit were further assertions of
populist preferences. Other politicians like Wagenknecht, LePen and Salvini are nurturing
this movement elsewhere. It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal oligarchy, by dialing
up propaganda and censorship, and by using Orwellian cancel terrorism, can quell this
awakening rebellion.
@Wally licies.
6. Dramatically improve US education, from elementary school up.
7. Reform US healthcare, with a view of making it healthcare, rather than extortion racket it
is today.
There are many other things, but anyone attempting to do even half of those listed would
be promptly JFK'ed by the Deep State. That is why there is no one in the US politics decent
enough to even talk about real problems, not to mention attempting to do what needs to be
done to save the country. Hence, I can name no names.
As things stand, even Trump is better than senile and corrupt Biden. But being better than
that piece of shit is not a big achievement.
China allowed Soviet arms through to North Vietnam and was herself giving weapons to them.
The Soviets didn't trust the Chinese though, so they preferred to transport more advanced
weapons on ships rather than by train through China, to prevent the Chinese from getting a
close look on these.
China attacked Vietnam for invading Cambodia, but this war exposed the weakness of the
Chinese Army. Deng Xiaoping was able to push through military reforms after the debacle.
@Ko e and destabilize western nations. These paid activists, opportunists and useful
idiots could be taken care of by the local law enforcement as the constitution mandates if
allowed to do so. The goal of the Zionist criminals is to create enough chaos and breakdown
that people will demand that the national gov. step in with martial law. This is exactly what
the Zionists want so they can get rid of the locally controlled police and implement a
gestapo of thugs that are accountable only to the elite at the top.
The zionist politicians and their operatives from the mayors to the Governors on up need
to be thrown out of office. That is the first step in restoring the Republic.
@alwayswrite ernative media has excellent analysts) instead of immersing in the stinky
products of presstituting MSM controlled by 6 zio-corporations.
Your hysterics about Russia's alleged attempts at destabilizing the EU are particularly
entertaining. For starter, 1. learn about US bases in Europe and beyond, and 2. read about
the consequences of the wars of aggression (also known as Wars for Israel) in the Middle East
for the EU.
If you are in search of neonazi, turn your attentions to a great project run by ziocons and
neonazi in Ukraine. See Grossman, Kolomojsky, Zelinsky, Nuland-Kagan, Pyatt, Carl Gershman
(NED), and the whole Kagans' clan united with Banderites What can go wrong?
What a terrific video of "peaceful protests" Jordan presented. Yowza. The leftist
gaslighting will continue in spite of it, but would it be fair then to label these "peaceful
protests", these "myths" (according to Chairman Nadler), The Unicorn Riots?
Seriously, is it possible the leftists are pursuing a winning strategy by either
ignoring/denying (at best) all of the violence and destruction or (at worst) by making excuses
for it and condemning those who are trying to maintain order? Will a majority of voters side
with the rioters? I refuse to believe we're that far gone as a country, refuse to believe the
polls that state Biden's in the lead everywhere. Instead, I'm beginning to suspect the polls
are a desperate attempt to make it look like a horserace when it's not.
I may be wrong, REALLY wrong of course - no doubt there are a lot of Trump and Deplorables
haters that would vote for a decomposed corpse rather than the POTUS, but still, these riots
surely aren't helping their cause and that's why they're feigning ignorance. Do they believe
campaigning on good old "Law and Order" is passe now, a no-no because it's unappealing to the
[obviously TERRIBLY unhappy] young anarchists/socialists/communists? Has the mainstream
Democratic Party turned into Vichyites?
Joe Biden's alternate reality: "I know a fair amount about American foreign policy." Reality
Check from Robert Gates, Obama/Biden's former defense secretary: Biden has "been wrong on
nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
"Looking at Biden vs Trump almost makes me long for the days of the 2016 election –
almost. As I have written, Trump is out of his depth dealing with these crises, and the
generals who could have helped him are long gone – and gone on bad terms, at that. Biden
is so visibly senile the only question is whether he drops out as soon as his VP is announced
(who then moves into the lead slot & picks her own VP), or is propped up through the
election like Brezhnev in his final year.
"Trump it seems has boxed himself into a corner. This situation needed decisive, tough
action up front, and that didn't happen. Now we have simmering violence & renewed lockdowns
to keep the pot boiling. We simply may not make it to November without a three (or four?)
– sided civil war – I would hate to make book on it either way, the right spark and
the whole thing blows up. But if we get to the election, what then? If Trump wins, the
DNC-Antifa-BLM "Axis of REAL Evil" which is fueling these crises (aided by the MSM, of course)
will shriek 'foul!' and the cities burn again, at which point old guys like me & my veteran
neighbors & younger versions of us pick up our AR-15s and fight it. If Trump loses, the
same thing happens between November & January. We are, my old friend (well, younger friend
.!) heading between political versions of Scylla & Charybdis with broken rudders. Barring a
miracle (and I hope SO much I am wrong!), this will make the 1861-65 war seem like a walk in
the park."
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
WTF? Liberals pushed for war the entire 20th Century - Wilson in WWI; Roosevelt in WWII;
Truman in Korea: Johnson in Vietnam. Did you go to high school?
yerfej , 9 hours ago
The federal government is big enough it gives cover to idiots and retards so they can push
others to participate in useless wars with no goal and no objective, just so they can promote
their careers or personally profit.
captain noob , 9 hours ago
What is America without war?
captain noob , 9 hours ago
Peace doesn't sell as much
captain noob , 9 hours ago
Vampirism and parasitism can't survive without wars
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
I've been saying that black is the new orange (revolution) but purple works to.
It's hard to know what is going on any more because the only people who talk politics are
yelling about it while the people I am most interested in hearing from in my personal life have
gone silent.
I think the neoliberals are more afraid of losing institutional control than they are losing
this or that election. Thus Trump's haplessness has been reassuring to them. If I were a
globalist, I would want Democrats to take the senate and Trump to win a narrow election that I
could say was illegitimate.
One thing I am interested in knowing is if/how divided the security and intelligence
agencies are about all of this. There are wild rumors going around to the effect that the CIA
is anti-Trump but the NSA is pro-Trump.
Personally, I have come reluctantly but now immovably to the idea that white identity
politics are inevitable and that whites must begin waging them en masse sooner rather than
later. The age of ideology is over and the demographic age has begun. The globalists understand
this (indeed, they arranged it), as do non-white elites. It is only the corrupt and incompetent
white elite that either can't or won't see this.
The institutional GOP is the biggest gatekeeper to a pro-white politics, and so it must
either be subverted, seized or destroyed. The clown car that is late-stage conservatism must be
diminished to the same stature as, say, the Fourth International over at wsws.org.
Those who want the GOP to remain a gate-keeping exercise - think Israelis like Hazony - are
now trying to concoct a sham called "national conservatism" to keep whites on the conservative
plantation but there are too many who already see this for what it is and so I expect it to go
nowhere.
It may be that normal people are so appalled by this globaist-sponsored and Democrat-abetted
violence that a backlash is building. If so, I can't see it.
likbez: The only "purple revolution" we are now experiencing in the US is the purple
tee-shirted SEIU types and the teachers unions against the blue line police unions.
This is simply a public sector union turf war we are now experiencing.
Covid hysteria reduced the tax dollar pie which long supported all three of them. Not they
are fighting over the size of the slices of the pie - with the police unions long getting the
largest slices. Defund the police --and divert those same funds, not back to the taxpayers, but
to teachers and other government support employee unions tells you all you need to know.
Using this lens to view events of the past few months in the US and everything finally makes
sense: Internecine public sector turf war.
Even WSJ editorial today admits Gov Newsom, when he speaks, is merely representing the
demands of the state teachers unions (CTA). Truth be told, and this is an existential election
year for the 44 million public sector union members - 99% all Democrats. OrangeMan must be
defeated., by any means necessary. They have all their skin in this game.
It will be an example of the "Bradley Effect" only if this transparent effort to depress
turn-out succeeds and Trump supporters stay home because they think his re-election is
hopeless.
However, unless what we are seeing is some kind of rope-a-dope, the President's own
behavior so far may depress the votes among those who in 2016 put him over the top. I am one
of these.
That's true that Trump was a disappointment for many (probably majority) of low and middle
income voters who voted for him in 2016. But I think more powerful factors are now in play that
can override Trump inaptness and his betrayal of voters and his election promises.
The BLM movement codified the prejudices of black ethno-nationalists and is fully supported
by neoliberal Dems as the last desperate attempt to topple Trump. Kind of "stage three" of the
Purple color revolution (with Russiagate and Ukrainegate as previous two).
Effectively, neoliberal Dems decided that ethno-narcissism and in-group preference can serve
as a smoke screen of their coziness to Wall Street and their utter disregard of the interests
of common Americans in having decent jobs and stemming the sliding standard of living (which
led a large part of working class to vote for Trump in 2016).
They bet that can became the new ideology of Democratic Party creating rag tag coalition
from disaffected minorities and East and West Coast financial and technocratic elite as well as
selected groups of professionals. In short the groups who are net winners from neoliberal
globalization and are not that affected by outsourcing of jobs. I think this is a huge
mistake.
IMHO this might became a very powerful, may be the decisive factor that favors Trump in 2020
re-election.
In fact, I suspect that BLM enablers in the neoliberal MSM actually are working for Trump
re-election. In no way the rest of America will throw their support behind ethno-narcissism and
BLM bigoted underbelly with the new Red Guards running amok.
These catch-all buzzwords about racial justice make it perfectly OK for rioters to tear down
public monuments, loot and pillage stores and businesses, beat others who do not conform to
their views, lay siege to police stations, and take up arms against the state. If you disagree
with this, however, you're the racist. This trick will not work.
Truth be told, the USA criminal justice system, for all its faults, has been reasonably fair
and effective in creating a harmonious environment for the various tribes that exist in modern
USA.
And it egregious to call the USA a racist country, if we compare it for example with Israel
or even Russia, to say nothing about various "stans", or China.
On the campaign trail, Joe Biden has boasted of his role in transforming Colombia and Central America through ambitious
economic and security programs. Colombians and Hondurans tell The Grayzone about the damage his plans did to their societies.
By Max Blumenthal
While campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination this year, former Senator and Vice President Joseph Biden
has touted the crucial role he played in designing US mega-development and drug war campaigns that transformed the
socio-political landscape of large swaths of Latin America.
"I was one of the architects of Plan Colombia," Biden boasted in a July 5 interview with CNN, referring to the multi-billion
dollar US effort to end Colombia's civil war with a massive surge of support for the country's military. According to Biden,
the plan was a panacea for Colombia's problems, from "crooked cops" to civil strife.
But Biden's plan for Colombia has contributed directly to the country's transformation into a hyper-militarized bastion of
right-wing rule, enhancing the power and presence of the notoriously brutal armed forces while failing miserably in its
anti-narcotic and reformist objectives.
This year alone, more than 50 human rights defenders
were
killed in Colombia
in the first four months of 2019, while coca production is close to record levels. And as Colombian
peace activists lamented in interviews with The Grayzone, the US is still in complete control of Bogotá's failed anti-drug
policy, thanks largely to Plan Colombia.
Biden has also pumped up his role in an initiative called the Alliance for Prosperity, which was applied to the Northern
Triangle of Central America. The former vice president was so central to the program's genesis that it was informally known as
"Plan Biden."
Marketed as an answer to the crisis of child migration, Biden's brainchild channeled $750 million through a right-wing
government installed by a US-orchestrated military coup to spur mega-development projects and privatize social services.
The Grayzone visited Honduras in July and documented, through interviews with human rights defenders, students, indigenous
activists, and citizens from all walks of life, how the Alliance for Prosperity helped set the stage for a national rebellion.
In recent months, teachers, doctors, students, and rural campesinos have been in the streets protesting the privatization
plans imposed on their country under the watch of Biden and his successors.
The gutting of public health services, teacher layoffs, staggering hikes in electricity prices, and environmentally
destructive mega-development projects are critical factors in mass migration from Honduras. And indeed, they are immediate
byproducts of the so-called "Biden plan."
"Biden is taking credit for doing something constructive to stop the migration crisis and blaming the concentration camps [on
the US-Mexico border] on Trump. But it's Biden's policies that are driving more people out of Central America and making human
rights defenders lives more precarious by defending entities that have no interest in human rights," explained Adrienne Pine,
a professor of anthropology at American University and leading researcher of the social crisis in Honduras, in an interview
with The Grayzone.
"So $750 million US taxpayer dollars that were allocated to supposedly address child migration are actually making things
worse," Pine added. "It started with unaccompanied minors and now you have children in cages. Largely thanks to Biden."
'I was one of the architects of Plan Colombia'
In an
interview
with CNN on July 5
, Biden was asked if he favored decriminalizing the entry of Latin American migrants to the United
States. Responding with a definitive "no," Joe Biden stated that he would be "surging folks to the border to make those
concrete decisions" about who receives asylum.
Biden argued that he had the best record of addressing the root causes of the migration crisis, recalling how he imposed a
solution on Central America's migration crisis. "You do the following things to make your country better so people don't
leave, and we will help you do that, just like we did in Colombia," he said.
"What did we do in Colombia? We went down and said, okay, and I was one of the architects of Plan Colombia," Biden continued.
"I said, here's the deal. If you have all these crooked cops, all these federal police, we're sending our FBI down, you let us
put them through a lie detector test, let us tell you who you should fire and tell you the kind of people you should hire.
They did and began to change. We can do so much if we're committed."
With the arrogance of a pith-helmeted high colonial official meting out instructions on who to hire and fire to his docile
subjects, Biden presided over a plan that failed miserably in its stated goals, while transforming Colombia into a
hyper-militarized bastion of US regional influence.
Plan Colombia: 'They come and ask for bread, and you give them stones'
Plan Colombia was originally conceived by Colombian President Andrés Pastrana in 1999, as an alternative development and
conflict resolution plan for his war-torn country. He considered calling it the "Plan for Colombia's Peace."
The proposal was quickly hijacked by the Bill Clinton administration, with Joe Biden lobbying in the Senate for an iron-fisted
militarization plan. "We have an obligation, in the interests of our children and the interests of the hemisphere, to keep the
oldest democracy in place, to give them a fighting chance to keep from becoming a narcostate," Biden
said
in
a June 2000 floor speech.
When Plan Colombia's first formal draft was published, it was done so in English, not Spanish. The original spirit of
peace-building was completely sapped from the document by Biden, whose vigorous wheeling-and-dealing ensured that almost 80
percent of the $7.5 billion plan went to the Colombian military. 500 US military personnel were promptly dispatched to Bogota
to train the country's military.
"If you read the original Plan Colombia, not the one that was written in Washington but the original Plan Colombia, there's no
mention of military drives against the FARC rebels," Robert White, the former number two at the US embassy in Bogota,
complained
in 2000
. "Quite the contrary. [Pastrana] says the FARC is part of the history of Colombia and a historical phenomenon, he
says, and they must be treated as Colombians."
White lamented how Washington had abused the trust of the Colombians: "They come and ask for bread, and you give them stones."
Plan Colombia was largely implemented under the watch of the hardline right-wing President Álvaro Uribe. In 1991, Uribe was
placed on a US Drug Enforcement Agency list of "
important
Colombian narco-traffickers
," in part due to his role in helping drug kingpin Pablo Escobar's obtain licenses for landing
strips while Uribe was the head of Colombia's Civil Aeronautics Department.
Under Uribe's watch, toxic chemicals were sprayed by military forces across the Colombian countryside, poisoning the crops of
impoverished farmers and displacing millions.
Biden
with former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at the Concordia Summit in June 2017
Six years after Bill Clinton initiated Plan Colombia, however, even US drug czar John Walters was
forced
to quietly admit
in a letter to the Senate that the price of cocaine in the US had declined, the flow of the drug into the
US had risen, and its purity had increased.
Meanwhile, a
UN
Office of Drugs and Crime report
found that coca cultivation reached record levels in Colombia in 2018. In other words,
billions of dollars have been squandered, and a society already in turmoil has been laid to waste.
For the military and right-wing paramilitary forces that have shored up the rule of leaders like Uribe and the current
ultra-conservative Colombian president, Ivan Duque, Plan Colombia offered a sense of near-total impunity.
The depravity of the country's military was put on bold display when the so-called
"false
positives" scandal
was exposed in 2008. The incident began when army officers lured 22 rural laborers to a far-away
location, massacred them, and then dressed them in uniforms of the leftist FARC guerrillas.
Victims
of Colombia's "false positives" scandal, where laborers were massacred to justify Plan Colombia funding
It was an overt attempt to raise the FARC body count and justify the counter-insurgency aid flowing from the US under Plan
Colombia. The officers who oversaw the slaughter were paid bounties and given promotions.
Colombian academics Omar Eduardo Rojas Bolaños and Fabián Leonardo Benavides demonstrated in a
meticulous
study
that the "false positives" killings reflected "a systematic practice that implicates the commanders of brigades,
battalions and tactical units" in the deaths of more than 10,000 civilians. Indeed, under Plan Colombia, the incident was far
from an isolated atrocity.
Colombian
activist Santiago Salinas in Bogotá (Photo: Ben Norton)
Forfeiting Colombia's national sovereignty
In an interview in Bogotá this May, The Grayzone's Ben Norton asked Colombian social leader Santiago Salinas if there was any
hope for progressive political transformation since the ratification of Plan Colombia.
An organizer of the peace group
Congreso
de los Pueblos
, Salinas shrugged and exclaimed, "I wish." He lamented that many of Colombia's most pivotal decisions were
made in Washington.
Salinas pointed to drug policy as an example. "It seems like the drug decisions about what to do with the drugs, it has
nothing to do with Colombia.
"There was no sovereign decision on this issue. Colombia does not have a decision," he continued. It was the Washington
that wrote the script for Bogota. And the drug trade is in fact a key part of the global financial system, Salinas pointed
out.
But Biden was not finished. After 15 years of human misery and billions of wasted dollars in Colombia, he set out on a
personal mission to export his pet program to Central America's crime and corruption-ravaged Northern Triangle.
Biden eyes Central America, selling mass privatization
In his July sit-down with CNN, Joe Biden trumpeted his Plan Colombia as the inspiration for the Alliance for Prosperity he
imposed on Central America. Channeling the spirit of colonial times once again, he bragged of imposing Washington's policies
on the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
"We'll make a deal with you," Biden recalled telling the leaders of these countries. "You do the following things to make your
country better so people don't leave, and we will help you do that."
Biden announced his bold plan on the editorial pages of the New York Times in January 2015. He called it "a joint plan for
economic and political reforms, an
alliance
for prosperity
." Sold by the vice president as a panacea to a worsening migration crisis, the Alliance for Prosperity was
a boon for international financial institutions which promised to deepen the economic grief of the region's poor.
The Alliance for Prosperity "treated the Honduran government as if it were a crystal-clear, pure vessel into which gold could
be poured and prosperity would flow outward," explained Dana Frank, a professor of history at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, and the author of the book,
The
Long Honduran Night
.
"In reality, the Plan would further enrich and strengthen the political power of the very same elites whose green, deliberate
subversion of the rule of law, and destruction of natural resources and of Indigenous and campesino land rights, were
responsible for the dire conditions the proposal ostensibly addressed," Frank added.
In Honduras, the government had no capacity or will to resist Biden's plan. That is because the country's elected president,
Juan
Manuel Zelaya
, had been removed in 2009 in a coup orchestrated by the United States.
As
Zelaya
told The Grayzone's Anya Parampil
, the Obama administration was infuriated by his participation in ALBA, a regional
economic development program put forward by Venezuela's then-President Hugo Chavez that provided an alternative to neoliberal
formulas like the so-called "Biden Plan."
Following the military coup, a corporate-friendly administration was installed to advance the interests of international
financial institutions, and US trainers arrived in town to hone the new regime's mechanisms of repression.
Under the auspices of the Central American Regional Security Initiative, the FBI was dispatched to
oversee
the training
of FUSINA, the main operational arm of the Honduran army and the base of the Military Police for Public Order
(PMOP) that patrols cities like an occupation force.
In an October 2014 cable, the US embassy in Tegucigalpa acknowledged that the PMOP was riven with corruption and prone to
abuse, and attempted to distance itself from the outfit, even though it operated under the umbrella of FUSINA.
The creation by the US embassy in Honduras of a special forces unit known as the Tigres has added an additional layer of
repressive muscle. Besides
arresting
activists,
the Tigres reportedly
helped
a
drug kingpin escape after he was detained during a US investigation.
While violent crime surged across Honduras, unemployment
more
than doubled
. Extreme poverty surged, and so too did the government's security spending.
To beef up his military, President Juan Orlando Hernández dipped into the social programs that kept a mostly poor population
from tumbling into destitution.
Chart
on Honduran budget priorities by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2017
As
Alex
Rubinstein reported for The Grayzone
, the instability of post-coup Honduras has been particularly harsh on LGTTBI
(Lesbian, Gay, Trans, Travesti, Bisexual, and Intersex) Hondurans. More than 300 of them
have
been killed
since 2009, a dramatic spike in hate crimes reinforced by the
homophobic
rhetoric
of the right-wing Evangelical Confraternity that represents the civil-society wing of the ultra-conservative
Hernandez government.
As the
social
chaos enveloped Honduran society
, migration to the US-Mexico border began to surge to
catastrophic
levels
. Unable to make ends meet, some Hondurans sent their children alone to the border, hoping that they would temporary
protective or refugee status.
By 2014, the blowback of the Obama administration's coup had caused a national emergency. Thousands of Hondurans were winding
up in cages in detention camps run by the US Department of Homeland Security, and many of them were not even 16 years old.
That summer, Obama went to Congress for $3.7 billion in emergency funds to ramp up border militarization and deport as many
unaccompanied Central American minors as possible.
Biden used the opportunity to
rustle
up an additional billion dollars
, exploiting the crisis to fund a massive neoliberal project that saw Honduras as a base
for international financial opportunity. His plan was quickly ratified, and the first phase of the Alliance for Prosperity
began.
From
the IADB's sanitized survey of the Alliance for Prosperity
Energy industry rush dooms indigenous communities and human rights defenders
The implementation of the Alliance for Prosperity was overseen by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), a US-dominated
international financial institution based in Washington, DC that supports corporate investment in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
A
graphic
on
the IADB's website outlined the plan's objectives in anodyne language that concealed its aggressively neoliberal agenda.
For instance, the IADB promised the "fostering [of] regional energy integration." This was a clear reference to Plan Pueblo
Panama, a region-wide neoliberal development
blueprint
that
was conceived as a boon to the energy industry. Under the plan, the IADB would raise money from Latin American taxpayers to
pay for the expansion of power lines that would carry electricity from Mexico all the way to Panama.
Honduras, with its rivers and natural resources, provided the project with a major hub of energy production. In order for the
country's energy to be traded and transmitted to other countries, however, the International Monetary Fund mandated that its
national electricity company be privatized.
Since the implementation of that component of "Plan Biden," energy costs have
begun
to surge
for residential Honduran consumers. In a country with a 66 percent poverty rate, electricity privatization has
turned life from precarious to practically impossible.
Rather than languish in darkness for long hours with unpaid bills piling up, many desperate citizens have journeyed north
towards the US border.
As intended, the Alliance for Prosperity's regional energy integration plan has spurred an influx of multi-national energy
companies to Honduras. Hydro-electric dams and power plants began rising up in the midst of the lush pine forests and winding
rivers that define the Honduran biosphere, pushing many rural indigenous communities into a life-and-death struggle.
This July, The Grayzone traveled to Reitoca, a remote farming community located in the heart of the Honduran "dry sector." The
indigenous Lenca residents of this town depend on their local river for fish, recreation, and most importantly, water to
irrigate the crops that provide them with a livelihood. But the rush on energy investment brought an Italian-Chilean firm
called Progelsa to the area to build a massive hydro-electric dam just upstream.
Reitoca
community leader Wilmer Alonso by the river threatened by a major hydro-electric project (Photo: Ben Norton)
Wilmer Alonso, a member of the Lenca Indigenous Council of Reitoca, spoke with The Grayzone, shaking with emotion as he
described the consequences of the dam for his community.
"The entire village is involved in this struggle," Alonso said. "Everyone knows the catastrophe that the construction of this
hydro-electric plant would create."
He explained that, like so many foreign multi-nationals in Honduras, Progelsa employs an army of private thugs to intimidate
protesters: "The private company uses the army and the police to repress us. They accuse us of being trespassers, but they are
the ones trespassing on our land."
US reinforces 'factors that generate violence the most in our society'
The Alliance for Progress also provided the backdrop for the assassination of the renowned Honduran environmentalist and
feminist organizer Berta Cáceres.
On March 3, 2016, Cáceres was gunned down in her home in rural Honduras. A towering figure in her community with a presence on
the international stage, Cáceres had been leading the fight against a local dam project overseen by DESA, a powerful Honduran
energy company
backed
by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and run by powerful former military officers.
The representative that DESA sent to sign its deal with USAID, Sergio Rodríguez, was later
accused
of
masterminding Cáceres' murder, alongside military officials and former company employees.
In March 2018, the Honduran police
arrested
DESA's
executive president, Roberto David Castillo Mejía, accusing him of "providing logistics and other resources to one of the
material authors" of the assassination. Castillo was a
West
Point graduate
who worked in the energy industry while serving as a Honduran intelligence officer.
This July, The Grayzone visited the family of Berta Cáceres in La Esperanza, a town nestled in the verdant mountains of
Intibucá. Cáceres' mother, Doña Berta, lives there under 24-hour police guard paid for by human rights groups.
The Cáceres household is bristling with security cameras, and family members get around in armored cars. In her living room,
we met Laura Zúñiga Cáceres of the Civic Council of Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), the human
rights group that her mother Berta founded.
Laura
Zuniga Caceres of COPINH in the home where Berta Caceres was raised (Photo: Ben Norton)
"The violence in Honduras generates migrant caravans, which tears apart society, and it all has to do with all of this
extractivism, this violence," Zúñiga Caceres told The Grayzone. "And the response from the US government is to send more
soldiers to our land; it is to reinforce one of the factors that generates violence the most in our society."
"We are receiving reports from our comrades that there is a US military presence in indigenous Lenca territory," she added.
"For what? Humanitarian aid? With weapons. It's violence. It's persecution."
Gutting public healthcare, driving more migration
The Alliance for Prosperity also commissioned the privatization of health services through a deceptively named program called
the Social Protection Framework Law, or la Ley Marco de Protección Social.
Promoted by Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández as a needed reform, the scheme was advanced through a classic shock
doctrine-style episode: In 2015, close associates of Hernández
siphoned
some $300 million from the Honduran Institute for Social Services
(IHSS) into private businesses, starving hospitals of
supplies and causing several thousand excess deaths, mostly among the poor.
With the medical sector in shambles, Hondurans were then forced to seek healthcare from the private companies that were to
provide services under Hernandez's "Social Protection" plan.
"The money that was robbed [in the IHSS scandal] was used to justify the Ley Marco Proteccion Social," Karen Spring, a
researcher and coordinator for the Honduras Solidarity Network, told The Grayzone. "The hospitals were left in horrible
conditions with no human capital and they were left to farm out to private hospitals."
"When Hondurans go to hospitals, they will be told they need to go to a private company, and through the deductions in their
jobs they will have to pay a lot out of pocket," Spring said. "Through the old universal system you would be covered no matter
what you had, from a broken arm to cancer. No more."
In response, Hondurans poured out into the streets, launching the March of Torches – the first major wave of continuous
protests against Hernandez and his corrupt administration.
In March 2015, in the middle of the crisis, Joe Biden rushed down to Guatemala City to embrace Hernández and restore
confidence in the Alliance for Prosperity.
"I come from a state that, in fact, is the corporate capital of America. More corporations are headquartered there than
anyplace else,"
Biden
boasted
, with Hernández and the presidents of Guatemala and El Salvador standing by his side. "They want to come here.
Corporate America wants to come."
Joseph
Biden embraces Juan Orlando Hernandez in Guatemala City, February 2016
Emphasizing the need for more anti-corruption and security measures to attract international financial investment, Biden
pointed to Plan Colombia as a shining model – and to himself as its architect. "Today Colombia is a nation transformed, just
as you hope to be 10 to 15 years from now," the vice president proclaimed.
Following Biden's visit, the privatization of the Honduran economy continued apace -- and so did the corruption, the
repression, and the unflinching support from Washington.
Hondurans take to the streets, wind up in US-style supermax prisons
By 2017, the movement in Honduras that had galvanized against the US-orchestrated 2009 coup saw its most immediate opportunity
for political transformation at the ballot box. President Hernández was running for re-election, violating a constitutional
provision on term limits. His opponent, Salvador Nasrallah, was a popular broadcast personality who provided a centrist
consensus choice for the varied elements that opposed the country's coup regime.
When voting ended on November 26, Nasrallah's victory appeared certain, with exit polls showing him comfortably ahead by
several points. But suddenly, the government announced that a power outage required the suspension of vote counting. Days
later, Hernández was declared the victor by about 1 percent.
The fraud was so transparent that the
Organization
of American States
(OAS), normally an arm of US interests in Latin America, declared in a
preliminary
report
that "errors, irregularities and systemic problems," as well as "extreme statistical improbability," rendered the
election invalid.
But the United States recognized the results anyway, leaving disenfranchised Hondurans with protest as their only recourse.
"Hondurans tried to change what happened in their country through the 2017 elections, not just Hernández but all the
implementation of all these policies that the Biden plan had funded and implemented all these years since the coup," explained
Karen Spring, of the Honduras Solidarity Network.
"They tried to change that reality through votes and when the elections turned out to be a fraud, tons of people had no choice
but to take to the streets."
At the front lines of the protests in 2017 was Spring's longtime partner, the Honduran activist Edwin Espinal. Following a
protest in November of that year where property damage took place, Espinal was arrested at gunpoint at his home and accused of
setting fire to the front door of a hotel. He fervently denied all charges, accusing the government of persecuting him for his
political activism.
In fact, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had placed a protective measure on Espinal in 2010 in response to
previous attempts to legally railroad him.
The government placed Espinal in pre-trial detention in La Tolva, a US-style maximum security prison normally reserved for
violent criminals and narco-traffickers. Last October, Espinal and Spring
were
married
in the jail while surrounded by masked guards.
Karen
Spring and Edwin Espinal marry in La Tolva in October 2018 (Photo: Karen Spring)
"Since the Biden plan, contractors have been coming down to build these US-style maximum security prisons," Spring said.
"That's where my husband Edwin Espinal is being held."
"They say the company is Honduran but there's no way Hondurans could have built that without US architects or US construction
firms giving them the plans," she added. "I've been in the prison and it's like they dumped a US prison in the middle of
Honduras."
Reflecting on her husband's persecution, Spring explained, "Edwin wanted to stay in his country to change the reality that
caused mass migration. He's one of the people who's faced consequences because he went to the streets. And he's faced
persecution for years because he's one of the Hondurans who wanted to change the country by staying and fighting. Berta
Caceres was another."
"Hondurans wanted to use their votes to change the country and now they're voting with their feet," she continued. "So if
Biden's plan really addressed the root causes of the migrant crisis, why aren't people asking why migration is getting worse?
Hondurans are voting on the Biden plan by fleeing and saying your plan didn't work and it made our situation worse by fleeing
to the border."
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling
Republican
Gomorrah
,
Goliath
,
The
Fifty One Day War
, and
The
Management of Savagery
. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and
several documentaries, including
Killing
Gaza
. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war
and its dangerous domestic repercussions.
thegrayzone.com
Soviet joke: TASS communicated that "Today, being in dangerous state of health and without
regaining consciousness Konstantin Ustonivich Chernenko took up the duties of Secretary General"
(the first part of the sentence is the common beginning of state leaders' obituaries)
Although only medical evaluation can tell the truth, the inability to hold on to his own
train of thought, slurring of his speech, forgetting where he is and who he's with, grossly incorrect use of language,
and inappropriate behavior are typical early symptoms of dementia. Excessive irritability and paranoia is also a symptom.
Over time though, I began to pity Joe as I realized the untenable situation Democrats had
placed him in. What is wrong with his family, allowing him to be humiliated on a daily basis?
Some think he is being "set up"
Elite rotation clearly is not working in the USA. Just look at Pelosi.
On the other hand Reagan was clearly senile, and that was no hindrance to him becoming
President -- so why should it be any different in the case of Biden?
With questions continuing to swirl about his mental health, a new Rasmussen poll has found
that only 54 per cent of Americans believe Joe Biden is capable of debating President
Trump.
The national telephone survey
found that just over half of likely voters thought Biden could take part in a debate with
Trump while 36 per cent disagree and say he is not capable. A further 11 per cent are not sure
either way.
... Polls show that 38 per cent of American voters think Biden has "some form of dementia,"
including one in five Democrats. 61 per cent of voters also think Biden should address the
dementia issue publicly.
Today, NPR has been playing clips from Biden's terrifyingly incoherent St. Louis speech. He
sounds like he's falling down drunk.
Here's my transliteration of 31:10 on C-SPAN:
"You're all
part ma movemen a moob men that has a backbone the backbone of the Democratic Party a mooin's
gun defeat Donald Trump."
Hearing the clip this morning put tears in my eyes because it so
acutely reminded me of the final speech patterns of my grandfather, a brilliant nuclear
physicist who died of Alzheimers at age 78.
I also cried at clip #33 because the pain in Jill
Biden's eyes projected me right back into the helplessness of witnessing Granddad's cognitive
decline.
It's tragically time to take away Biden's car keys, and yet these endorsements are
trying to buy him a Maserati. How can this nightmare be happening. Thank you, Caitlin
Johnstone, for maintaining this much-needed reality check.
By John Ryan, Ph.D . – Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada
If anyone has proven the adage that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on it shoes,"
it's Bill Browder. The mega-rich vulture capitalist has been spinning a yarn for years.
Intriguingly, after Germany's leading news magazine kiboshed his fake narrative, Anglo-American media ignored the revelations.
Browder's narrative suits the US/UK establishment as it provides a convenient excuse to sanction Russia, but the story has more
holes than Swiss cheese.
The billionaire vulture capitalist has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past decade. A few months back,
Der Spiegel
published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but the US/UK mainstream media failed to follow it up and so,
aside from Germany, few people are aware of Browder's background.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For
a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management
was rated as extremely successful after
earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December 2007.
During the corrupt Boris Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US$25 million, Browder
amassed a
fortune. Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to 2006, his Hermitage firm eventually
grew to $4.5 billion.
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities, he portrayed himself as an anti-corruption activist
and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However,
an examination of Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveal contradictions with his statements to the public
and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian companies to adopt Western-style governance,
it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized companies he was targeting for takeover. Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has
revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in a company, he would resort to lawsuits against this company through
shell companies he controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To prevent its collapse,
the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it, causing its stock to rise -- with the result that Browder's
profits would rise exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant Magnitsky
acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's
companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5 percent instead of the 35 percent that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign companies and citizens from purchasing equities
in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in
2008. Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and charged by Russian prosecutors with
two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's
shell companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009, Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention because of a
failure by
prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted act of revenge
by Russian authorities against a heroic anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was challenged by the European Court of Human Rights, which in its ruling on August
27, 2019 concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed
a criminal offence." And as such, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy,
started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable activities, Browder had been refused entry to
Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed
by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities, accusing them of corruption and violation
of human rights. The death of his accountant and auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch
an international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky
is anything but.
Despite Browder's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic documents and testimonies show that
Magnitsky died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a gallstone condition. It was negligence typical
at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high-level functionaries
in the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past 10 years, Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by prison guards. Without any verifiable
evidence he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18 minutes. This was never corroborated
by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to discredit and vilify Russia and its government
and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying beliefs and assumptions are being
seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with
the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei Magnitsky, William
Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died
at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos were taken the next day.
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen U.S. media – both allegedly progressive
and mainstream -- have refused to publish this information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten to death with rubber batons. It's
this narrative that has attracted the attention of the US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists.
To further refute his account, a 2011
analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder found no evidence
he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian documents. They were compiled immediately
after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. Recent investigative research has
revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The first document, D309, states that shortly before Magnitsky's death:
"Handcuffs were used in connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the handcuffs
were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a forensic review states that while in the prison hospital, "Magnitsky
exhibited behavior diagnosed as 'acute psychosis' by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr. Magnitsky to be restrained
with handcuffs."
The second document, D310, is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the preceding sentence. The sentence in
D309 has the phrase "special means were" is changed in D310 to "a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no sense whatsoever, given the title
and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistencies, including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310
was copied from D309 and that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical reports to have
been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document
forms a major basis for Browder's claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a baton attack, combined with forensic
photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long
assertions that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains mistakes and inconsistencies that distort
the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's death.
Despite Magnitsky's death, the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty of corruption in a posthumous trial.
Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include
the accountant Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case against Magnitsky was
closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign insisting that his departure from Russia
resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However, the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is
that in 2003, a Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition, his illegal
purchases of shares in Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies
were reportedly valued at another $30 million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went after Magnitsky, the accountant who
carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the US, Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished his tale by asserting that Sergei
Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case
got more involved, he presented a convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007, three shell companies that had once been owned by Browder were used to claim a $232 million
tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses. Browder has stated that the companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation
organized by a convicted fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence, however, that Magnitsky and
Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this firm were a large number of shell
companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan,
owned by Americans, did the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for Firestone Duncan
and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was interviewed in 2017 by Komisar, who said:
According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure that Russian investigators would later
say was used for tax evasion and illegal share purchases by Hermitage the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal
share purchase schemes.
He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were 'owned' by Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which,
in turn, were 'owned' by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund.
He said the structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along the way. Profits could
get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and HSBC.
Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy Gazprom shares in the local market,
which was restricted for foreign investors.'
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the offices of Hermitage and Firestone
Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support
Russian charges of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder
stated that Russian Interior Ministry officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies
of the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old
named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials
had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have
the qualifications to do so. In fact, in 2006, when questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an
auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, he claimed Magnitsky
was his lawyer, but in 2015, in his testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative, in December 2012, he presented documents to the New York District Attorney alleging that a Russian company,
Prevezon, had "benefitted from part of the $230 million dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number
of luxury apartments in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed money-laundering charges
against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel, Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court, so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers
to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge
in the Prevezon case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later, while in court and under
oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning
with the following exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible US investigator admitted during questioning that his findings were
based exclusively on statements and documents from Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his
people managed to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that launched the court case,
Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when questioned under oath, he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact,
to almost every question put forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
(Read the next part of The Real Bill Browder story on Thursday, here on RT)
"... Biden was the guy who convinced Obama to ramp up Bush's drone assassination program, which kills 50 innocent bystanders for every 1 targeted "militant" -- who often gets away and is rarely a threat to the United States, just to our authoritarian allies. Someday soon, Biden's drone killings abroad will be used to justify killing Americans here at home. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Marcetic writes: "When Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, bombing a hospital in the process, Biden said he 'did the right thing.' When he bombed Libya three years later, killing 36 civilians and dictator Muammar Gaddafi's 15-month-old daughter, Biden said, 'There can be no question that Gaddafi has asked for and deserves a strong response like this.' And when George H. W. Bush invaded Panama three years after that, an outrageous war to depose a leader who had been a CIA asset and that saw dead civilians 'buried like dogs,' as one witness put it, Biden called it 'appropriate and necessary.'" ..."
"... Another problem with Biden - one of them at least - that all of the stupid talking heads ignore is that he has been in govt so long and is running on a campaign of fixing alleged problems that have allegedly existed for years. Why didn't he just tell Obama how to fix things? Trump will ask him that if given a chance. If not given a chance, Trump will simply state it in campaign ads and viewers will say, "Hmmm. Yeah really!". ..."
"... Think of NGOs, Civil Societies, non-state actors and of course the silicon valley and social media. the future foreign policy of the U.S. lies right here and Silicon Valley is a big part of it. No Direct military intervention, but mobilization of young naive people in targeted countries through social media and other methods to topple the incumbent government's institutions and the culture without firing a bullet ..."
"... I consider Biden as part of the 1st group that still peddle the joint neoconservative+liberal democratic template of the new world order, NATO, maintaining and spreading liberal int'l institutions, keeping troops in Afgh. and Iraq to do social engineering with the help of EU which is not going anywhere btw. So anything other than their views are not allowed at all as F.P. ..."
"... Strangely the 1st group are rather soft on China and were the faction responsible for making China a godzilla by opening up western markets to China (1990s and early 2000s) with the hope that once it is economically liberal somehow magically it would automatically transform into a liberal democracy of Washington's desire. ..."
"... While the 1st are extremely hawkish on Russia and Iran (anti-authoritarianism) and economical with their condemnation of China, the 2nd camp is quite hawkish on China and Iran and moderately hawkish on Russia (Anti-totaliratianism). ..."
"... As Jim Kunstler wrote today, "Joe Biden is an obvious stalking horse for something more sinister." ..."
"Biden, notes Marcetic, pushed for "the 1999 bombing of Serbia, which actually dissolved the
local pro-democracy movement and rallied popular support around the country's dictator." Biden
voted for the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to
do it again," Biden said in August 2003. Now he defends himself by saying he was so stupid that
he fell for Bush's lies about WMDs.
Biden was the guy who convinced Obama to ramp up Bush's drone assassination program, which
kills 50 innocent bystanders for every 1 targeted "militant" -- who often gets away and is
rarely a threat to the United States, just to our authoritarian allies. Someday soon, Biden's
drone killings abroad will be used to justify killing Americans here at home.
Elsewhere, Marcetic writes: "When Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, bombing a hospital in the
process, Biden said he 'did the right thing.' When he bombed Libya three years later, killing
36 civilians and dictator Muammar Gaddafi's 15-month-old daughter, Biden said, 'There can be no
question that Gaddafi has asked for and deserves a strong response like this.' And when George
H. W. Bush invaded Panama three years after that, an outrageous war to depose a leader who had
been a CIA asset and that saw dead civilians 'buried like dogs,' as one witness put it, Biden
called it 'appropriate and necessary.'"
A vote for Biden isn't just a vote against Trump. It's a vote in favor of Biden's vote to
kill 1 million Iraqis. If we elect Joe Biden, we will send a message to the world: America
hates you; we're glad we killed all those people, and we plan to kill more." Ted Rall
---------------
Rall isn't someone I am likely to cite extensively but in this case I can only agree with
much of what he says about these two men in the foreign policy area.
I do not know Trump, have never met him, and wouldn't cross the street to do so. Actually,
that takes some effort these days.
Biden is one of the most belligerent and nastily "pushy" people I have known in the Borg
(foreign policy establishment). He is a screamer who will get right up in your face to see if
you will back away from him. He will stab in the chest with a forefinger for the same purpose.
He will insult you or threaten to fight you in an attempt to intimidate. He has a bully's
personality, and he is not too bright. Let us not forget his history of plagiarism.
He and Obama seemed to have enjoyed killing "inferiors" around the world and they
participated directly in the process of selection of targets for Death by Drone. LBJ, another
loathsome critter, picked individual bombing targets in VN, but I don't think he targeted
individuals.
As Rall says, if Biden wins you will see a lot more patriotic Americans condemned to
participate in Death by Biden. pl
our personally observed description of Biden is so far apart from the image the general
public sees, and is not intentionally created for him in his campaign videos.
The reassuring, calm, magnanimous friendly uncle, not the crazy lady in the attic. I worry
how this carefully scripted Biden imagery will play out in November, since everyone now has
vivid impressions of media-filtered Trump in the raw.
Biden will never come out of his bunker - his handlers will not allow this. The medium is
the massage. From the Selling of the President to Sequestering the President - our political
journey into mass media comes full circle since TV's first Nixon vs Kennedy race in the
1960's.
Since former VP Cheney is now among the Anti-Trump Lincoln Project, I imagine that Rep.
Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) is most probably now an associate member in it's backdrop. Liz has been
working fervently with Dem. (former Army Ranger with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan) Rep.
Jason Crow (D-Colo.) to keep U.S. bogged down in Afghanistan, and continue the Germany
boondoggle. Although the Germany boondoggle had it's perks I have to admit, their beer, wine,
food, and fests.
Crow/Cheney Amendment to the NDAA, appears that Crow and Cheney bought into the bogus GRU
bounty crap.
One would think that since Rep. Crow ate sand in both sandboxes, he'd want everybody out
of there, but I guess since his arse isn't on the firing line anymore he could give a crap
about other people's children.
Interesting and useful information. Trump will be wise to use it. Americans are not eager for
more senseless war. And there is the whole "racism" facet to the wars and killings that could
be played up in this weird over-sensitive climate.
Another problem with Biden - one of them at least - that all of the stupid talking heads
ignore is that he has been in govt so long and is running on a campaign of fixing alleged
problems that have allegedly existed for years. Why didn't he just tell Obama how to fix
things? Trump will ask him that if given a chance. If not given a chance, Trump will simply
state it in campaign ads and viewers will say, "Hmmm. Yeah really!".
The way I see the foreign policy establishment is based on how best and most efficient the
dual goal of 1. spread of democracy and 2. the building a military forts in the targeted
country can be achieved. There are 3 camps which formulate their own ideas of how this goal
can be achieved and that they operate basically like cartels (call it foreign policy cartels
if you will). Each have their competing templates based on which they conceptualize their
doctrines and depending on which administration is in power their doctrines will ultimately
find their ways to the W.H.; for the purpose of simplification allow me define these camps by
their template doctrines:
Wilson Doctrine (as the main template) with variations derived from it as the
following: Truman Doctrine, Kennedy Doctrine, Carter Doctrine (Brzezinski Doctrine is a
derivation), Clinton/Albright Doctrine, Bush Doctrine (Both Sr. and Jr.). This is the most
powerful and bipartisan camp with regards to f.p.
Reagan Doctrine (Main template) with variations as the following: Kirkpatrick Doctrine
(Bolton and Pompeo Doctrine is modern day variation of Kirkpatrick's), Powell Doctrine, Trump
Doctrine (if there's any...)
Obama and Power Doctrine (as one main template), try to sell themselves as realist but
they are quite interventionist and not conventionally but unconventionally. Think of NGOs,
Civil Societies, non-state actors and of course the silicon valley and social media. the
future foreign policy of the U.S. lies right here and Silicon Valley is a big part of it. No
Direct military intervention, but mobilization of young naive people in targeted countries
through social media and other methods to topple the incumbent government's institutions and
the culture without firing a bullet. Basically they will do it for the u.s. policy makers, so
no need for boots on the ground.
Think of the Arab Spring wave in the M.E. Jared Cohen, a
former State Dep. official is an architect. So is Susan Rice and Sam Power.
Their model is S.Africa post apartheid. Their people in congress are the progressives and the so-called
"Squad" quartet with more coming, think of jamal Malik. Watch them carefully. IMH when the
times comes these will also become frenzied and as interventionist as neocons during W's
tenure, but very cunningly. During the Floyd riots, america experienced some of this F.P.
domestically, and it is very chaotic and anti-institutional in their methods.
Notable mention: Realist Doctrine (Kissinger, Scowcroft, Nixon and Powell Doctrines) is no
longer represented in the new F.P. oracle.
Which brings us to Joe Biden: I consider Biden as part of the 1st group that still peddle
the joint neoconservative+liberal democratic template of the new world order, NATO,
maintaining and spreading liberal int'l institutions, keeping troops in Afgh. and Iraq to do
social engineering with the help of EU which is not going anywhere btw. So anything other
than their views are not allowed at all as F.P.
Strangely the 1st group are rather soft on China and were the faction responsible for
making China a godzilla by opening up western markets to China (1990s and early 2000s) with
the hope that once it is economically liberal somehow magically it would automatically
transform into a liberal democracy of Washington's desire.
Compared to the 2nd group, the 1st group except for condemning China's human rights record
and related issues, are concerned mostly with transforming China politically and do not share
the holistic view of the 2nd camp that view China as America's new strategic foe in the long
term. While the 1st are extremely hawkish on Russia and Iran (anti-authoritarianism) and
economical with their condemnation of China, the 2nd camp is quite hawkish on China and Iran
and moderately hawkish on Russia (Anti-totaliratianism).
Interestingly, the 3rd camp are modestly pro-China and again for obvious reasons which do
not need further elaboration.
The biggest thing IMO on the horizon for the U.S. policy makers is the China question and
more specifically, how will Biden define the China policy? Will his pick for the VP (assuming
"SHE" will be mostly belonging to the 3rd camp) define China policy, or the good 'ol liberal
democratic+ neocons define it for him as they have been doing so far? or the new formula of
the convergence of 1st and 3rd camp for a new foreign policy globally?
P.S.
I remember reading one of your past posts about your memory of a meeting with Biden and how
rude and crude Joe Biden's F.P. views were and how one of his aides (whisperers?) would
literally dictate his talking points to him...
300 odd million people and those two are the best you can come up with..truely
incredible.
That said, as a Brit, I would still back Trump over Biden. How Trump handles the incoming bad
news (for him) will be key.
Other than cutting off all aid to parasite clients, dronestriking cartel leaders, and
possibly invading Canada to depose Trudeau and liberate Alberta, I support a less aggressive
approach to our foreign policy.
Biden's America: a black man reports on a BLM protest in Dallas, while he is trying to
dine with family and friends - very candid and very worth watching. BLM infected with white
Berniecrats - goal is to create chaos and then scream police brutality - all in one easy to
follow video with an excellent ongoing commentary: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CChuSeWJxm5/?utm_source=ig_embed
But he is weakened right now after 3.5 years of utter partisan garbage thrown at him. He
will get his second wind. He deserves some down time right now before the big push to
November. The zone will come.
The Silent Majority is not leaving him. But he does need some down time. True colors will
be displayed to anyone who cannot grant him that.
I suspect one big reason - and maybe the MAIN reason - for prolonging the irrational
COVID-19 fear mongering is:
to rationalize keeping Biden hidden away in his basement most of the time, thus allowing
for much less scrutiny (out of sight out of mind)
to justify preventing him from participating in live one-on-one debates with Trump,
debates that always draw large viewership, thus revealing to lower-info voters the degree of
Biden's diminished mental state
to encourage the proscription of Trump rallies, with their relatively huge numbers of
attendees
I'm not surprised to read the colonel's real-life personal impression of Biden. To me,
he's let his mask slip enough times over the decades to reveal a bullying, high-handed and
narrow-minded nature. Trump's a goy real estate developer based in NYC, a challenging
occupation that probably accounts for much of his pugilistic demeanor.
Jonathan Guyer, managing editor of The American Prospect, has an unbelievably
well-reported piece on
the making of a Washington national security consultancy, starring two high placed Obama-era
officials and one of the Imperial City's more successful denizens -- Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy may not be a household name anywhere but the Beltway, but when she met Sergio
Aguirre and Nitin Chadda (Chiefs of staff to UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter respectively) she was already trading lucratively on her stints in two
Democratic administrations. In fact, according to Guyer, by 2017 she was pulling nearly a half
a million dollars a year a year wearing a number of hats: senior advisor for Boston Consulting
Group (where she helped increase their defense contracts to $32 million by 2016), founder and
CEO of the Democratic leaning Center for a New American Security, senior fellow at Harvard's
Belfer Center, and a member of various corporate boards.
Hungry to get their own consulting business going after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in
2016, according to Guyer, Aguirre and Chadda approached Flournoy for her starpower inside the
Blob. Flournoy did not want "to have a firm with her name on it alone," so they sought and
added Tony Blinken, former Under Secretary of State and "right hand man" to Joe Biden for 20
years. WestExec Advisors, named after the street alongside the West Wing of the White House,
was born. "The name WestExec Advisors trades on its founders' recent knowledge of the highest
echelons of decision-making," writes Guyer. "It also suggests they'll be walking down WestExec
toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue someday soon."
Soon the firm was raking in corporate contracts and the high sums that go with it. They
weren't lobbying per se (wink, wink) but their names and connections provided the grease on the
skids their clients needed to make things happen in Washington. They shrewdly partnered with a
private equity group and a Google affiliate. Before long, Guyer says, they did not need to
market: CEO's were telling other CEO's to give them a call. More:
The founders told executives they would share their "passion" for helping new companies
navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon contracts. They told giant defense
contractors how to explain cutting-edge technologies to visitors from Congress. Their
approach worked, and clients began to sign up.
One was an airline, another a global transportation company, a third a company that
makes drones that can almost instantly scan an entire building's interior. WestExec would
only divulge that it began working with "Fortune 100 types," including large U.S. tech;
financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S.
tech; and nonprofits.
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli
artificial-intelligence company Windward.
To say that the Flournoy helped WestExec establish itself as one of the most successful of
the Beltway's defense and national security consultancies is an understatement. For sure,
Flournoy has often been underestimated -- she is not flamboyant, nor glamorous, and is
absolutely unrecognizable outside of the Washington market because she doesn't do media (though
she is popular on
the think tank conference circuit ). She's a technocrat -- smart and efficient and highly
bred for Washington's finely tuned managerial class. She is a courtier for sure, but she is no
sop. She has staying power, quietly forging relationships with the right people and not trying
too hard to make a name or express ideas that might conflict with doctrine. She no doubt
learned much in two stints in the Pentagon, which typically chews up the less capable,
greedier, more narcissistic neophytes (not to mention idealists). She's not exactly known as a
visionary, however, and one has to wonder which hat she is wearing when she expounds on current
defense threats, like
this piece about beefing up the Pentagon budget to confront China .
But what does it all mean? Flournoy has been at the forefront of strategy and policy in two
administrations marked by overseas interventions (Clinton from 1993 to 2000) and Obama (2009 to
2012). All of her aforementioned qualities have helped her to personally succeed and profit --
especially now, no doubt helping weapons contractors get deals on the Hill, as Guyer susses out
in his piece, not to mention how well-placed she would be for an incoming Biden Administration.
But has it been in the best interest of the country? I think not. For this, she is queen of the
Blob.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_87831358 00:12 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But elite is as elite does. She went from Beverly Hills High School to Harvard to Oxford,
and then back to Harvard, before landing a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.
In between government perches, she did consulting and started CNAS in hopes of creating a
shadow national security council for Hillary Clinton. When Clinton didn't get the nomination,
Flournoy and her colleagues supported Obama and helped populate his administration,
supporting the military surge in Afghanistan and prolonging the war. She was called the
"mastermind"
behind Obama's Afghan strategy, which we now know was a failure, an effort at futility and
prolonging the inevitable. In fact, we know now that most of the war establishment was
lying through its teeth . But that hasn't stopped her from getting clients. They pay for
her influence, not her ability to win wars.
Queen of the Blob, Queen of Business as Usual -- a business, as we well know from Guyer's
excellent reporting, that pays off bigtime. But it has never paid off for the rest of America.
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
I wish that you would cover this equally in both parties; the near entire senior level of
the political apparatus (apart from the few individuals truly invested in the best for all
Americans) has become corrupted informing the policies, or lack thereof; whether implemented,
ignored, or written into law.
We really need to get these "Blob" people out of our government. Electing Trump didn't fix
the problem, and judging by this article, electing Biden won't either. Half of them people
aren't even recognizably American. They're global elites, and they'll continue to use
Americans and what's left of America to further their globalist agenda. With someone like
Flournoy, selling powerful US technology to known spies and thieves like the Israelis, who
take our tech, copy it, and sell it to enemies like China, only scratches the surface of
what's going on. She should be in prison after all the damage she's done to America, not
looking forward to yet another national security role in which she can get more Americans
killed, wreck more foreign countries, and waste and steal more billions of taxpayer
money.
Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid. Do you think that Mr. Fluornoy that those who work for her would
have had anything overturned at the Supreme Court because they were too lazy to complete the
paperwork?
"Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid."
I have to agree that Trump's administration is devoid of competent people, but don't
forget that it was incompetents like Flournoy that got Trump elected.
If you want to ID the individual most likely for President Trump winning, look up Joel
Benenson. He was Hilary Clinton's chief of strategy and was convinced that Trump could not
win any of the blue wall states. Ms. Fluornoy had nothing to do with that. Mr. Fluornoy would
have been the Secretary of Defense in a Hillary Clinton Administration and probably would
have been more competent that the current Secretary of Defense.
You would have done better just to critique her article in Foreign Affairs. As it is, you
sound like you're mad at Michele because she makes more money than you do (presumably).
I think that it is a bit unfair, given the fact that the odds are stack the way they are.
Ms. Vlahos has dedicated many years (they are so many she only whispers the number) on issues
related with foreign policy. The path she has chosen is the harder path, the ethical, and
moral one, which was never going to pay. If Ms. Vlahos is incensed, I bet that it is not
because of the money, but because she sees that in Washington DC, only crime and wanton
murder pays. She is accusing Ms Flournoy that she is a sellout to the crime syndicate, like a
cop that has started herself supporting the drug trafficking.
You should know that people believe in more things than only making money. Ms. Flournoy it
seems, has decided that she wants a piece of the cake and to hell with this absurd idea of
"arms to plowshares"....
Ms. Valhos can speak for herself. No one should project onto others their values. But it
does seem that Valhos does make a point that Flournoy does not have any guiding philosophy .
Except to be in a position to make a fine living from her contacts.
Could be that Flournoy is more greedy than not. She sure has the resume that would get her
into any job which she wanted to interview for. And she paid her dues also.
When one looks at Valhos's resume it likewise is impressive. She too it seems to be proud
of her connection to the elites. We should not condem either. We all want our children to
excell. Unless Flournoy is an unindicted co conspirator, this article is just a piece of
fluff. Too much time on Valhos's hands perhaps?
While I don't have anything else to do, I had hoped to read some good dirt. Alas all I got
was one high achieving person carping bout another person of similar achievement. Bless them
both.
The dirt presented is facilitating arms contracts. By peddling the need of strong military
and war. Being a merchant of death, which Ms. Vlahos doesn't seem to be, disqualifies Ms.
Flournoy entirely. of anything.
Not sure what you mean " poorly for it". I tend not to get wrapped around the axle . But
like it when someone comments on me personally. Lost perspective in old age. Would like to
know more what you mean. Unless you just want to be mean
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
That's a bit harsh don't you think? I remember that time on September 11, 2001, I was in
the New York area when it happened, I even had a close acquaintance who died in the Twin
Towers. I remember when America was united in its blood lust, it its ravenous quest for
revenge, ... revenge on anything and anyone. When America's vengeful eye was set on the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, it was off to the races. Left and Right, liberal and
conservative, Democrat and Republican, ... all were united in avenging 9/11 on the evil
Taliban and Afghan tribal peoples for harboring OBL. And I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and
Miss Flournoy were united as well in wanting someone to pay ... am I right? So don't give me
this BS about 'us' and 'them' okay? America is a democracy, the American people get the
government they vote for, they get the President, Senators and Members of Congress they vote
for, that means they also get the flunkies, hangers on and entourages of think tankers and
careerists they vote for. Understand? You get what you deserve, you don't get to whine and
complain when you're leaders are incompetent and corrupt okay? So don't give me this 'us and
them' nonsense and absolve yourself of the blood lust you once had all those years ago on
September 11, 2001.
No, liberals were not for taking it out on the Afghan tribal peoples. We were for getting
those responsible, and sorry no, we didn't include the Afghan tribal people in on that too,
despite any sympathies some of them may have had for AQ.
We had no 'blood lust' and we don't believe in collective punishment.
Did you just say liberals "don't believe in collective punishment"? I'm gonna give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lock-step in support of the #BLM and Critical Race
Theory...
But your other point about liberals being anti-war is also flawed. Just connect the
foreign intervention (not just wars, but also funding to foreign opposition groups) with some
humanitarian urgency (think of those Afghan women!) and liberals have always advocated for
the same foreign policies than neoconservatives.
"...I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and Miss Flournoy..."
It's been decades since I've seen the word "Miss" used in print - except when I write to
my granddaughter. In my profession, I write to women all the time, and although it used to be
that unmarried ones were quite accepting of - and indeed expecting to receive - missives from
me addressing them as such, I would be embarrassed to use that appellation when addressing
adult women today in a professional or unacquainted capacity. Now, I only use it for women
who wish it - old women, unmarried Catholic women and irascible old-school lesbians.
Ah, yes. Highly educated, multiple degrees, cultivated....and extremely dangerous. All of
that wonderful education dedicated to wanton killing and influence peddling. These people,
the hidden professionals of pull, are the most difficult to fight because unlike a politician
or a bureaucrat they are nearly invisible. She can only be effective if she is not seen. To
her, public exposure is toxic. So expose away! Make her name known to everyone.
I've been reading The Hidden Injuries of Class which leads me to believe that the
prospects for Trump are better than many of you think they are. However, the future of a
further Trump administration seems direly unpredictable, whereas Biden-Rice (my guess) will
try to bring back the good old days -- didn't B. say 'nothing will change'? In the spirit of
looking for my keys under the streetlight where I can see, rather than in the dark where I
probably dropped them, I've been trying to think about the trajectory of this very
conservative team in the midst of what I think will turn out to be a fairly catastrophic,
fairly rapid set of changes. Some things that seem to be evading a lot of people's calculus
here are Biden-Rice's continued devotion to warmongering and imperialism, which I think might
actually have consequences even if it's intended only as political claptrap; I expect as well
the continued production of funny money to inflate asset prices -- these impinge on the poor
through rents. When the poor are evicted, where will they go? Into the streets. There are
some unanswered questions here for students of Biden and Company.
"Let's take Biden. What does it mean to vote for Joe Biden? He has this kind of goofy
persona which some people find charming. What is Biden's record? What is a person voting for
if they back Biden on Election Day 2020?
The humiliation of courageous women like Anita Hill who confronted her abuser. You vote
for the architects of endless war. You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. Biden supports
those things. With Biden you are voting for wholesale surveillance by the government,
including the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You vote for austerity programs.
You vote for the destruction of welfare. That was Biden. You vote for cuts to Social
Security, which he has repeatedly called for cutting, along with Medicaid. You vote for
NAFTA, you vote for "free trade" deals. If you vote for Biden, you are voting for a real
decline in wages and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
With Biden you are also voting for the assault on public education and the transfer of
federal funds to Christian "charter schools." With Biden you are voting for more than a
doubling of the prison population. With Biden you are voting for the militarized police and
against the Green New Deal.
You are also voting to limit a woman's right to abortion and reproductive rights. You are
voting for a segregated public school system. With Biden you are voting for punitive levels
of student debt and the inability of people to free themselves of that debt through
bankruptcy. A vote for Biden is a vote for deregulating banking and finance. Biden also
supports for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
A vote for Biden is also a vote against the possibility of universal health care. You vote
for Biden and you are supporting huge, wasteful and bloated defense budgets. Biden also
supports unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy the elections.
That's what you're voting for.
A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for more of the same. The ruling elites would prefer Joe
Biden, just like they preferred Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is vulgar and an embarrassment.
But the ruling elites also made it abundantly clear about their interests: Many of these
people were quoted by name saying that if Bernie Sanders was the nominee -- or even Elizabeth
Warren -- they would vote for Donald Trump."
People vote their resentments as much as their wallets. Dems are fighting to create voting
block that will lead them to the victory. In the past (and in some countries who updated the
applicable definitions, still), the most relevant additional class was the petty bourgeoisie; in
the modern US, however, the concept of the professional-managerial class is the most useful frame
of reference as for the base of neoliberal Democrats.
People who think the Democratic Party is responsive to the concerns or interests of the poor
and working classes are delusional, full stop. The Democrats are neoliberal sellouts to the
financial oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And -- since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought -- the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. ..."
"... Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare. ..."
"... They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism. ..."
"... This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30 years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated to make room for the new diversity world order. ..."
"... "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities." ..."
The answer is "not always" due to existence of "What's the matter with Kansas" effect.
People can and do vote against their economic interests, although this is more common for
lower strata of population than for the elite.
This is the essence of the current play by the Neoliberal Democrats. Mike Whitney pointed
out that their support of black population is just a tactical trick:
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the
Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms
that have clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will
not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And -- since race is an issue on which
they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives
as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought -- the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate.
In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist
revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab
for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made
any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into
the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the
country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian
nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right
wing populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who
despise Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic
demographic changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion
and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the
bus 30 years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization,
fueling social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in
the media as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be
obliterated to make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this
theme in a speech he delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our
heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear
down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of
violent crime in our cities."
He than went off the rail, but still the part of his analysis reproduced above looks
pretty prescient.
"... Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks ..."
"... I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will cause my enemies to suffer. ..."
"... The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for us to take back our country. ..."
"... Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No. ..."
"... I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and abortion. ..."
"... However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. ..."
"... One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues, history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight it out. ..."
"... What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well. ..."
The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump and it would be absolutely
unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide. For the US Dems and neo-liberals, Trump
is the personification of evil, literally, and that means that "resistance" to him and everything he represents must be total. And
if he is re-elected, then there is only one possible explanation: the Russians stole the election, or the Chinese did. But the notion
that Trump has the support of a majority of people is literally unthinkable for these folks.
Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he even worse than Obama?
Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system. In my personal opinion, and for all his very real sins and failings, Trump,
at least, did not start a major war, which Obama did, and which Hillary would have done (can't prove this, but that is my personal
belief). That by itself, and totally irrespective of anything else, makes me believe that Trump has been a "lesser evil" (even if
far more ridiculous) President than Obama has been or Hillary would have been. This is what I believed four years ago and this is
what I still believe: considering how dangerous for the entire planet "President Hillary" would have been, voting for Trump was not
only the only logical thing to do, it was the only moral one too because giving your voice to a warmongering narcissistic hyena like
Hillary is a profoundly immoral act (yes, I know, Trump is also a narcissist – most politicians are! – but at least his warmongering
has been all hot air and empty threats, at least so far). However, I don't think that this (not having started a major war) will
be enough to get Trump re-elected.
Why?
Because most Americans still like wars. In fact, they absolutely love them. Unless, of course, they lose. What Americans really
want is a President who can win wars, not a President who does not initiate them in the first place. This is also the most likely
reason why Trump did not start any major wars: the US has not won a real war in decades and, instead, it got whipped in every conflict
it started. Americans hate losing wars, and that is why Trump did not launch any wars: it would have been political suicide to start
a real war against, say, the DPRK or Iran. So while I am grateful that Trump did not start any wars, I am not naive to the point
of believing that he did so for pure and noble motives. Give Trump an easy victory and he will do exactly what all US Presidents
have done in the past: attack, beat up the little guy, and then be considered like a "wartime President hero" by most Americans.
The problem is that there are no more "little guys" left out there: only countries who can, and will, defend themselves if attacked.
The ideology of messianic imperialism which permeates the US political culture is still extremely powerful and deep seated and
it will take years, probably decades, to truly flush it down to where it belongs: to the proverbial trash-heaps of history. Besides,
in 2020 Americans have much bigger concerns than war vs. peace – at least that is what most of them believe. Between the Covid19
pandemic and the catastrophic collapse of the economy (of course, while the former certainly has contributed to the latter, it did
not single-handedly cause it) and now the BLM insurgency, most Americans now feel personally threatened – something which no wars
of the past ever did (a war against Russia very much would, but most Americans don't realize that, since nobody explains this to
them; they also tend to believe that nonsense about the US military being the best and most capable in history).
Following four years of uninterrupted flagwaving and MAGA-chanting there is, of course, a hardcore of true believers who believe
that Trump is nothing short of brilliant and that he will "kick ass" everything and everybody: from the spying Russians, to the rioting
Blacks, from the pandemic, to the lying media, etc. The fact that in reality Trump pitifully failed to get anything truly important
done is completely lost on these folks who live in a reality they created for themselves and in which any and all facts contradicting
their certitudes are simply explained away by silly stuff like "Q-anon" or "5d chess". Others, of course, will realize that Trump
"deflated" before those whom he called "the swamp" almost as soon as he got into the White House.
As for the almighty Israel Lobby, it seems to me that it squeezed all it could from Trump who, from the point of view of the Zionists,
was always a "disposable President" anyway. And now that Trump has done everything Israel wanted him to do, he becomes almost useless.
If anything, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of them will try to outdo Trump's love for everything Israeli anyway.
So how much support is there behind Trump today? I really don't know (don't trust the polls, which have always been deeply wrong
about Trump anyway), but I think that there is definitely a constituency of truly frightened Americans who are freaking out (as they
should, considering the rapid collapse of the country) and who might vote Trump just because they will feel that for all his faults,
he is the only one who can save the country. Conversely, they will see Biden as a pro-BLM geriatric puppet who will hand the keys
of the White House to a toxic coalition of minorities.
So what if Trump does get re-elected?
In truth, the situation is so complex and there are so many variables (including many "unknown unknowns"!) that make predictions
impossible. Still, we can try to make some educated guesses, especially if based on some kind of logic such as the one which says
that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior". In other words, if Trump gets elected, we will get more of the same.
Personally, I would characterize this "same" as a further destruction of the US from within by the Democrats and their "coalition
of minorities" combined with a further destruction of the US Empire abroad by delusional Republicans.
I very much doubt that it makes any sense at all to vote for that, really. Better stay at home and do something worthwhile with
your time, no?
Now what about a Biden election?
Remember that Biden is now the de-facto leader of what I would loosely call the "anti-US coalition", that is the "coalition of
minorities" which really have nothing in common except their hatred of the established order (well, and, of course, their hatred
of Trump and of those who voted for him).
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions –
it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, but even more important
is the fact that these folks all have a hyper-narrow agenda and, simply put, they don't care about "constructing" anything. These
folks are all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
This also begs the question of why the Dems decided to go with Biden in spite of the fact that he is clearly an extremely weak
candidate. In spite? I am not so sure at all. I think that they chose him because he is so weak: the real power behind him will be
in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Unlike Trump who prostituted himself only after making it to the White House, the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted
themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US
homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country
and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
What would happen to the US if the likes of Bloomberg or Harris took control? First, there would be the comprehensive surrender
to the various minorities which put these folks in power followed by a very strong blowback from all the "deplorables" ranging from
protests and civil disobedience, to local authorities refusing to take orders from the feds. Like it or not, but most Americans still
love their country and loathe the kind of pseudo-liberal ideology which has been imposed upon them by the joint actions of the US
deep state and the corporate world. There is even a strong probability that if Biden gets elected the USA's disintegration would
only accelerate.
On the international front, a Biden Presidency would not solve any of the problems created by Obama and Trump: by now it is way
too late and the damage done to the international reputation of the United States is irreparable. If anything, the Dems will only
make it worse by engaging in even more threats, sanctions and wars. Specifically, the Demolicans hate Russia, China and Iran probably
even more than the Republicrats. Besides, these countries have already concluded a long time ago that the US was "not agreement capable"
anyway (just look at the long list of international treaties and organization from which the US under Trump has withdrawn: what is
the point of negotiating anything with a power which systematically reneges on its promises and obligations?)
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably even
faster than under a re-elected Trump.
Which brings me to my main conclusion:
Why do we even bother having elections?
First, I don't think that the main role of a democracy is to protect minorities from majorities. A true democracy protects the
majority against the many minorities which typically have a one-issue agenda and which are typically hostile to the values of the
majority . Oh sure, minority rights should be protected, the question is how exactly?
For one thing, most states have some kind of constitution/basic law which sets a number of standards which cannot be violated
as long as this constitution/basic law is in force. Furthermore, in most states which call themselves democratic all citizens have
the same rights and obligations, and a minority status does not give anybody any special rights or privileges. Typically, there are
also fundamental international standards for human rights and fundamental national standards for civil rights. Minority rights (individual
or collective), however, are not typically considered a separate category which somehow trumps or supplements adopted norms for human
and civil rights (if only because it creates a special "minority" category, whereas in true "people power" all citizens are considered
as one entity).
It is quite obvious that neither the Republicrats nor the Demolicans represent the interests of "we the people" and that both
factions of the US plutocracy are under the total control of behind-the-scenes real powers. What happened four years ago was a colossal
miscalculation of these behind-the-scenes real powers who failed to realize how hated they were and how even a guy like Trump would
seem preferable to a nightmare like Hillary (as we know, had the Dems chosen Sanders or even some other halfway lame candidate, Trump
would probably not have prevailed).
This is why I submit that the next election will make absolutely no difference:
The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people The choice between the
Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power
in the White House
Simply put, and unlike the case of 2016, the outcome of the 2020 election will make no difference at all. Caring about who the
next puppet in the White House will be is tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking . The major difference
is that the Titanic sank in very deep water whereas the "ship USA" will sink in the shallows, meaning that the US will not completely
disappear: in some form or another, it will survive either as a unitary state or as a number of successor states. The Empire, however,
has no chance of survival at all. Thus, anything which contributes to make the US a "normal" country and which weakens the Empire
is in the interests of the people of the USA. Voting for either one of the candidates this fall will only prolong the agony of the
current political regime in the USA.
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably
even faster than under a re-elected Trump.
This observation suggests that one should vote for Biden if one votes at all. Perhaps if one is going to the election because
there's a particularly crucial vote for county board of supervisors candidates (very important, by the way) and you happen to
be at the polls anyway, the fastest way to further the process of saying good riddance to the American empire is to vote for Joe
Biden.
Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks. Two consecutive elections with Gerontocrats. Neither
of the two nominally different parties has a very deep roster evidenced by the poverty of options they have been putting forward.
Given his decline, I don't expect Biden to have a long presidency if he survives to officially get the nomination.
Unless ur a 100% reprehensible crack head, go vote for Dumbo J Trump.
He is awful, he is beaten, he is an Israel sellout.
But the other side will kill you.
If Biden wins, the emboldened mob will come to your home to kill you. If you call the police, they won't come and they won't
investigate your rape/torture/death. If you defend yourself, you will be arrested and prosecuted. The media will deny it is happening
and also say that you deserved it.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will
cause my enemies to suffer.
In rural Counties (Red America) an elected Sheriff is the chief local law officer. Watch for coalitions of Counties,
within or across State lines, demanding secession or limited autonomy. The only way forward for sane Americans is to remove themselves
from Woke jurisdictions. The election won't change that. But I will vote for Orange Man anyway. Just for spite!
The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not
a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates
as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions
to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for
us to take back our country.
"Just by asking the question of whether the next Presidential election matters, I am obviously suggesting that it might
not. To explain my reasons for this opinion, I need to reset the upcoming election in the context of the previous one. So let's
begin here."
Would the U.S. Navy have launched a cruise missile attack against the Shayrat airbase in Syria if Trump didn't order it? Would
Gen. Solemani have been assassinated if Trump didn't order it? Of course the next presidential election "matters" if we have one,
that is.
Now that the constitution and the rule of law are defunct and all power has been de facto consolidated into the office of president,
whether we have WW3 or not (for example) depends almost exclusively on the character of the person in the White House.
"The first thing which, I believe, ought to be self-evident to all by now is that there was no secret operation by any deep
state, not even a Zionist controlled one, to put Donald Trump in power."
Seriously? So why did Comey undermine Clinton's campaign and why didn't Obama fire him for it? And why did Obama attack the
Syrian Army at Deir Ezzor in Sept. 2016, an act that greatly escalated tensions with Russia and apparently scared some Sanders
supporters into Trump's camp, giving Trump a narrow margin of victory in three key states which put him in the White House? Because
shit happens?
"I would even argue that the election of Donald Trump was the biggest slap in the face of US deep state and of the covert
transnational ruling elites this deep state serves. Ever."
I would argue that you've been fooled. If that were actually the case, they would've impeached and removed him, right? Or they
would've deployed a lone nut against him. Or he would've at least encountered some kind of meaningful political or legal opposition.
"My evidence? Simple, look what these ruling 'elites' did both before and after Trump's election: before, they ridiculed
the very idea of 'President Trump' as both utterly impossible and utterly evil."
Talk is cheap. How come they didn't seem to have a problem with his war crimes in Syria; or his moving the embassy to Jerusalem;
or his attempts to start a war with Iran; or his trade war with China; or his attempt to starve Venezuela into submission; or
his arming of Ukraine; or his withdrawal from the INF treaty; etc,?
"As somebody who has had years of experience reading the Soviet press or, in another style, the French press, I can honestly
say that I have never seen a more ridiculously outlandish hate campaign against anybody that would come even close to the kind
of total hate campaign which Trump was subjected to."
Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or
pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No.
But let's say for the sake of argument that "they" really do "hate" him for some reason. So what? That doesn't mean that they
don't want him as president, right? If they really do hate him then he may be just the person they need.
@Diversity
Heretic ruits of financial empire. The Boomers are still the biggest demographic in the US. Starting in the 1980s onward,
they established portfolio systems that extracted wealth via the US's world reserve currency status.
This marks the unholy covenant made by Wall Street and middle class Boomers. The Boomers are dying off, and taking the US Empire
with it into the afterlife. The younger generation won't receive a nickel, and that's likely a good thing in the long term. But
Trump and Sanders still can't make aggressive economic reform while America is still dominated by "The United States of Boomer."
They can only pave the road for reform and future leaders to lead the charge.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it
will cause my enemies to suffer.
I agree. MORALE COUNTS. Data geeks don't understand this. Political watchers don't understand this. People who analyze the
number of tanks and guns don't understand this.
Morale wins wars. We need to defy the Left any way we can. A Trump win will be spit in their eyes. It will put some fighting spirit
into our side.
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions
– it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, These folks are
all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
I don't know about that, I think Alastair Crooke, may be closer to the mark with his conclusion.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to
those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect
and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump
saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and
abortion.
However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating
the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. Basically how
they started to change themselves into becoming an evangelical Conservative party due to Reagan where as before, it was the Democrats
who were the Conservatives.
Even if they do this though, the Republicans are still going to remain the good old American majority white party so out right
winning future elections after Trump is going to be very difficult. I think this all potentially bodes for a potential secession
crisis in the future.
However even if Trump wins, the Democrats may start to take notice and try to compete with the Republicans and start to moderate
their policies, shifting away from Identity politics and embracing the populist waves and trying to alternate with a more centrist
position. But considering all the crazy lefties in power within the party structure, this would be an incredibly difficult task,
almost Herculean to achieve.
So we could still be looking at a potential secession down the road.
But we all have to admit one thing – Donald Trump, love him or loathe him, has changed ultimately the political face of politics
for the better. Even though he actually has done very little, just the fact he got elected with his views really does go to show
the people have had enough and want changes.
Debating electoral politics at this point is for autists and morons. The globalists have won. They will be educating your children
while you work your shit job getting felt up by Africans on the way to your meaningless conference in Tempe.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Me too. I too will vote for Trump just out of spite. Saker is so ignorant about America and Americans. That's why I usually
don't read the Saker articles. The average homeless black guy is more informed about America than Saker.
the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from
the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love
for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
The Ukie "Nazis", BLM and homo-lobby are just tools. You make it sound like they're in charge. Please stop posting garbage
like that.
Saker – you started out by saying that it was a complete shock to the ruling elite when Trump won. I agree. You then described
how the Left (and most on the Right) have made Trump's presidency a living hell. I agree.
But then you said: "Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he
even worse than Obama? Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system."
Obama was treated with kid gloves because he's an insider, a player. That's the only reason he ended up in the White House;
the elite sanctioned him and put him there.
But Trump is not an insider and he wasn't elite-approved. OF COURSE HE COULDN'T GET MUCH DONE! They didn't let him. They have
fought him every step of the way. After seeing what Trump has had to contend with, no outsider is ever going to attempt it again.
If Obama had gone through what Trump has gone through, his skinny little legs would have folded before his first month was
up.
One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues,
history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight
it out.
What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue
to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well.
They just stole $6 trillion and handed it to Wall Street, hedge funds, private equity. Covid, the lock downs and the culture
wars are a great smoke screen to hide the looting going on.
"With Republicans siding with BLM, and wanting to replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth
with friends like that who needs enemies?"
They do what their corporate donors tell them to do, just like the Dems. All that matters on both sides of the aisle are the
corporate campaign donors. Nothing else. Nike, for instance, wants Blacks to continue buying their shoes. If they have to get
down on one knee, so be it. The politicians follow suit.
@anon
n't be a Koch-brothers Speaker Ryan around to undermine Trump's agenda. And, the GOP needs to dump Turtle Man as their Senate
leader, and promote someone who could actually do the job, like the other Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If those things happen,
real progress could finally be made in saving what's left of the country.
At one point there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, but, as the D's have gone further and further
White Man-hating crazy Left, that is no longer true today. The election of Biden will guarantee a radical left-wing minority female
sitting in the White House (how much longer will that name last?) within six months.
@ploni almoni
Trump is a mentally and morally defective total moron who's completely unfit for the office he holds. Knowing this, the "deep
state" put him there for one reason and one reason only: because they felt he could be manipulated into taking risks above and
beyond those which their dime-a-dozen political opportunists would take – in the pursuit of their stalled imperial agenda.
As I see it, the following linked statement by the "World Mental Health Coalition" (particularly paragraphs two and five) fully
explains the Trump "presidency."
@mark tapley
roximation of where I'm going with all this).
And as has been attributed to Sinclair Lewis, HL Mencken and several others:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross."
3. And that's when the first large economically-sustainable states e.g., California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania or
Georgia will seek to break out of the Union – and take their smaller neighboring states with them in blocs.
4. And in a futile attempt to prevent a dissolution of the Union from happening, Federal troops will be brought in – and that's
when the first shots of the next civil war will be fired.
Twain nailed at the turn of the century, "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." Mark Twain
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic
parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements.
"The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump "
No, not a "total informational war against Trump" but a conspicuously partial informational war against Trump.
They have no problem with his various war crimes and endless provocations against Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. They have
no problem with his withdrawing from the INF treaty and starting an arms race that puts the whole world in great danger. They
choose to focus on his failure to wear a mask in public, for example, while ignoring that he's brought the world to the brink
of WW3. And this should be an important clue as to what's going on here yet it somehow escapes "The Saker" just like it apparently
escapes other pundits e.g. Paul Craig Roberts.
" and it would be absolutely unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide."
If it is so "absolutely unthinkable" then why don't they run somebody against him who's not showing signs of senile dementia,
for example?
In any case it seems Trump's handlers and enablers realize that he will likely not be reelected no matter who they run against
him, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some kind of a major war started before the end of his term. In desperation they
installed him in the White House and in desperation they now seek to force a major war before we go back to government by opportunistic-career-politician-puppet-rulers.
Are there any Republican Senators beside Lankford (OK) and Johnson (WIS), who are supporting this travesty? After Tucker Carlson
skewered them the other night, I wonder how many more will be dumb enough to back it? Don't buck the Tuck if you don't want to
be flooded with calls and emails from constituents who hate you.
@Harold
Smith . President Donald Trump, as a direct response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack that occurred on 4 April."
You and everyone knows that there was no "chemical attack," and that Shayrat was empty. The US "missile response" was, on the
one hand, an attempt to "save face" having been outmaneuvered and lost the Isis gambit, and on the other to test Russian missile
defenses for technical purposes, for the upcoming war. In all these cases Trump has to "take responsibility" or admit that all
he controls is what is served for lunch.
Make believe is all fine and good, but you people are the forces of darkness kidding yourselves and the rest of us into oblivion.
@RP1
ump), and the fact that international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party, demonstrably no longer mean
anything.
And for the icing on the cake (i.e. the consummation of the degenerative process which began before Trump) the fake president
was charged with "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" – in a fake impeachment trial – and was acquitted, thus proving
to the rest of the world (if anymore proof was necessary) that the concepts of "separation of powers"/"checks and balances"/"rule
of law" have been replaced by the concept of rule by the psychotic impulses of an unaccountable, politically omnipotent psychopath.
@4 Pete
Saker with economics. Ann Coulters spruiking for Trump was about immigration not economics.
Whether Trump failed on immigration because of a lack of will or a lack of backup by the republican side of The Party is irrelevant.
It just means voting is pointless either way.
It's hard to see much enthusiasm being manufactured on either side of the manufacturerd political divide this election. Biden
is an incoherent clown and Trump is a known quantity now unable to claim future greatness like he did in 2016.
The best vote in 2020 is staying home or going to a gun store and stocking up on election day. Voting just encourages more
bs from the political class.
Elections rarely matter, but this one actually could make a difference. Replacing Trump puppet with Biden puppet won't change
Federal actions, because Federal actions NEVER change. But the replacement WILL change the media. As soon as Biden puppet is in
office, the media will IMMEDIATELY stop creating panic and fear, and the lockdowns and masks will subside if not quite disappear.
It's worth campaigning and voting for Biden.
@ploni almoni
CIA establishment, which is run by Israel, carried out the murder of Soleimani and Trump was told about it after the fact, and
was told 'you own it.'"
For the Nth time: In that case why didn't "the CIA establishment run by Israel" assassinate Soleimani when Obama was president?
Why didn't the embassy get moved to Jerusalem or Syrian land be given to Israel or the INF treaty be repudiated or Venezuela be starved
or self-destructive trade war with China be started, etc.,when Obama was president?
Your "reasoning" has been thoroughly debunked ad nauseum; give it up. (I will likely not waste any more time arguing absurdities
with you). Chris Cosmos
, says: July
3, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
Great analysis as usual. However, let me point out some problems with what you've written. First, Americans do love wars but
they don't care about winning. The US military corrupt and incompetent as it is the most popular by a mile of any us institution.
Americans love the military as an idea. That idea is that it represents, theoretically and mythically, the ultimate struggle between
"good guys" and "bad guys" which fully mature military officers use to represent "them" and us. Since military conflicts are out
of sight and out of mind and the mainstream media lies so blatantly and the collective memory is no longer than a few months it
is possible that no matter how obvious the defeat or obvious the corruption to you an me who follow events the vast majority of
Americans only see movies of the glory of the US military and covert operatives and quickly forget war-crimes/massive violations
of the Geneva Conventions on War, defeat, and so on in favor of the fantasy/myth represented in commercials for military recruitment.
Second, the idea that so-called minorities represented by BLM and so on can or will have power in Washington is absurd. These
groups are used and have been used by the corporate oligarchs as a way to divide the working and middle classes–making grand gestures
of "solidarity" with BLM (always a corporate oriented group) means nothing. The grand movement of wealth from the working and
middle classes towards the 0.001% will continue inexorably as it has since the late 70s whether the RP or the DP is in power.
As far as the oligarchs are concerned manipulating popular culture through mind-control techniques (using the smartest human on
Earth) will keep their people in power. Trump was a slight interruption
Trump himself was boxed in a corner very quickly by the purge of Flynn and his refusal to vet staff. He had no choice but to
blunder from one thing to another with ALL of Washington and Hollywood solidly against him. The positives that he brought, however,
to the his Presidency was that he showed in high relief the nature of the Deep State–even the term was largely forbidden (I was
kicked out of a liberal/progressive blog, in part, for using the term "Deep State"). We saw through the Russiagate fiasco the
reality that the US mainstream media is primarily kind of Ministry of Truth not an "objective" institution that sought truth.
Like the American love for the military, most Americans will go along with the media Narrative because all societies need narratives,
myths, and commons frames of reference–so even if most people see (with their lying eyes) the reality of the propaganda organs,
they'll still "believe". Trump, as you said blustered and bloviated on going to war but never really did–he was the dove in the
administration–he hired people like Pompeo and Bolton in order to keep from being eaten by the Deep State. Trump had to spend
all his time in office out-foxing the operatives within his administration from destroying or even killing him. The Deep State
does not play nice.
Trump has absolutely no chance of winning in November. People in this country are just tired of conflict and are ready to give
the Deep State all the power it wants as long as they can rule. It is likely that the Senate will turn blue and we will have one
party rule. The Republican demographic is, at present, neither large nor enthusiastic enough to be of much help. As for the coalition
of minorities, they have no chance to go beyond the ghettos and if they come around here trying to burn anything down they will
be met by a lot of veterans who are armed to the teeth–so I don't see much cultural change outside the coasts and large urban
areas. Meanwhile Covid will continue to disrupt life, drug ODs will increase, access to health-care will be reduced, and we are
headed for a very new dispensation that may involve a dissolution of the country.
While I agree with the author's conclusions I disagree that " most Americans still like wars."
No. I think that we hate them, hate to send our children to die/be ripped apart for a bunch of old scumbags who are in the
pockets of the Defense Industry, hate to see us reviled by the World, hate to see our Blood & Treasure spent on people who despise
us and hate to pay for it all.
Sadly, the author's conclusions are spot-on. There is no remedying this disaster; we are in our final days as a coherent Nation.
This is "Operation Enduring Clusterfuck" writ large. As the acronym goes, "TINVOWOOT."
The best that I can see is Balkanization–with or without preliminary/local & regional shooting–with division along racial lines.
Give blacks the cities that they inhabit now in great numbers, give them a region (with ocean access) and have people move to
"Red" and "Blue" states according to their race/safety/beliefs. Trade–or war–will follow as a natural consequence.
But, Blacks need to know that when THEY riot their cities burn; when Whites riot entire CONTINENTS burn.
I voted for Trump. I was conned. Trump was selected by the .001% as the most effective figurehead to preside over the destruction
of America.
Do you really believe the most wealthy and powerful people in the world would leave the choice of a major leader up to the
unwashed masses? They manipulate everything, absolutely everything.
If voting could actually negatively impact their power and wealth, they would never allow it.
The .001% are just Jeffrey Dahmer cannibals in expensive clothing, and YOU are on the menu.
Trump got elected for two main issues he pledged during his 2016 campaign: ending all foreign wars and greatly reducing immigration.
On ending foreign wars and bringing home the troops, he's failed. Since he took office he's been dialing up the heat to the
verge of war with Iran, NK, China, Russia, Venezuela, and we still have troops everywhere incl. in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Meanwhile all the trade war jabs with China is just Kabuki theater. The intention is not to bring back manufacturing as he claimed
but to blackmail the CCP into handing over control of China's banks to the globalist bankers. His overt pandering to Israel at
every turn is nauseating. I suspect Mossad has him by the balls when they seized all records from his Jewish attorney.
On immigration, again nothing like what he promised. He has drastically reduced asylum seeking, but illegal immigration reached
a record under his watch until he thankfully won an important quick deportation law against those who failed asylum app. His border
wall is still largely not visible. After four long years, he is finally doing something about legal immigration, but his temporary
suspension of H1b visas and green cards until the end of the year may be too little too late to save him, and he still hasn't
done anything to suspend OPT and EB5. I fear this is all just for show. Immediately after he gets reelected, he will feel all
generous and remove all those restrictions.
But the alternative is unthinkable. Biden will immediately resume all ME wars as directed by Israel. He is as compromised as
Trump, Mossad already has him by the balls with his bribery scandals in Ukraine and China through his son. Zionists/deep state
like to have dirty politicians elected, the dirtier the better, as the easier it is for them to be blackmailed.
The question is will his followers feel enthusiastic enough to come out and vote?
Trump's election has proved one thing. His election must have come as a surprise even to him, and he was unprepared with a
list of candidates for the various posts he had to fill to carry out his wishes. He was dependent on others who were not well
disposed towards him.
Even though Foreign Policy supposedly the President's prerogative, in this case his hands were tied behind his back, such that
even low level functionaries were opposing his policies quite openly. The military were running rings around him when he wanted
to reduce military presence in the Occupied countries. In fact he was coerced into bombing some facilities in those countries
based on fake incidents. What Trump had promised his electorate, he could not deliver. He is a failure. The Blob defeated him
at every turn. In fact by appointing the likes of Pompeo he became even less powerful, if that is possible.
If he gets elected a second time somehow, he will not be able to deliver on his promises unless he destroys the Blob completely
Ralph Nader said something that opened my eyes to the true nature of national elections in 2000. The Democrips started that
day's whole "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" nonsense, and a reporter asked him about it. He said "The Republicans have nominated
that worst candidate for US President in history, he's bad on every level. If Al Gore can't run a run a decent enough campaign
to defeat him, what good is he?"
I stopped voting for anything above state representitive in 2012 and will not vote in hat will be either our ultimate or penultimate
presidential election this year.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a
total nonsense
the real power behind him will be in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Precisely. Biden will be a ceremonial head of state, much as the president of the USSR was. There are a lot of people saying
that Biden's VP will be the de facto president, but I'm not so sure. I think Pelosi – Schumer – Obama will form the ruling junta,
which is fitting inasmuch as they've been trying really hard to turn the USA into a corrupt banana republic.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a total
nonsense
@Anonymous
y demanding that Russia give back Crimea, for example, something that everyone knew Russia could not do?
"That was a no go w the Establishment and they have engaged in a relentless campaign against him."
Let's see, he's betrayed his supporters on many issues; his health is obviously deteriorating; as you point out he's an "incompetent
narcissist"; there's a "relentless campaign against him" according to you; and polls show him trailing Biden in several key states;
so why is he running for reelection? If LBJ can retire after one term why can't Trump?
@Harold
Smith ls go back before WW1 to Samual Bush who was brought onto the Jew run War Industries Board (what a great racket that
was) by Percy Rockefeller during the puppet actor and syphilitic W. Wilson's catatonic lay about under Col. House (Rothschilds
employee) and Bernard Baruch administration. The Zionists control both phony parties and just use the Jew run MSM to put on a
show. Many commentators such as Patagonia Man believe it is too late but I still maintain the remote possibility that enough people
will wake up to put some decent rep. in the House. Forget about the Presidential baboons.
3. I have outlined, not only the breakup of the US into several geopolitical units (and quite possibly, but hopefully not,
another civil war) but the megaregions in which North America is heading, within say, the next 150 – 250 years.
Just because I believe all of the above doesn't mean I can't observe and comment on the theater that passes for US politics.
Needless to say, I won't be voting in November.
Finally, there's a great saying attributed to Einstein:
"The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result"
@mark tapley
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent
impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not
for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. " https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595
You can tell the Saker doesn't live in America, since he believes Americans love war. This has never been true and it is safe
to assume Americans are really sick of American Imperialism in general right now.
War and warmongering do not enjoy any significant support in any major political block in the USA right now. Only the Oligarchs,
NWO, Plutocrats and Neocons are for wars and they are not even collectively close to being a plurality.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman - who was
accused of being coached by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff during
testimony when he told House committees that he "did not think it was proper" for President
Trump to ask Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden during a
July 25 phone call - is retiring from the US Army after over 21 years, according to
CNN .
Vindman has endured a "campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation" spearheaded by
the President following his testimony in the impeachment inquiry last year, according to his
attorney, Amb. David Pressman. -
CNN
Last November, Vindman admitted to violating the chain of command when he reported his
concerns over a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelensky, in which Trump requested an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter over
corruption.
Vindman, a NSC Ukraine expert (who was asked three times to become their Defense Minister), claimed he
had no idea that Burisma, a natural gas company which paid Hunter to sit on its board, routed
over $3 million to accounts tied to Hunter Biden .
... ... ...
Vindman fell under scrutiny during the impeachment - and has been accused of leaking
knowledge of the July 25 call with Zelensky to the whistleblower whose complaint (after
consulting with Adam Schiff's office) sparked Trump's impeachment.
This arrogant and clueless neocon got only part of he deserved. He decided to play big
politics and was burned, although not as badly as he should be. So far he escaped prison.
Notable quotes:
"... History will remember him as an incompetent, arrogant, office gossip ..."
"... ! Both he and his brother should have been charged with mishandling classified information! ..."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman , a key impeachment witness
against President Trump , retired from the
Army Wednesday, with his lawyer citing "a campaign of bullying, intimidation and retaliation"
for cutting short his military career.
... ... ...
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., last Thursday announced her intention to block Senate confirmations for
1,123 senior U.S. Armed Forces promotions until Defense Secretary Mark
Esper confirms he will not block the "expected and deserved" promotion for
Vindman , an Iraq war veteran.
Duckworth, also an Iraq War veteran who served as a helicopter pilot, accused Trump of
trying to politicize the armed forces.
nlocker Leader 23s
Good riddance to traitorous rubbish. See ya, MR. Vindman.
RustynFL Leader 24s
The House of Representatives' sham impeachment inquiry was an act of political revenge
a) for losing the 2016 presidential election, and b) for impeaching Bill Clinton. It's as
simple as that. V. looked like he had trouble remembering what he was told to say. Wasn't
three rehearsals enough? He lied when he called it a "demand.' What demand? No demand.
"Favor." V didn't follow the chain of command. Then lies about it being a busy day. NO. He
was told what to say and who to go to. No officer can trust a subordinate that leaks, goes
public, etc for political or personal gain. No one trusts a man that should be charged with
sedition.
ᴅᴇsᴛʀᴜᴄᴛɪᴠᴇ-ᴀʟᴛʀᴜɪsᴛs
Leader 26s
That next chapter should be prison.
useyourhead19 Leader 31s
Bullying like doing everything possible to undermine a presidency
IveSeenthisbefore Leader 46s
This is a traitor! A very bad person who never accepted President Trump in his
heart.
RobertKearney45 Leader 1m
History will remember him as an incompetent, arrogant, office gossip of classified imformation! Both he and his brother should have been charged with mishandling classified
information!
oldmarine83 Leader 1m
Well now that that lying sack of poo is leaving, he can take that job of Defense
Minister of Ukraine. That's want he wants. Hopefully he will renounce his citizenship in
America and not receive a penny in retirement pay if he take that position in a foreign
country. Don't need people like him in the military. Need to sack EVERY Democrat in Congress.
And any Obama holdovers. Let them know what the unemployment line is like and how it works.
Cut the "retirement" pay also, since they REALLY HAVE NEVER WORKED since they went to the
house or senate.
nlocker Leader 16s ArizonaConservative738
Vindman broke the chain of command, leaked classified information, and helped the Dems
try to overthrow the President. He deserves prison.
"... What they have "won" is an electorate where a significant minority, but still a minority, are the party faithful but the majority (growing over time) vote Democratic only as the lesser evil, i.e. because they believe that the media coverage and electoral system's exclusion of third parties in effect forces them to vote Democratic by holding a gun to their head. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I would want to see more media coverage of third party candidates combined with "Is the Democratic Party nominee your first choice?" polling before conceding that I am. ..."
Chetan Murthy @48: "The Dems didn't lose working-class votes in 2016: the median income of a
Hillary voter was less than that of a Trump voter [or maybe it was average? In any case, not
much difference.] What the Dems lost, was "white non-college-educated" voters. They retained
working class voters of color."
I doubt that the Democrats have "won" working class votes, white, black, hispanic, or other,
since the time of LBJ, and possibly before that. What they have "won" is an electorate where a
significant minority, but still a minority, are the party faithful but the majority (growing
over time) vote Democratic only as the lesser evil, i.e. because they believe that the media
coverage and electoral system's exclusion of third parties in effect forces them to vote
Democratic by holding a gun to their head. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I would want to see more
media coverage of third party candidates combined with "Is the Democratic Party nominee your
first choice?" polling before conceding that I am.
What I see is that U.S. voters are forced into a choice between a conservative center-right
national-security party (Democrats) whose main virtues are that they are not fascist or racist
and are willing to provide a basic welfare state safety net, though one not as extensive as in
Europe. Opposed to them is a party whose ideology and behavior are degenerating into something
combining the pre-conditions of fascism (e.g., pre-Great War Germany) and the 1860 secessionist
South.
Changing this state of affairs is not something that will be accomplished by elections, but
by large and sustained protest movements (think Occupy or BLM multiplied many times). The next
few decades will be interesting, but not fun.
Orange Watch 07.06.20 at 5:40 pm (no link)
Chetan Murthy@48:
It's helpful that you told us who you were, in so few words. 43% of the US are non-voters.
The median household income of non-voters is less than half of the median income of a Clinton
voter (which was higher than the overall US median, albeit by less than the Trump median
was). Clinton didn't lose in 2016 because of who voted as much as who didn't ; every
serious analysis (and countless centrist screeds) since Trump's installation has told us
that. Losing the working class doesn't require that the Republicans gain them; if the working
class drops out, that shifts the electoral playing field further into the favor of politics
who cater to the remaining voting blocks. Democrats playing Republican-lite while mouthing
pieties about how they're totally not the party of the rich will always fare worse in that
field than Republicans playing Republicans while mouthing pieties about how they ARE the
party of the rich, but also of giving everyone a chance to make themselves rich. I know it's
been de rigour for both Dems and the GOP to ignore the first half of Clinton's
deplorable quote, but it truly was just as important as the half both sides freely remember.
The Democrats have become a party of C-suite diversity, and they have abandoned the working
class. And when their best pick for President's plenty bold plan for solving police violence
is to encourage LEOs to shoot people in the leg instead of the chest (something that could
only be said by a grifter or someone with more knowledge of Hollywood than ballistics
or anatomy), the prospect of keeping the non-white portions of the working class from
continuing to drop out is looking bleak.
MisterMr@49:
The traditional threading of that needle is to expand class-based analysis to more
accurately reflect real-world political and economic behavior. In the past (and in some
countries who updated the applicable definitions, still), the most relevant additional class
was the petty bourgeoisie; in the modern US, however, the concept of the
professional-managerial class is the most useful frame of reference.
The answer is "not always" due to existence of "What the matter with Kansas" effect.
People can and do vote against their economic interests, although this is more common for
lower strata of population then for the elite.
This is the essence of the current play by the Neoliberal Democrats. Mike Whitney pointed
out that their support of black population is just a tactical trick:
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats
biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have
clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not"
be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they
feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as
ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate.
In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist
revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab
for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any
attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the
Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as
they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the
country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian
nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing
populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise
Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic
changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30
years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling
social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media
as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated
to make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this theme in a speech he
delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our
heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down
statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent
crime in our cities."
He then went off the rail, but still the part of his analysis reproduced above looks pretty
prescient.
"... This is a zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. Without working class votes they can't win. And those votes are lost. Clinton gambit that in Cola-Pepsi duopoly the working class has nowhere to go (because Republicans are ever worse) worked for a couple of decades but in 2016 suddenly stopped. They same happened in UK. And will soon happen in Germany as Merkel is history too: Biden without senility. ..."
"... We need to accept the fact that the Neoliberal Dems lost its key constituency and that limits their ability to win the political power. They can't even select a decent leader, because Biden as a party leader is a cruel joke. ..."
"... IMHO 20% of upper middle class is not enough as the key constituency simply because a part of this voter block belongs to Republicans (military middle class). And that essentially all what the neoliberal Dems, as "Republicans-lite" currently have. ..."
"... Although in 2020 they might have a unique chance due to Trump self-disintegration. But their ability to hold into minorities votes, while selling those minorities down the river is an aberration, so in this case in 2022 they might lose all the gains. ..."
"... Biden in a way symbolizes the crisis of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party really well: they have no future, only the past. ..."
"... It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed. ..."
"... For some reason, the main divide in politics today is a sort of culture war, and republicans and other right wing parties managed to present the traditionalist side of the culture war as the "working class" one, and therefore the other side as the evil cosmopolitan prosecco sipping faux leftish but in reality very snobbish one, so that they pretend that they are the working class party because of their traditionalist stance. ..."
"... But they aren't: already the fact that they blame "cosmopolitans" shows that they think in terms of nationalism (like Trump and his China virus), which is a way to deflect the attention from class conflict. ..."
"... This doesn't automatically mean that the Dems get the working class: what happens is that conservative vote is U shaped, they get a ton of votes from very low incomes, and a ton of votes from very high incomes, but few votes in the middle. ..."
"... it is still true that in the very low incomes Reps rake up a lot of votes (although, as for my previous comment, I think this is a case of false consciousness, aka they cling to their guns and their Bibles, aka they've been bamboozled). ..."
a party that is no longer of the working class is unlikely to pass legislation that
benefits the working class.
This is an important point worth repeating again and again.
This is a zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. Without working class votes they can't win. And
those votes are lost. Clinton gambit that in Cola-Pepsi duopoly the working class has nowhere
to go (because Republicans are ever worse) worked for a couple of decades but in 2016
suddenly stopped. They same happened in UK. And will soon happen in Germany as Merkel is
history too: Biden without senility.
Using "identity wedge" and amplifying the current riots is a desperate move of
"substituting with minorities" the lost working class votes. They want to split the country
in such a way that Republicans are in minority. Probably will not work as nationalism as a
platform is on upswing now and Trump's "national neoliberalism" has some grass roots support
even among the minorities, despite that his promises are all fake. Riots dramatically
increased polarization and the result of this polarization are not necessary beneficial to
neoliberal Dems.
We need to accept the fact that the Neoliberal Dems lost its key constituency and that
limits their ability to win the political power. They can't even select a decent leader,
because Biden as a party leader is a cruel joke. The fact that "there is no alternative" no
longer holds -- the return (on a new level) to some form of the New Deal is clearly an
alternative. The alternative that the majority of population wants.
All those neoliberal fairy
tales about "free market" (can it exists with multinationals in power?), "personal
responsibility" (which means unlimited ability of capital to eliminate decent jobs and
replace them with perma-temps, or offshore them) and that "rising tide lifts all boats" no
longer work. That's why Bezos supports BLM while paying below average to the workers in
warehouses. He "feels the pain." ;-)
IMHO 20% of upper middle class is not enough as the key constituency simply because a part
of this voter block belongs to Republicans (military middle class). And that essentially all what the neoliberal
Dems, as "Republicans-lite" currently have.
Although in 2020 they might have a unique chance due to Trump self-disintegration. But
their ability to hold into minorities votes, while selling those minorities down the river is
an aberration, so in this case in 2022 they might lose all the gains.
Biden in a way symbolizes the crisis of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party really well:
they have no future, only the past.
While Republicans now can play the nationalist card like in Weimar Germany. The recent
riots play into their hands, and this effect will last till November.
mainstream Democrats recognise the need for radical change, and Biden will align with
the mainstream position as he always has done
You said you would leave this, your third assumption, to comments, so here is my
comment.
The U.S. is in the midst of a deep legitimacy crisis and contrary to popular belief among
liberals, it is not Trump particularly whose legitimacy is being called into question. Oh,
sure, there have been relentless attacks on him -- from partisan opponents and from much of
mainstream media -- but like the "anti-racism" of the recent protests -- much of it is
dissembling and distraction. Charges of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election turned
out to be fake news -- rather obviously so from the beginning -- but a big enough mob went
down that path with no self-awareness. I am not saying Trump is not an egregiously bad
President; he is. But, notice please, before you go assuming that mainstream Democrats are
going wake up in 2021 wanting to govern in the real world , that they have not shown much
inclination toward truth-telling or critical realism these last 20 years.
It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in
multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping
malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be
unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed.
Did I mention that the U.S. is undergoing a legitimacy crisis?? Whose legitimacy is being
called into question?
I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is
being called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban
PMC are the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working
class elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking
social justice, mere props. I would say the Party establishment is confident they can put the
re-animated corpse of Biden into the White House. And look how gleefully they welcome
Republican never-Trumpers into the clubhouse! If you were one of the fools and tools who
thought Obama did not want Republicans to control Congress, you are getting another chance to
see how the Obama Alumni Association works with the Lincoln Project, how happy they are to
deliver the kind of policy that appeals to rich, old, suburban Republican women.
The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the
lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and
propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers
running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted
their neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work.
We have just watched the once highly touted CDC completely botch the great Pandemic. They
could not devise a test. They screwed up the rules on who could or should be tested. They
lied early on about the need to wear masks. They staged a moral panic over a need for
ventilators, when ventilators are a terrible therapeutic alternative. In the new Puritanism,
they shut down public beaches but they watched passively as liberal heroes like Cuomo set off
a holocaust by sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.
This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way,
might get the U.S. out of Afganistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long
ago -- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the
treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon
now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and
may be insolvent.
So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly sob who had a hand in the
crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy
bill that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be
discharged, and every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the
necessity of radical change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans
hostile to even Trump's fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical
reform is so likely! So plausible.
And, what's the play? The carrot of bi-partisan cooperation coupled with the fearful stick
of abolishing the filibuster someday somehow if they don't play nice. You do realize that
only Republicans are allowed to manipulate the filibuster and only in ways that favor their
agenda of, say, stacking the courts? And, the strategic vision? Reinforcing the Rube Goldberg
contraption which is Obamacare? You do know Biden is on record as adamantly opposed to
Medicare4all? And, that Medicaid is a need-based nightmare of controlled deprivation? In a
country where public health is such a shambles that a pandemic is running out of control.
Without working class votes they can't win. And those votes are lost
It's helpful that you told us who you were, in so few words. The Dems didn't lose
working-class votes in 2016: the median income of a Hillary voter was less than that
of a Trump voter [or maybe it was average? In any case, not much difference.] What the Dems
lost, was "white non-college-educated" voters. They retained working class voters of
color.
But hey, they don't count as working-class voters to you. Thanks for playing.
White collar are, by definition, working class, because they don't own the means of
production. What I see is an opposition between blue collars and white collars, that are two
wings of the working class, not that democrats are going against the working class.
For some reason, the main divide in politics today is a sort of culture war, and republicans
and other right wing parties managed to present the traditionalist side of the culture war as
the "working class" one, and therefore the other side as the evil cosmopolitan prosecco
sipping faux leftish but in reality very snobbish one, so that they pretend that they are the
working class party because of their traditionalist stance.
But they aren't: already the fact that they blame "cosmopolitans" shows that they think in
terms of nationalism (like Trump and his China virus), which is a way to deflect the
attention from class conflict.
So comparatively the Dems are still the working class party, and the fact that some working
class guys vote for trump sows that they suffer from false consciousness, not that the Dems
are too right wing (the dems ARE too right wing, but this isn't the reason some working class
guys are voting Trump).
Neoliberalism and free markets are not the same thing, and furthermore neoliberalism
and capitalism are not the same thing; at most neoliberalism is a form of unadultered
capitalism. However since neoliberalism basically means "anti new deal", and new deal
economies were still free market and still capitalist (we can call them social democratic,
but in this sense social democracy is a form of controlled capitalism), it follows that the
most economically successful form of capitalism and free markets to date is not
neoliberalism.
"the median income of a Hillary voter was less than that of a Trump voter"
This doesn't automatically mean that the Dems get the working class: what happens is that
conservative vote is U shaped, they get a ton of votes from very low incomes, and a ton of
votes from very high incomes, but few votes in the middle.
Since income distribution is pear shaped (there is more distance between high incomes and the
median than between low incomes and the median) this still gives an higher average income than
the Dem's base, but it is still true that in the very low incomes Reps rake up a lot of votes
(although, as for my previous comment, I think this is a case of false consciousness, aka
they cling to their guns and their Bibles, aka they've been bamboozled).
"... I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is being called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban PMC are the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working class elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking social justice, mere props. ..."
"... The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted their neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work. ..."
"... This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way, might get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long ago -- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and may be insolvent. ..."
"... So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly SOB who had a hand in the crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy bill that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be discharged, and every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the necessity of radical change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans hostile to even Trump's fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical reform is so likely! So plausible. ..."
mainstream Democrats recognize the need for radical change, and Biden will align with
the mainstream position as he always has done
You said you would leave this, your third assumption, to comments, so here is my
comment.
The U.S. is in the midst of a deep legitimacy crisis and contrary to popular belief among
liberals, it is not Trump particularly whose legitimacy is being called into question. Oh,
sure, there have been relentless attacks on him -- from partisan opponents and from much of
mainstream media -- but like the "anti-racism" of the recent protests -- much of it is
dissembling and distraction. Charges of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election turned
out to be fake news -- rather obviously so from the beginning -- but a big enough mob went down
that path with no self-awareness. I am not saying Trump is not an egregiously bad President; he
is. But, notice please, before you go assuming that mainstream Democrats are going wake up in
2021 wanting to govern in the real world , that they have not shown much inclination toward
truth-telling or critical realism these last 20 years.
It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in
multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping
malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be
unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed.
Did I mention that the U.S. is undergoing a legitimacy crisis?? Whose legitimacy is being
called into question?
I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is being
called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban PMC are
the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working class
elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking social
justice, mere props.
I would say the Party establishment is confident they can put the
re-animated corpse of Biden into the White House. And look how gleefully they welcome
Republican never-Trumpers into the clubhouse! If you were one of the fools and tools who
thought Obama did not want Republicans to control Congress, you are getting another chance to
see how the Obama Alumni Association works with the Lincoln Project, how happy they are to
deliver the kind of policy that appeals to rich, old, suburban Republican women.
The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the
lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and
propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers
running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted their
neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work.
We have just watched the once highly touted CDC completely botch the great Pandemic. They
could not devise a test. They screwed up the rules on who could or should be tested. They lied
early on about the need to wear masks. They staged a moral panic over a need for ventilators,
when ventilators are a terrible therapeutic alternative. In the new Puritanism, they shut down
public beaches but they watched passively as liberal heroes like Cuomo set off a holocaust by
sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.
This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way,
might get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long ago
-- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the
treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon
now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and may
be insolvent.
So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly SOB who had a hand in the
crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy bill
that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be discharged, and
every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the necessity of radical
change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans hostile to even Trump's
fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical reform is so likely! So
plausible.
And, what's the play? The carrot of bi-partisan cooperation coupled with the fearful stick
of abolishing the filibuster someday somehow if they don't play nice. You do realize that only
Republicans are allowed to manipulate the filibuster and only in ways that favor their agenda
of, say, stacking the courts? And, the strategic vision? Reinforcing the Rube Goldberg
contraption which is Obamacare? You do know Biden is on record as adamantly opposed to
Medicare4all? And, that Medicaid is a need-based nightmare of controlled deprivation? In a
country where public health is such a shambles that a pandemic is running out of control.
'All the attention in this thread so far has been on the political dimension of uncertainty,
but it seems to me the public health dimension is also crucial and quite up in the air. What
will the trajectory of the virus look like in the US over the next several months? Will
infections continue to explode out of control?'
Not just the public health, but the economic effects of the public health. As I pointed out
in a previous thread, it's not difficult to work out why Trump looked like he was going to win
in January: the stock market was booming, unemployment was low, crime was low, there were no
new wars it's not a mystery.
People vote with their wallets.
If Trump someone manages to face down the neo-liberals in his own party and arrange for a
gigantic stimulus bill (bigger than the last one) and keeps 'benefits' going past August, he is
in with a shout. If he doesn't, and if the economy continues its path to free fall, he will
lose.
People vote with their wallets. It is not difficult. You don't need to invoke Russia and
etc. to work out why Trump won in 2016 (the impact of the Obama stimulus package, which was too
small, hadn't et 'percolated through' to people's bank balances at that point). And, if Trump
loses in 2020, the reasons will be self-evident and nothing to do with 'people seeing through
him' or 'brave liberals averted a turn to fascism'. If he loses it will be because he screwed
up on the 'good' economy.
I think you must mean Susan Rice – Obama's former National Security Advisor. A known
Russophobe and neo-liberal Democrat warhawk. I believe Biden promised, in one of his lucid
moments, to choose 'a woman of color' for his VP. This is what it has come to in the fight to
capture votes; it's not enough to spend – literally – billions in campaign funds,
but you also have to court as many communities as possible instead of just picking the best
person for the job. I'm not suggesting it is impossible a black or brown woman could be the
best person for the job, but in that case there would be no need to announce it in advance,
thereby eliminating all whites and males from competition. You can blame the voters for that
as much as the politicians – screwing up the job of leadership has become so
commonplace that a perception has arisen that the choice should be made on the basis of
'whose turn it is'.
Susan Rice could be baited into war with Russia at the drop of a hat – she is not a
diplomat, has a filthy temper and is totally committed to the ideal of the United States as a
benevolent tyrant which is not afraid to make the tough decisions because it knows what's
best. When it says 'do', you do. Or else. I think it is pretty plain now that the Democratic
strategy is to either use Biden – if elected – as a talking head for the Clinton
Machine if he is able to remain reasonably convincing, or to relieve him for health reasons
if he becomes visibly incompetent. Either way, rule in that administration will not be
Biden's decisions.
It is so much easier to get along when both can be right and wrong in the same exchange. I
do not have to run to my room to bury my face in my pillow and scream, like I do when I'm
wrong. Well, that's The Hill, so it's a solid recommendation and not one of those throwaway
"Hey, she'd make a great president!" endorsements like the papers make whenever some new
mouthpiece appears briefly on the radar (remember 'Joe the plumber'?) But Condi has been out
of politics an eternity, in political time, and would have to rebuild alliances and get
quickly up to speed. I frankly doubt Biden is considering her.
She would be a marginal improvement on Susan Rice, though, for the faults I have already
cited.
During Obama's presidency, the US ambassador to the UN was a wonderfully talented brown
woman. Can't remember her name now, but she liked taking names.
No, no, this was during the first couple of years of Donald Trump's Presidency: the
woman's name was Nikki Haley, originally born Nimrata Randhawa and of Sikh Indian background.
She liked keeping a long shit list of people and countries to nurture dreams of punishment
against.
Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are getting most of the
buzz, but former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is also been getting a lot
of attention in Joe Biden's campaign as he considers who to pick as his running mate, sources
say
####
I say, is that a cheeky cooking pun squeezed in to the headline? It gets a clap from me if
it is intentional!
From the way the project is framed, it seems to be a quite traditional top-down view of
how things might/will unfold. What seems to me to be absent from the outline is the
possibility that the underlying social reality the politicians regularly try to cope with has
been so churned up during the last few months that no attempt to comprehend "the economic
consequences of the pandemic" can get very far unless that new reality is first
evaluated.
What seems to me to be absent from the outline is the possibility that the underlying
social reality the politicians regularly try to cope with has been so churned up during the
last few months that no attempt to comprehend "the economic consequences of the pandemic"
can get very far unless that new reality is first evaluated.
Right. And not only COVID-19 is a "known unknown." Riots are yet another factor. If
iconoclasm activity continues, chances of Biden with his semi-senility as an albatross around
his neck might become more problematic. Essentially rioters increase the chances of Trump
re-election.
"... So called “Democrats”, especially Biden himself, and Biden entourage are sellouts to financial oligarchy. They represent defeated in 2016 wing of the US neoliberal elite — adherents to classic neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... To expect them to attempt anything of value other the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road is extremely naive. ..."
The more you tie your analysis of economic consequences to the assumption of a Democratic
victory in the Presidential election and a Democratic majority in the Senate, the more of it
will be at risk of being rendered moot by the Republicans retaining either the Presidency or
a Senate majority or both, but I guess you know that and are implicitly accepting the risk of
having to do a lot of rewriting in that event (if the book is supposed to appear after the
elections) or of the book rapidly losing value after the elections (if it’s supposed to
appear earlier).
By the same logic, the more you tie your analysis of economic consequences to one
particular the way the political strategic battle will play out following the election of a
Democratic President and Congressional majority, the more of it will be at risk of being
rendered moot by the Democrats pursuing a different strategy. Given the initial assumption of
a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, I suggest you
would do better with a short discussion at a very high level of generality about why
(a) you
expect the Democrats to have the necessary political determination to overcome obstructionism
by a Senate minority and/or the Supreme Court and
(b) you believe there are strategic and
procedural options available (not necessarily just one option) by which the Democrats could
overcome Senate and/or Supreme Court opposition to a substantial extent if not entirely. You
may be right in advising the selection of health care as the issue to fight on, but if the
Democrats choose a different one and achieve a similar procedural victory, the economic
consequences will be much the same, surely?
I’m assuming that the title is supposed to be a genuine indication of the main topic
of the book and not a way of disguising a real topic of ‘What’s Going to Happen
Next’ or ‘What Should Happen Next’, which would not be quite the same.
If the Democrats take the White House and Congress they’ll have a very short window
to get anything done. The plutocracy will react by weakening the dollar e.g. by moving small
amounts into the euro, cryptocurrencies and/or even the renmimbi. Interest rates will rise,
and this will frighten many (or most) of the Democrats into austerity measures to reduce the
budget deficit.
Thus will arise the old propaganda refrain that Democrats don’t know
what they are doing, and the resulting frustrations, and Fox News falsehoods, might prompt
voters to return Congress to Republican control in the midterms.
Therefore the Democrats should adopt a strategy of getting a few irreversible things done
at the very beginning by ditching the filibuster and passing some popular programs which
might ALSO help the party against Republican propaganda in future elections. This can be done
in healthcare, comprehensive immigration reform, infrastructure, and new constitutional
amendments.
Healthcare — Push for a public option so people can choose to join a national single
payer: “Health Care National Choice.” 70% of the people want this. This can grow
to subsume and finally eliminate Medicaid, which is a tough sell to many state governments
and their voters because they have to pick up half the Medicaid costs after several
years.
Immigration — Pass the total package: improved border security (including fencing)
and an expanded immigration court system + immediate citizenship for DACA and a path to
citizenship for the 11 million other illegals. “Comprehensive Immigration
Reform.” 70% of the people want this, too. It has been proposed a half-dozen times in
one form or another since Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the moderate Republicans come
on board, but the rightwing fringe opposes it so it doesn’t get passed, and then the
Republicans lie in the very next election that the Democrats want open borders. This insanity
has to stop — stop being victims of the rope-a-dope, and get rid of the filibuster!
Constitutional amendments — 1. Amendment against anonymous property holdings: A. End
to dark money campaign contributions. B. End to anonymous shell corporations. C. Any
candidate for US President must release the last ten years of tax returns.
Amendment against executive misconduct: A. Executive branch inspectors general shall not
be removed but by Congressional approval. B. Not complying with Congressional subpoenas is an
impeachable offense. C. In the case of House impeachment, “executive privilege”
is automatically voided. D. If a President is removed from office, all of his or her pardons
are automatically voided and the miscreants returned to jail.
likbez 07.05.20 at 2:29 am
So called “Democrats”, especially Biden himself, and Biden entourage are sellouts to financial oligarchy. They
represent defeated in 2016 wing of the US neoliberal elite — adherents to classic neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization.
To expect them to attempt anything of value other the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road is extremely naive.
In this sense Lee A. Arnold post ( 07.04.20 at 5:20 pm #12) is completely detached from reality.
FBI does have strong levers on Trump. This is the essence of the "Deep State" concept --
intelligence agencies became unhinged and work as a powerful political actors.
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT. ..."
Maxwell's arrest makes me wonder if it is not about Trump throwing down the gauntlet?
Thank you Mina, yes that or the deep state throwing down the gauntlet. I don't think we can
assume that Trump actually has control of the FBI. If he did he would likely have deep sixed
the Democrazis through the Awan family spy and blackmail scam. But he didn't. They and Debbie
Wasserman Shultz were protected/had dirt on DT.
If the kiddy fiddlers get outed following Ghislaine dropping some of her likely thousands
of hours of home movies then that includes Trump and Biden.
In the fetid atmosphere of
accusations against pussy grabbers and finger f#ckers and hair sniffers neither could
survive. The pack will run rabid.
Is there a woman in the house? Yes, they cried AND she has experience!! Plus the campaign will be televised and it would be a virtual campaign because Covid. No
need to rig audience, the polls or the balllot.
"This good and benevolent government was given to us by, you know, the thing," said Joe
Biden.
"We should take a moment and be thankful for that. You know, I was around on the first
Dependence Day, when Paul Washington and George Revere rode their donkeys into the holy city
of Washington. I watched them come into town. I even stuck a feather in Revere's hat and
called him 'macaroni'. He didn't really appreciate that, you know. But it was a good
time."
"Durkan called for charges to be dismissed against those who were arrested for alleged misdemeanors The mayor also said that
Seattle arts and parks departments would preserve a community garden and artwork and murals that protesters created within the
zone."
...Statues of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are dragged down, while the murals and graffiti
of misfits who trashed downtown Seattle are to be preserved.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
...After drawing outrage from progressives for having Larry Summers – a neoliberal
economist who ran the Treasury under Bill Clinton and later Harvard University – advising
the campaign, back in April, Biden's handlers have decided to keep mum about his advisers going
forward.
Anyone advising Biden has been sworn to secrecy, banned from even acknowledging their
relationship with the campaign, let alone revealing the names of other members, according to a
New York
Times feature on Thursday, titled 'Biden's Brain Trust on the Economy: Liberal and Sworn to
Silence'.
"Simply put, do not talk to the press": Biden is now seeking input from more than 100
left-leaning economists and other researchers, but shrouding his team in secrecy.
@jimtankersley
@thomaskaplan https://t.co/E6h8Eumydf
Presumptive Democratic nominee for President Joe Biden has perplexed the Internet by making
a highly confusing brag against sitting President Donald Trump, by saying that he will "read
his daily briefings."
...The lack of overt context in his statement quickly led many commenters to declare his
pledge the "lowest bar ever" for a presidential hopeful.
Biden's known foreign policy advisers are a who's who of the foreign policy establishment.
Recent comments by some high-profile members of Biden's brain trust show an undiminished, and
decidedly unprogressive, enthusiasm for regime change wars, sanctions, and nuclear weapons.
Biden's top foreign policy adviser, former deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken,
recently expressed his regret that the Obama administration didn't do enough to overthrow the
Assad regime in Syria. Clearly he would like a second bite at the apple. And in a recent
discussion hosted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Blinken promised that a Biden
administration would keep in place all U.S. sanctions on Iran, including the ones that
were put in place by Trump, in violation of the terms of the Iranian nuclear accord. Music to
AIPAC's ears.
Meanwhile, two other Biden advisers, former Defense Department officials Jim Townsend and
Michelle Flournoy, recently took to the pages of Der Spiegel to argue against a proposal
by the chairman of the social democrats in the Bundestag to remove American nuclear weapons
from Germany. Townsend and Flournoy
write that the very idea of a Germany without the capacity to drop nuclear bombs
"strikes at the heart of the trans-Atlantic bargain." The idea that Germany might (quite
understandably) want to free itself from such a Strangelovian "bargain" left the two former
Pentagon officials aghast.
Even worse, as The Atlantic 's Peter Beinart
points out, "Instead of challenging the Pentagon's sky-high budget, Biden's highest-profile
foreign-policy foray since clinching the Democratic nomination has been to try to out-hawk
Donald Trump on China."
Then there's Biden's own record on matters of war and peace. As ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Biden appeared to ridicule the testimony of UN
weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who testified before the committee in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq. Biden, as we all know, would subsequently vote to authorize the war.
Is it Biden though? I didn't think a turnip can run foreign policy. There is no
difference here between democrats and republicans, they both agree on the full spectrum
dominance and keeping Europe (Germany), Russia, China, Japan down (never mind the smaller
actors like Iran and Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter), by all means...
Sexual assault is not about sex, it's about power. I watched about half of that montage mentioned and I was thoroughly
disgusted... Biden is the worst kind of creep... Where's the metoo movement on him??
I grew up right there as well. My late father respected joe's dad who used to come into the dealership to make his car payment
( my dad's first job.) Dad always insisted that joe is a phoney, a plagerist, and elitist. Everyone with a brain from the
Brandywine Valley and Wilmington area knows he's a liar and a racist as well. He thinks he's smart, but he's a creepy old
weirdo, the uncle your parents warned you to stay away from at family functions!
I'm old enough to remember Biden when was serving as the chair of the committee investigating Anita Hill's allegations against
Clarence Thomas. At that time, I know nothing if his sexual appetite, but his behavior during those proceedings was weird.
Rumors presented as fact: "This is beyond the pale. It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty in the
nation: to protect our troops when we send them into harm's way,
Notable quotes:
"... "Intelligence" is not evidence. ..."
"... A war was started based on "Intelligence" that was never supported by evidence. ..."
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany later denied that Trump and Vice President
Pence were briefed on the intelligence, but did not deny that the intelligence was
accurate.
The Russian government and Taliban officials have also denied the reports.
..."This is beyond the pale. It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty in the nation: to
protect our troops when we send them into harm's way," Biden said.
"Vlad! Vlad! You gotta give me something here! They're MY men! You want to kill MY MEN and I
don't get NOTHING? Vlad! I thought you were a businessman!"
Shut-up Biden, you old fart. Always criticizing every move Trump makes. I'm tired of hearing
you complain. You have no solutions other than criticize.
This Latino-Hispanic for Trump. section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
There was "Intelligence" that Saddam Hussein was furnishing terrorists with chemical,
biological, and radiological weapons.....but of course there wasn't any evidence because
there can not be evidence of something that does not exist. A war was started based on
"Intelligence" that was never supported by evidence.
There was "Intelligence" that the North Vietnamese Navy attacked the USS Maddox in the
Gulf of Tonkin and a war was started but never was there evidence to support the claims of
"Intelligence".
Who's kidding who? Joe has early stage Alzheimer's. I know it. You know it. The people
running Joe's campaign know it. But they also realize Joe is the only candidate with a chance
to beat Trump.
So the plan is to run him, despite his failing memory and unfortunate mental disease, get
him elected, then use Amendment 25 to send him to Shady Grove Assisted Living and elevate his
VP to the Whote House.
The disgrace of course is the Dems running mentally handicapped man for strictly political
reasons
Biden is the intelligence services' ideal candidate -- an easily manipulated empty suit.
There's a reason why charges of Biden wrongdoing are as easily dismissed as nonsensical
charges against Trump and Russia get fabricated. And that reason is that the media is as
happy to be manipulated as Biden.
The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's January 2017 notes raises
troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were
coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security
adviser Michael Flynn -- even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.
Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI,
to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made
public in court on Wednesday.
But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era
officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence
investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend
the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn's ties to Russia for five months recommended the case
be closed because there was "no derogatory" evidence that he committed a crime or posed a
counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.
Strzok's notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn's
intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak "appear legit," bolstering other
recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn's behavior.
The notes also suggest Biden -- who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe --
raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for
continuing to investigate Flynn.
And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign "the right people" to pursue
the case.
You can read the notes here:
These conversations, if accurately portrayed in the Strzok notes, occurred during the same
three-day period in which FBI supervisors overruled their field agent's recommendation to shut
down the Flynn case and pivoted toward the strategy of luring Flynn into an FBI interview where
he might be caught lying.
Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer, laid out the potential ramifications of the notes in a court
filing on Wednesday, calling the new evidence "stunning and exculpatory."
"Mr. Obama himself directed that 'the right people' investigate General Flynn. This caused
former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn's phone calls with
Ambassador Kislyak 'appear legit,'" Powell argued in her new motion.
" According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the
idea of the Logan Act. That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn," she
added.
Even if the rebuked judge appeals the decision or the full appeals court reconsiders the
case, Flynn is likely on a path to being a free and innocent man.
The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of the
Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether
the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in
the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations.
A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok's notes about the White House
meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately
in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump
administration.
"It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being
involved," Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. "No other FBI director
would ever have attended such a meeting.
"Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he
should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added.
"The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a
counterintelligence interest any longer."
A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed
he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP's office.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Yrblo64caA
He then clarified his denial.
"I was aware that they asked for an investigation,"
Biden said. "But that's all I know about it, and I don't think anything else."
If Powell's interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to
suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually
unmasked one of Flynn's intercepted phone calls a week later.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told Just the News on Wednesday the
newly discovered notes affirm his long-held suspicion that the Obama White House was trying to
influence the FBI's Russia probe in untoward ways.
" Now we know both Obama and Biden were directly involved in planning the attack on Flynn
," Nunes said.
"The Obama administration exploited our intelligence community to spy on their political
opponents and engineer bogus investigations and prosecutions of them.
"This is the single biggest abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime," he added.
"... From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason), to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple. ..."
"... It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class. ..."
Yet another circus. The proles get to scream and holler, and when all is done, the oligarchy gets the policies it wants, the public
be damned. Our sham 'democracy' is a con to privatize power and socialize responsibility.
Although it is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get substantial numbers of people to
vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
The issue is not (for me) his creepiness (I wouldn't much mind if he was on my side), nor even his Alzheimer's, but his established
track record of betrayal and corruption.
From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT
socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason),
to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise
medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits
up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple.
It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so
far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. Heck, he makes Calvin Coolidge look like Trotsky.
Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class.
I should think when Joe Biden's brain starts flat-lining and only a cryogenic chamber can
keep him alive will he finally become the perfect candidate to contest the 2020 US
Presidential elections. One has to be brain-dead to even think of campaigning for a job where
the main job requirement is to park your brain at the door, irrespective of how much you
might earn and whether you get to have that little gadget with the red button (that sends all
the start-up codes to your nation's nuke missiles) in your desk.
get rid of a very popular socialist leaning candidate with absolutely no consideration
about having a candidate better than Bernie.
Agree
I don't know why but no one takes the primary elections seriously, (except Circe) when in
reality it really is the most important one of all. Could it be Americans are just not ready
for what the rest of the world has? That is health care and education as a right?
How is it all you hear now is how there is no choice between these two pieces of boomer
poop when the opportunity to elect younger, more viable candidate's have come and gone, yet
again.
I read right here how Bernie was a socialist, Gabbard stood with Israel, Yang was bent
right, Warren was faux Native American, Buttigieg hails SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ workers "an
enormous step forward" and Harris make her career sleeping with powerful people and so
on.
No one wanted to get behind any of these or the others and push them into the White House.
It was just constant nit picking that got us Biden, the DNC default.
It's not hard to look back and say we blew it, again.
"... Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted. ..."
"... Today, we find Lincoln statues desecrated . Neither has the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed. To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time. ..."
"... Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor to keep themselves going. ..."
"... Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.) ..."
"... But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source did not stop at black people, after all. ..."
"... Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss. ..."
"... Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay. ..."
"... We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free labor looks different. ..."
"... It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything to protect their right to abuse cheap labor. ..."
"... At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. ..."
"... I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. ..."
"... Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks. Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism. ..."
"... Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. ..."
"... They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called " Blue Collar ." ..."
"... "That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young, the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place." ..."
"... The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models ..."
Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted.
Former injured Amazon employees join labor organizers and community activists to demonstrate and hold a press conference
outside of an Amazon Go store to express concerns about what they claim is the company's "alarming injury rate" among warehouse
workers on December 10, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On April 2, 1865, in the dying days of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln wandered the streets of burnt out Richmond,
the former Confederate capital. All of a sudden, Lincoln found himself surrounded by scores of emancipated men and women. Here's
how the historian James McPherson describes the moving episode in his magisterial book
Battle Cry of Freedom :
Several freed slaves touched Lincoln to make sure he was real. "I know I am free," shouted an old woman, "for I have seen Father
Abraham and felt him." Overwhelmed by rare emotions, Lincoln said to one black man who fell on his knees in front of him: "Don't
kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank Him for the liberty you will enjoy hereafter."
Lincoln's legacy as the Great Emancipator has survived the century and a half since then largely intact. But there have been cracks
in this image, mostly caused by questioning academics who decried him as an overt white supremacist. This view eventually entered
the mainstream when Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote misleadingly in her
lead essay
to the "1619 Project" that Lincoln "opposed black equality."
Today, we find Lincoln statues
desecrated . Neither has the memorial
to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed.
To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap
the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time.
Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor
to keep themselves going.
***
The main idea driving the "1619 Project" and so much of recent scholarship is that the United States of America originated in
slavery and white supremacy. These were its true founding ideals. Racism, Hannah-Jones writes, is in our DNA.
Such arguments don't make any sense, as the historian Barbara Fields clairvoyantly argued in a
groundbreaking essay from 1990. Why would Virginia planters in the 17th century import black people purely out of hate? No, Fields
countered, the planters were driven by a real need for dependable workers who would toil on their cotton, rice, and tobacco fields
for little to no pay. Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number
of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.)
After 1776 everything changed. Suddenly the new republic claimed that "all men are created equal" -- and yet there were millions
of slaves who still couldn't enjoy this equality. Racism helped to square our founding ideals with the brute reality of continued
chattel slavery: Black people simply weren't men.
But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum
figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond
urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source
did not stop at black people, after all.
Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give
this bleak reality a spiritual gloss.
The true cause of the Civil War -- and it bears constant
repeating for all the doubters -- was whether slavery would expand its reach or whether
"free labor" would reign supreme. The latter was the dominant
ideology of the North: Free laborers are independent, self-reliant, and eventually achieve economic security and independence by
the sweat of their brow. It's the American Dream. But if that is so, then the Civil War ended in a tie -- and its underlying conflict was never really settled.
***
Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War
that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap
workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These
workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch
employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could
do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay.
America's wealth rests on this mutual competition between workers -- some nominally "free," others basically indentured -- whether
it be through unjust visa schemes or other unfair managerial practices.
Remember that the next time you read a public announcement by the Amazons of this world that they remain committed to "black lives
matter" and similar identitarian causes.
Fortunately, very few Americans hold the same racial resentments in their hearts as their ancestors did even just half a century
ago. Rarely did we agree as much than when the nation near unanimously condemned the death of George Floyd at the hands of a few
Minneapolis police officers. This is in keeping with another fortunate trend: Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings
of young black men declined by 79% percent .
But anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for our corporations, even despite the evidence that people in this country
have grown much less bigotted than they once were: As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are
encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments in everything that their fellow workers say or do.
We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted
out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free
labor looks different.
And so, through a surprising back door, the true cause for which Robert E. Lee chose to betray his country might still be coming
out on top, whether we remove his statues or not -- namely, the steady supply to our ruling corporations of unfree workers willing
to hustle for scraps.
It's time to follow Abraham Lincoln's urging and get off our knees again. We should assert our rights as American citizens to
live free from economic insecurity and mutual resentment. The vast majority of us harbor no white supremacist views, period. Instead,
we have so many more things in common, and we know it.
Another anecdote from the last days of the Civil War, also taken from Battle Cry of Freedom, might prove instructive here: The
surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 essentially ended the
Civil War. The ceremony was held with solemn respect for Lee, though one of Grant's adjutants couldn't help himself but have a subtle
dig at Lee's expense:
After signing the papers, Grant introduced Lee to his staff. As he shook hands with Grant's military secretary Ely Parker,
a Seneca Indian, Lee stared a moment at Parker's dark features and said, "I am glad to see one real American here." Parker responded,
"We are all Americans."
Gregor Baszak is a PhD Candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a writer. His articles have appeared
in Los Angeles Review of Books, Public Books, Spectator USA, Spiked, and elsewhere. Follow Gregor on Twitter at @gregorbas1.
It's a bit off-topic but this is a big reason I supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary this year, he was the only
candidate talking about how businesses demand that cheap labor, illegal labor, replace American labor. For this, the corporate
media called him a racist, an anti-semite, a dangerous radical. None of his opponents aside from Elizabeth Warren had anything
to run on aside from pseudo-woke touchy-feely bs. And somehow, with the media insisting that Joe Biden was the only one who could
beat Trump, we ended up with the one candidate who was neither good on economics, good for American workers, or offering platitudes
about wokeness.
It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything
to protect their right to abuse cheap labor.
Racism is very real. If it weren't it couldn't be used to "divide and conquer" the working calss. we can walk and chew gum
and the same time: oppose racism, and also oppose exploitive labor practices.
What kind of polemic, unsupported statement is "black fast food workers are the ones who gave us the fight for $15"? How about
it was a broad coalition of progressives (of all colors)? Moreover, $15 minimum wage is a poor, one-size-fits-all band-aid that
I doubt even fits ONE scenario. Tackling the broader shareholder capitalism model of labor arbitrage (free trade/mass immigration),
deunionization, and monopolistic hurdles drafted by corporations is where it actually matters. And on that, we are seeing the
inklings of a populist left-right coalition -- if corporate-funded race hustlers could only get out of the way.
That's the problem. We CAN'T chew gum and walk at the same time. Every minute focusing on racial friction is a minute NOT talking
about neoliberal economics. What's the ratio of air time, social media discussion, or newspaper inches are devoted to race vis-a-vis
the economic system that has starved the working class -- which is disproportionately black and brown? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000
to 1? If there are no decent working class jobs for young black and brown men, then it makes it nearly impossible to raise families.
Let's be clear: Systemic racism is real, but it is far less impactful than economic injustices and family dissolution.
Class really isn't the primary issue for black people.
That's a frankly ridiculous statement. At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression
at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. No one--except a few neurotic, high-strung corporate
HR PMC types--cares about "microaggressions". Even unjust police shootings of blacks are likely down to class and not race--despite
the politically correct narrative saying otherwise.
Putting racial identity politics as an equal (or even greater) priority than class-based solidarity creates an absurd system
where an upper-middle class black woman attending Yale can act as if a working class white man is oppressing her by not acknowledging
his "white privilege", and not bowing to her every demand. It's utterly delusional to think that sort of culture is going to create
a more just or equal world.
Biden is a Rorschach test, people see whatever they want in a party apparatchik. Trump has been Shiva, the destroyer of the
traditional Republican party. How else do you explain the support among Multi-Billionaires for the Democratic party. Truly ironic.
I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the
Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. I understand that he still wants to divide
Iraq into three separate countries--a decision for Iraqis to make and not us. If we try to implement that policy, it would doubtless
lead to more American deaths--to say nothing of Iraqi deaths.
So not only is he not good for American workers, he is not good for the American soldier who is disproportionately likely not
to be from the elite classes but rather from the working and lower-middle class.
The only other Democratic candidate who opposed war-mongering besides Sanders was Tulsi Gabbard. I watched CNN commentary after
a debate in which she participated. While the other participants received lots of commentary from CNN talking heads. she got almost
nothing. She was featured in a video montage of candidates saying "Trump"; other than that, she was invisible in the post-debate
analysis.
I don't know how far it travelled outside of Democratic primary voters, but I recall Biden's campaign saying that they were
planning to be sort of a placeholder that would pass the torch to the next generation. He's insinuated that he only wants to serve
one term and saw jumping into the race as the only way to beat Trump. Not the most exciting platform for the Democrats to run
on.
As depressing as this primary was, it's good to see that the rising generation of Democrats was resistant to platitudes and demanded
actual policy proposals.
Shame the party elders fell for the same old tricks yet again. I just hope that once there are more of
us, we can have a serious policy debate in both major parties about free trade, immigration, inequality. The parties' voters aren't
all that far apart on economics, yet neither of us is being given what we want. Whichever party sincerely takes a stand for the
American working class stands to dominate American politics for a generation.
The problem with Biden's "placeholder" comments is that he specifically mentioned it for Pete Buttigeig, the McKinsey-trained
career opportunist who believes in his bones the same neoliberal economics and interventionist foreign policies as the last generation.
Same bad ideas, new woke packaging.
Kamala Harris and Susan Rice, both tops on the VP list, will do just fine in place of Buttigieg - he's slated to revive TPP
as the new USTR cabinet lead.
Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to
wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks.
Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism.
To me, I have always thought that America's original sin was slavery. Its stain can not be completely wiped out.
And I further believe that if Native Americans would have enslaved the newly arrived Europeans, and remained the ruling majority,
white people would be discriminated against today.
So the problem is not that white people are inherently evil, or other races are inherently good. It is that because of slavery
black people are bad, white people are good.
As a nation we have never been able to wash out the stain completely. Never will. Getting closer to the promised land is the
best we are going to do. Probably take another 400 years.
In everyday encounters no one cares how discrimination began, just treat me like you want to be treated. Pretty simple.
"As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments
in everything that their fellow workers say or do."
The author does not offer one smidgen of proof that any company uses antiracism to divide workers. It might be plausible that
it's happened, but Baszak has no data at all.
Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings of young black men declined by 79% percent.
You think this is an accident? It came about through intense pressure on the police to stop killing Black people -- exactly
the sort of racial emphasis the author seems to be decrying. Important to note that the non-fatal mistreatment has remained high.
The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss
Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since
the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social
status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. The psychological draw of racism, its cultural
strength, are obviated by Barszak. And I bet Barbara Fields does not consider racism an epiphenomenon of economics.
They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called "Blue
Collar."
"That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded
of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young,
the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place."
The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist
Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke
cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models -- a system that actually has greater deleterious
impact on black communities.
This video is one recent example of what you'll rarely see in mainstream media:
Just like Cornell West suggested, black faces in high places hasn't solved the problem. Obama is a vivid example.
Notable quotes:
"... It is Class Warfare. There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" .. There are the "Rich and Powerful" and then the "Rest of Us" And when we stand up, they take aim... ..."
"... Dr. Cornel West, "We have tried Black Faces in high places ..." ..."
Krystal Ball calls out D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Dem establishment for surface level support of the Black Lives Matter
movement.
Crush Inverted Totalitarianism, 12 hours ago
Speaking of black faces in high places, the entire black caucus endorsed ELIOT ENGEL over a black educater (Jamaal
Bowman)...this is aclass war, not a race war
Robert Quin, 12 hours ago (edited)
THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF AMERICA! There is only Repugnican and Repugnican Lite. There is only hard right and soft right
in American politics. There is no left in power.
Electoralism is a scam. You're playing with an unplugged controller. Organise, unionize, protest, riot. If you want to vote,
you should vote third party. The Democratic party isn't part of the solution. They are playing good cop, bad cop with
republicans with both sides working for capital to impoverish the working class.
Krystal forgot one "innovation" Biden has suggested.
When talking to black community leaders in Wilmington, Joe Biden
said, "Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there's an unarmed person coming at 'em with a knife or
something, shoot 'em in the leg instead of in the heart."
It
is Class Warfare. There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" .. There are the "Rich and Powerful" and then the "Rest of Us" And
when we stand up, they take aim...
Editor-At-Large at the Jacobin David Sirota discusses the secretive tactics the Biden campaign is using to cover his potential
council of advisors from the public.
People who should not be listened to by anyone: Rahm Emmanuel, David Axlerod, Anyone from Goldman Sachs or Wall Street,
Obama, Clinton, hell any former Presidents, anyone in the DNC.... NO
Advising Joe? That's hilarious. They're not advising him or his 'team'. They advising his handlers. Joe is way too far gone to
make any rational decision on anything. When you vote for Joe, it is his handlers that you will be voting for. The Orange Man
or Senile Man? Our goose is cooked.
They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the
person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone
call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning
America.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific
time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"
The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be
better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.
@Ashino Wolf Sushanti As far as I know BLM is also dead silent on the black slave markets
care of Obama and the EU in Libya.
There are also stories that money contributed to BLM will end up going to the DNC.
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it
will be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has
gone on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that
will crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984, and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment). What a country, what a ship of fools.
The former New York senator published her
thoughts on her on Medium blog , where she appeared to endorse the Black
Lives Matter movement, something she has previously stayed well clear of doing. "George Floyd's
life mattered. Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor's lives mattered. Black lives matter," she
began by stating.
"I promise to keep fighting alongside all of you to make the United States a place where all
men and all women are treated as equals, just as we are and just as we deserve to be," she
added, positioning herself on the same side as the protestors, many of whom are demanding the
abolition of the police. Clinton commended the amazing "power of solidarity" she had seen and
promised to "speak out against white supremacy in all its forms," declaring that America is
long overdue for "an honest reckoning" with its racism problem.
However, an honest reckoning with Clinton's past unearths a myriad of troubling incidents
and positions that are difficult to square with her newfound radical antiracist stance. She
supported her husband and Joe Biden's
1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration across the country.
"... From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems: protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least partially city council and the governor supported.) ..."
"... The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand: radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon. ..."
"... The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves. Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here) ..."
"... I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all the bridges. ..."
Trump is staggering. He's plunging in the polls, and his behavior has become erratic
and unhinged. I don't mean he's being crude, infantile and wrapped in a world of fantasy
-- he's always like that. Rather, I see him as suddenly incoherent, fumbling with threats
and catchphrases as if he were locked out of his house at night, frantically trying one
key after another to see if any will work.
I think the personalities of Trump and Biden no longer matter: the level of polarization
of the USA electorate is a more important factor now.
In other words, the reaction to the protests of independents will determine the results
on 2020 elections.
From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems:
protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by
neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple
Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least
partially city council and the governor supported.)
The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand:
radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law
and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon.
The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of
protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves.
Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security
benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor
infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here)
One minor point: exaggerated threats is the way Trump operate. He like poker players use
bluffing as a part of the political strategy. It's like he is trying to determine some
limits for each situation and sense how far he can go, as well as putting the opponents off
balance provoking them to overreact,. Then he retreats to a more reasonable position.
I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not
between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is
forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all
the bridges.
Please note that Biden political history is the history of a staunch neoliberal,
completely hostile to the interests of the majority of the USA population and, especially,
Afro Americans and white working class (aka deplorable). As such he will now look as
hypocrite no matter what he say.
ori Schake
objects to Biden's foreign policy record on the grounds that he is not hawkish enough and
too skeptical of military intervention. She restates a bankrupt hawkish view of U.S. military
action:
This half-in-half-out approach to military intervention also strips U.S. foreign policy of
its moral element of making the world a better place. It is inadequate to the cause of
advancing democracy and human rights [bold mine-DL].
The belief that military intervention is an expression of the "moral element" of U.S.
foreign policy is deeply wrong, but it is unfortunately just as deeply-ingrained among many
foreign policy professionals. Military intervention has typically been disastrous for the cause
of advancing democracy and human rights. First, by linking this cause with armed aggression,
regime change, and chaos, it tends to bring discredit on that cause in the eyes of the people
that suffer during the war. Military interventions have usually worsened conditions in the
targeted countries, and in the upheaval and violence that result there have been many hundreds
of thousands of deaths and countless other violations of human rights.
Destabilizing other countries, displacing millions of people, and wrecking their
infrastructure and economy obviously do not make anything better. As a rule, our wars of choice
have not been moral or just, and they have inflicted tremendous death and destruction on other
nations. When we look at the wreckage created by just the last twenty years of U.S. foreign
policy, we have to reject the fantasy that military action has something to do with moral
leadership. Each time that the U.S. has gone to war unnecessarily, that is a moral failure.
Each time that the U.S. has attacked another country when it was not threatened, that is a
moral abomination.
Schake continues:
Biden claims that the U.S. has a moral obligation to respond with military force to
genocide or chemical-weapons use, but was skeptical of intervention in Syria. The former vice
president's rhetoric doesn't match his policies on American values.
If Biden's rhetoric doesn't match his policies here, we should be glad that the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president isn't such an ideological zealot that he would insist on
waging wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. If there is a
mismatch, the problem lies with the expansive rhetoric and not with the skepticism about
intervention. That is particularly true in the Syria debate, where interventionists kept
demanding more aggressive policies without even bothering to show how escalation wouldn't make
things worse. Biden's skepticism about intervention in Syria of all places is supposed to be
held against him as proof of his poor judgment? That criticism speaks volumes about the
discredited hawkish crowd in Washington that wanted to sink the U.S. even more deeply into that
morass of conflict.
One of the chief problems with U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades is that it
has been far too militarized. To justify the constant resort to the threat and use of force,
supporters have insisted on portraying military action as if it were beneficent. They have
managed to trick a lot of Americans into thinking that "doing something" to another country is
the same thing as doing good. Interventionists emphasize the goodness of their intentions while
ignoring or minimizing the horrors that result from the policies they advocate, and they have
been able to co-opt the rhetoric of morality to mislead the public into thinking that attacking
other countries is legitimate and even obligatory. This has had the effect of degrading and
distorting our foreign policy debates by framing every argument over war in terms of righteous
"action" vs. squalid "inaction." This turns everything on its head. It treats aggression as
virtue and violence as salutary. Even a bog-standard hawk like Biden gets criticized for
lacking moral conviction if he isn't gung-ho for every unnecessary war.
As for Mr. Biden's "but was skeptical of intervention in Syria", maybe he was aware of
the actual perpetrators of the gas attacks (as several OPCW whistle-blowers testified) and
was maybe uncomfortable being again the spearhead for another war, like he was with Iraq as
the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Biden has been out of office for four years now. If I recall correctly, he didn't say jack
to support Trump's two failed attempts to pull out from Syria.
Kori Schake writes for the British neocon IISS, which has been secretly funded by the Sunni
dictator in Bahrain, who holds down the Shia majority with imported Pakistanis as soldiers
and police. Ordinary Bahrainis are like occupied prisoners in their own country. Everything
is for the small Sunni elite. Though there are also ordinary Sunnis who oppose them.
Kori Schake is simply paid to promote neocon interests, which the Bahraini dictator is
closely aligned with. The Sunni king dissolved parliament and took all the power, aided by
Saudi tanks crushing protesters, who were tortured and had their lives destroyed. The
dictator even destroyed Bahrain's famous Pearl Monument, near which the protesters had
camped out, so it wouldn't be a symbol of resistance. (Forever making it a symbol of
resistance.) The tower was on all the postcards from Bahrain and it appeared on the coins.
It's like destroying the Eiffel Tower. Kori's Sunni paymasters want Shia Iran destroyed as
it speaks up for the oppressed Shias in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen and the
UAE.
Biden is and for over four decades always was an example of all that is worst in
militarized US foreign policy. The idea that he isn't hawkish enough is itself crazy.
Trump reacted by calling up the military and a myriad of federal police forces to
'dominate the battlespace' of Washington DC and other cities.
Trump did NOT call up the military in any US city out side of Washington DC, which is a
district, so not a state, controlled by the federal government.
Nor are federal police out on the streets in the protests outside of Washington DC.
Right, there are quite possibly special forces units acting as agent provocateurs--sort of
akin to the US Army sniper team that was the back-up when the Memphis PD killed MLK in
1968.
Right, that Biden line is racist dog whistle crap. Telling many people to "vote Trump or
stay home in November".
"... The irony is that Biden is a lowlife who inflames hatred and reinforces divisions while holding up a moral shield. He has always chosen expedient lies over the truth to get elected. Support for him shows a desperate hate of Trump. ..."
I don't think the Dems want to win. Nobody wants the next four years. Hell, nobody wants the
next eight years or twelve or sixteen. Except the criminally insane autocrats.
Not that I think the Dems in control of the executive and legislative branches would
change the course of events. The collapse is in full swing. It's a steam roller at this
point. A freight train. An avalanche. There's no more blood to squeeze from the rocks. Game
over. Except it and manage the decline as humanely and constructively and equitably as
possible or else let chaos reign and lead which is an existential gambit for sure but one the
extractive elites appear to have chosen.
The individual states need to realize they are on their own. Trump and Congressional gopers
and dems have abandoned them in favor of working full time for FIRE (very new and revealing
term for me) and various other elite interests. Each state will need to form various
alliances with other states to develop proverbial out of the box solutions including
developing independent import and trade agreements with China and the EU among others.
If Trump is as smart as he claims to be he will...
He doesn't need to be smart per se. He just needs to be **smarter** than Joe Biden. Just
like he was smarter than Hillary + all the legacy media in 2016 to such an extent that to
deny they had been outsmarted... #Russiagate was born lol
The irony is that Biden is a lowlife who inflames hatred and reinforces divisions
while holding up a moral shield. He has always chosen expedient lies over the truth to get
elected. Support for him shows a desperate hate of Trump.
Writing Trump's political obituary has become something of a global cottage industry over the
last four years.
Also true is he is looking isolated, sad and lonely right now.
Best wait and see. We have all underestimated him before.
Democrats wait for Republicans to act, then position themselves a hair's width to the
left. Then they wring their hands and shed lots of crocodile tears about Republicans'
proposals before signing off on whatever Republicans want.
I liken the Democrats to the Washington Generals, who lost almost every game to the Harlem
Globetrotters. When they won, it was accidental. Bubba won in '92 due to Perot's presence.
Obama won only because of the financial crisis. Though they are committed losers, there could
be no game without them.
Democrats are totally pathetic.
Now there are lots pundits are praising the new Joe Biden, whose makeover will
disappear the day after the election.
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks,
weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect
Trump. Again.
Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in
America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's
pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by
Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who
hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'
Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and
the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to
do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the
WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week -
shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.
Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't
already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan
takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO
Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort - notably reached out to a
Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted
"There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the
Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to
a US aerospace deal.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer
because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone
else.
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Who wll vote for Creepy Joe? that is the question. But it is true that many
people who voted for trump in 2016 hoping for changes will not vote for him. Most will not vote at all. With his foreign policies and
smug warmonger Pompeo at the State Department he lost all anti-war independents block. With COVID-19 fiasco he lost a large part of
working class -- which was most severely hit by the lockdown as well as small business support.
Notable quotes:
"... Look at how Trump is getting killed among people that don't like either candidate. And how he's losing independents solidly. That's your danger zone, not the left. He won in 2016 in large part because he had those two in the bag. ..."
Mitt Romney was treated by the mainstream media with derision and ridicule, portrayed as an out-of-touch plutocrat who babbled
about binders full of women. They depicted him as "a wealthy 1950s sitcom dad who liked firing poor people. Trump will attacked in
the same way
Donald Trump captured the presidency in 2016 in part because he perceived, alone among presidential contenders that year, that
a chasm had opened up between the country's arrogant meritocratic elite and vast numbers of citizens who felt the elites had turned
on them and were leading the country astray. But another factor was the perception of many voters that Barack Obama's second term
had been a mild failure (following a mild first-term success; hence his 2012 reelection). Incumbent performance in office remains
a potent factor in presidential elections.
And that's why Donald Trump likely will lose the presidency come November. His performance, thoroughly at variance from his
blustery rhetoric, will have rendered him, in the eyes of a majority of Americans, ineligible for rehire. His is not the kind
of record that normally leads to a two-term presidency or to party retention of the White House when the incumbent is not on the
ballot. Viewed from this perspective, Trump looks like a goner.
Trump supporters will of course recoil at this prediction. In disbelief, they will point to the intensity of his followers
and the fecklessness of his opposition. And it is true that former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate,
appears hapless as he hunkers down in his Delaware basement and projects himself with a certain halting awkwardness. But history
tells us that voters focus far more on incumbent performance, which can be sharply defined, than on predictions of challenger
performance, which are wispy at best.
It is true also that Trump's knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the electorate, based on approval surveys–is remarkably
solid, willing to accept just about anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites.
But presidential elections also don't turn on any incumbent's base of support. Reelection requires that a president build upon
that base and create a governing coalition by bringing in new converts through Oval Office achievement.
With Trump, I expect a "surprise" (and other various dirty tricks) here on out.
As I've noted before, the Burisma nonsense may end up backfiring. Not only did it get him impeached (even though he wasn't
removed from office), but it may innoculate Biden from further such surprises--there will be a presumption, if anything scandalous
comes from out of left field, that it might well be another attempt at rat-f***ing.
(And Biden has been equally fortunate in his accusers from the left; as the Tara Reade allegations seem to be falling apart.
He's not entirely in the clear--the vagueness of the allegations prevent Biden from mounting an affirmative defense, such as
an alibi, but right now he seems to be winning the credibility battle on that front).
The Tara Reade allegations aren't "falling apart." They're being smothered. They're either ignored, or dismissed with a "Biden says it never happened? Oh, OK....never mind" attitude.
A QAnnon crazy just won the Oregon GOP senate primary. Not only is Trump losing he is taking the entire GOP down with him. Either the GOP clears up the nuts or the nuts take over.
I agree. Trump has taken politics to a new low. When he's not on teleprompter, his "speeches" are more of a stand-up act where
he exaggerates his accomplishments ("the best ever"..."record" everything) and lobs personal insults at his perceived enemies
"loser,""incompetent," "the worst").
He has NO intention of expanding his base. He's happy to play to their adoration. And his cultists don't want him to "pivot
and change." They cheer him on.
That this is what so many people in this country want from a president is appalling.
He proved that in '16. Rather, we did. We the people made it happen. DJT just happens to be the means by which we re-made the
American political landscape. Leftist Democrats still haven't caught up.
They learned nothing from 2016 and after...nothing. They still cling to Washington establishment politics like a communist
to The Party. Power in a handful of politicians is all that matters to them. They'll sooner or later see that the people are
the source of our government.
TISO you seem like a pretty reasonable guy generally.
Look at how Trump is getting killed among people that don't like either candidate. And how he's losing independents
solidly. That's your danger zone, not the left. He won in 2016 in large part because he had those two in the bag.
I'm in those groups and voted for him then - I won't repeat this year. He was a good statement to make in 2016 but for me
that's now made. Personally he looks like a real idiot handling a crisis but I don't like his personality cult, I don't like
his floppiness with the ruling elite, and I especially don't like his turning immigrants into the white male of the right.
I hate idpol and he's just refined a right wing version of it.
My two cents. No doubt I'll be back to voting Republicans in 22 or 24.
Nice post!!!!!!! Trump is indeed losing the indie vote as well as a sliver of the true conservative vote. The guy is only a
shade or two better than having a president Camacho from Idiocracy. Trump won both the GOP nomination and the general election
because he was the only GOP candidate that said what the majority of GOP voters wanted to hear and was the only candidate that
didn't come off as an Establishment clone. On top of that, Hilary was not a well liked candidate(either was Trump) as two thirds
of GOP and Dem voters didn't like their candidate, but disliked the other just a bit more. It is sad that we are in the same
situation in 2020, in which there really isn't a really good candidate to choose from
Guy was a moron for his famous line to a GOP crowd insinuating that half the people in the country were freeloaders. Not too
far fetched of a statement, but absolutely a campaign killer. They indeed did depict him as a rather wealthy 1950's Mr Cleaver
type that was a job killer, but that wasn't far off the mark either. The banking cartel had their boy in office already so
there was no need for a change, thus the rather stale, boring, and easily targeted Romney was hung out to dry.
He "defeated" the ISIS Caliphate? And here i was under the impression that Iran was a Shia country and Syria was mostly secular,
while ISIS was a product of Salafist and Wahabist American allies like the Saudis?
This commenter epitomizes everything wrong with the Fox News cheerleading devotee. So consumed by the cult of Personality
that is Trump and "owning the Libs" that they can't see they have gotten nothing from Trump. No immigration reform, no wall,
no end to Middle East adventurism..... Just "tough tweets"
LETS LOOK AT THE FEW THINGS HE HAS DONE...He along with Kim Kardashian put forth the "First Step Act" freeing tens of thousands
of mostly inner city felons; the situation in the Middle East exponentially worse "thanks" to his rhetoric, loose usage of
missiles on countries WE ARE NOT at war with along with ASSASSINATING NATIONAL HEROES/MILITARY COMMANDERS of other sovereign
nations we are not at war with; he passed a corporate tax cut, Trump has focussed on spreading LGBT values to Africa and abroad,
and after attacking NAFTA for two decades passed "NAFTA 2.0", and has consistently made this country look even worse than it
normally has over the past 40 years.
If Israel isn't your priority in regards to the embassy moves or if your not a corporate head benefiting from Trumps "we
need more immigration than ever before" glut of cheap third world labor, then you should see him as an unmitigated disaster.
Look beyond the Grifters like Charlie Kirk and Sean Hannity.
The ISIS caliphate was defeated. ISIS still exists. One cannot destroy an ideology on the battlefield. The caliphate was their
"country" that they carved out of Syria. Virtually ALL of the rebels in Syria, even the non-ISIS ones are Sunni, not Shia.
The Shia are on the side of the Syrian government. That includes Iran.
Iran was not mentioned for some reason!
Iranians were the first to recognize ISIL was an arm of Israel/UAE/US axis to destabilize not only Syria but any country that
stood up to the axis. Then the Russian read the message on the wall and got involved.
Of course they did. Any decent economic/business magazine/ web site/blog was saying as far back as last September that the
FED was running out of "ammo" to forestall a collapse that was going to happen late this summer or early fall, then the virus
hits to take the blame for the poor economy instead of where it belongs and that is with the Federal Reserve and co. Now we
are hearing we are going to get QE to infinity and beyond, which basically means the globalists are tanking the dollar for
probably a global digital currency sometime in the not too distant future.
"... Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news . ..."
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ). As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World
War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through
campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy,
systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right,
inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks
to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA's antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the
primary vector for anonymous illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent
and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at
least the first two years of Trump's presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy
theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the
president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on
subversion of his presidency by the agency:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of
Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading
out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to
create new
foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish
confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security
officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being
hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a
virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news .
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor . The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic
American exceptionalism necessary to believe this is impossible to describe. Compared to what
the CIA has done to dozens of other countries since the end of World War II, and what it
continues to do , watching Americans cast Russian interference in the 2016 election through
online bots and email hacking (even if one believes every claim made about it) as some sort of
unique and unprecedented crime against democracy is staggering. Set against what the CIA has
done and continues to do to "interfere" in the domestic affairs of other countries --
including Russia -- the 2016
election was, at most, par for the course for international affairs and, more accurately, a
trivial and ordinary act in the context of CIA interference. This propaganda was sustainable
because the recent history and the current function of the CIA has largely been
suppressed. Thankfully, a just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who
spent years as a foreign correspondent covering two countries still marred by brutal
CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post --
provides one of the best, most informative and most illuminating histories yet of this agency
and the way it has shaped the actual, rather than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the
world.
Entitled "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program
that Shaped Our World," the book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an instrument for destroying a
nonaligned movement of nations who would be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically,
Bevins documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque campaign led to its being
barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but then also serving as the foundation and model for
clandestine CIA interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala, Chile, and
Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America: the Jakarta Method.
Our newest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which debuts today at 2:00 p.m. on The Intercept's YouTube channel , is
devoted to a discussion of why this history is so vital: not just for understanding the current
international political order but also for distinguishing between fact and fiction in our
contemporary political discourse. In addition to my own observations on this topic, I speak to
Bevins about his book, about what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still
inhabit, and why a genuine understanding of both international and domestic politics is
impossible without a clear grasp on this story.
Looking at my own reaction to the 2016 candidates, I knew Hillary was the the most corrupt
politician since Hermann Goering. I also knew Trump was a freak show. However, Trump did
claim to be against new wars and getting along with Russia. Not that I believed him, but in a
choice between the two, Trump was obviously better. And that's what the Trump supporters
believed and that's why he was elected (with some help from the Electoral College setup.)
Today, it's a choice between a President who has been an *utter circus* and has *proven*
to be a freak show, and a "garden-variety" corrupt politician who also has dementia. People
elect corrupt politicians all the time. Is there any other kind? How likely is it that the
electorate will take the time to fully understand the depth of corruption of Biden vs the
*obvious* lunacy of Trump? How many people are going to believe Biden has dementia,
especially if the mainstream media (outside of Fox) refuses to even mention it (you know
that's what they will do)?
I don't know the answer to that and neither does anyone else.
The real questions are: how will the economy question play out before November? Does Trump
get blamed? Does he get rewarded for reopening the economy even though the death toll from
the virus spikes? If the virus slows in the summer, does he get rewarded for that? If a
second virus wave roars in before election dat, what impact will that have? What happens with
Venezuela, Iran and China over the next five months? There's plenty of time for SHTF on any
of those fronts - does any of it reward or downgrade Trump's chances?
Like I said before, it is *way too soon* to be estimating the outcome of this
election.
I would suspect that the government in Kiev is trying to play kingmaker, leveraging the
tapes to try to get a better deal from Trump or the Democrats. As the current holder of the
Whitehouse, Trump is in a stronger position to make and follow through on his offers
(although he also has a history of breaking promises). Conversely, the Democrats have every
incentive to break the bank to keep those recordings secret.
So I guess we'll have to wait and see who makes the Ukrainians a better offer.
If Trump is going to give them a good offer it would need to be fairly soon (before
Aug), so lets see if he announces new arms sales or additional IMF funding for the
government in Kiev this summer. If he does, then more tapes will leak as we get closer to
the election.
As shown in this article, there is a key aspect to the entire anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine story
that has received absolutely no coverage by the mainstream media:
Presumably Biden was still coherent when talking with Poroshenko?
Of course, Biden can't openly talk about the US' real interest in Burisma: hegemony via
control of energy resources and the Crown Jewels of the Ukrainian economy...nor can he talk
about any personal stake he had in the deal.
I remember when Chavez took over PDVSA, Venezuelans claim to have learned that the
Venezuelan oil company's technology subsidiary's board of directors had been infested with
top CIA. You have to assume that they were not serving pro bono... Nor was Hunter
Biden...
Phone Calls Between Biden And Ukraine's Poroshenko Leaked; Details $1 Billion "Quid Pro
Quo" To Fire Burisma Prosecutor by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/20/2020 - 05:12 Leaked
phone calls between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko explicitly detail
the quid-pro-quo arrangement to fire former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin - who
Poroshenko admits did nothing wrong - in exchange for $1 billion in US loan guarantees (which
Biden openly bragged about in January, 2018
).
The calls were leaked by Ukrainian MP
Andrii Derkach , who says the recordings of "voices similar to Poroshenko and Biden" were
given to him by investigative journalists who claim Poroshenko made them.
Shokin was notably investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired Biden's
son, Hunter, to sit on its board. Shokin had opened a case against Burisma's founder, Mykola
Zlochevsky, who granted Burisma permits to drill for oil and gas in Ukraine while he was
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. In January, 2019,
Shokin stated in a deposition that there were five criminal cases against Zlochevesky,
including money laundering, corruption, illegal funds transfers, and profiteering through shell
corporations while he was a sitting minister.
The leaked calls begin on December 3, 2015 , when former Secretary of State John Kerry
starts laying out the case to fire Shokin - who he says "blocked the cleanup of the Prosecutor
Generals' Office," and sated that Biden "is very concerned about it," to which Poroshenko
replies that the newly reorganized prosecutor general's office (NABU) won't be able to pursue
corruption charges, and that it may be difficult to fire Shokin without cause.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/EbmDLhJ43cU
Later in the leaked audio on February 18, 2016 - less than three months after the Kerry
conversation - Poroshenko delivers some "positive news."
"Yesterday I met with General Prosecutor Shokin," says Poroshenko. And despite of the fact
that we didn't have any corruption charges, we don't have any information about him doing
something wrong, I specially asked him - no, it was day before yesterday - I specially asked
him to resign. In, uh, as his, uh, position as a state person. And despite of the fact that he
has a support in the power. And as a finish of my meeting with him, he promised to give me the
statement on resignation. And one hour ago he bring me the written statement of his resignation
. And this is my second step for keeping my promises. "
Four weeks later on March 22, 2016, Biden says "Tell me that there is a new government and a
new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion
dollars. "
Poroshenko tells Biden that one of the leading candidates is the man who replaced Shokin,
Yuriy Lutsenko who later said
in a deposition that Hunter Biden and his business partners were receiving millions of
dollars in compensation from Burisma.
Then, on May 13, 2016, Biden congratulates Poroshenko on "getting the new Prosecutor
General," saying that it will be "critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin
did."
" And I'm a man of my word ," Biden adds. "And now that the new Prosecutor General is in
place, we're ready to move forward to signing that one billion dollar loan guarantee ."
Poroshenko thanks Biden for the support, and says that it was a "very tough challenge and a
very difficult job."
Shokin, meanwhile, filed a criminal complaint against Biden in Kiev this February, in which
he writes:
During the period 2014-2016, the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine was conducting a
preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former Minister of
Ecology of Ukraine Mykola Zlotchevsky and by the managers of the company "Burisma Holding
Limited "(Cyprus), the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of
Joseph Biden, then vice-president of the United States of America.
The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with
Criminal Law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective
investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty
parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me which led him to express
in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials, as well as in his public speeches, a
categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in
exchange for the sum of US $ 1 billion in as a financial guarantee from the United States for
the benefit of Ukraine.
* * *
And while we cannot verify the authenticity of the recordings with absolute certainty, we
now have the audio revealing how the deed was orchestrated.
"... The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list. ..."
"... The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. ..."
"... That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration. ..."
"... That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis. ..."
"... But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. ..."
"... While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough ..."
"... The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. ..."
The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking
to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There
seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed,
Biden's name is on the unmasking list.
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling
details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national
security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over
three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to "unmask" Flynn in the investigation was
former Vice President Joe
Biden . This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the
investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that
investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign
colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence
of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration
officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the
testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media
with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of
the Obama administration.
The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost "if they found out how we
knew what we knew" about Trump campaign officials "dealing with Russians." Yet in her
classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for
Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising "alarm" over collusion. As much of
the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to
investigate political opponents.
There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been
overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with
secret surveillance .
That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence
to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was
ultimately found to lack a credible basis.
But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned.
Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed
his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was
later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false
allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the
coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question, as even this latest disclosure
from the investigation of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media
narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous
designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection
of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The
importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea
Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported
10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less
common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking
information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the
Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of
interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling
evidence of a crime or collusion.
The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively
followed the investigation.
"... The majority of U.S. media will most likely try and find appropriate excuses so they can minimize Obama's role in these scandals. It is completely clear that the battle over who will be in the White House in the next four years is now taking focus on the Obama era as of opposed to Trump's mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 80,000 Americans and infected more than 1.3 million people. ..."
"... With endless tweets by Donald Trump dedicated to Obama over the past few days, it is as if the presidential battle in November will be fought between him and Obama, and not Democrat сandidate Joe Biden . ..."
"... It is likely Obama is becoming more public as Trump's opponent Biden is proving inadequate and incapable of defeating Trump ..."
"... Trump also retweeted statements from CIA agent Buck Sexton, in which he accused Obama of sabotaging the Trump administration in the first days of his term. Sexton also called former FBI Director Andrew McCabe "a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath" ..."
"... As for the affair with the secret operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, journalists of Forbes in 2011 wondered whether that operation would become Obama's "Watergate," ..."
Source: InfoBricsFormer
U.S. President Barack Obama is coming under increasing pressure, led by what President Donald
Trump is calling "Obamagate." This comes as Mexico has requested to finally clarify the affair
with the secret sale of American weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico is asking for the case
to be clarified after almost ten years.
In this secret operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, weapons from the U.S. were sold to Mexican drug cartels. The U.S. claimed that
about 2,000 automatic weapons were sold to Mexicans so that the Barack Obama administration
could follow their path to the drug cartels. Instead, these weapons were used in massacres.
Mexican authorities are now seeking answers from the United States.
In addition to selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Obama is responsible for a lot of
global upheaval on the world stage – primarily the so-called "Arab Spring" that should be
more accurately described as the "Arab Winter" as it brought death and destruction across the
Arab world.
The sale of these weapons to Mexican drug cartels is another ugly legacy of Obama's rule
that liberals like to view as one of the best periods of American history. Let's not forget
that in 2009 Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for his apparent "extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people."
The majority of U.S. media will most likely try and find appropriate excuses so they can
minimize Obama's role in these scandals. It is completely clear that the battle over who will
be in the White House in the next four years is now taking focus on the Obama era as of opposed
to Trump's mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 80,000
Americans and infected more than 1.3 million people.
With endless tweets by Donald Trump dedicated to Obama over the past few days, it is as if
the presidential battle in November will be fought between him and Obama, and not Democrat
сandidate Joe Biden .
The reason for Trump's many tweets against the former president was because of Obama's
private conversation that was leaked to the public in which he criticized the suspension of the
investigation against Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn , while he called
Trump's fight against the coronavirus epidemic a "chaotic disaster."
The American president started tweeting on the morning of May 10 and stopped late in the
evening, making over a hundred tweets against Obama. This exchange between Obama and Trump is
not common in American politics as former presidents usually do not interfere in the politics
of their successors. However, there are suggestions that Obama still has connections to the
deep state and is actively undermining Trump.
Obama, who openly admitted he would remain active in politics and wished he could contend
for a third term, could be exerting influence through Hillary Clinton and Biden. It is likely
Obama is becoming more public as Trump's opponent Biden is proving inadequate and incapable of
defeating Trump.
The battle between Obama and Trump started with the announcement that the Ministry of
Justice is terminating the investigation against former Trump's national security adviser
Michael Flynn. Flynn, who was probably the shortest-serving national security adviser in
history, was sacked at the beginning of his term on charges of lying to Vice President Mike
Pence about talks with the Russian ambassador to Washington. His removal triggered a chain of
failed investigations and campaigns against Trump and his alleged links to Russian interference
during the U.S. presidential election, which also ended in a failed impeachment.
In private conversations that leaked to the public, Obama described Flynn's acquittal as a
threat to the rule of law.
Trump also retweeted statements from CIA agent Buck Sexton, in which he accused Obama of
sabotaging the Trump administration in the first days of his term. Sexton also called former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe "a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to
the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath"
Trump then continued with accusations on Twitter and said that Obama
committed "the biggest political crime in American history, by far!" and ended briefly with
"Obamagate."
As for the affair with the secret operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels,
journalists of Forbes in 2011 wondered whether that operation would become Obama's "Watergate,"
and it appears that it very well could be. Obama's attempts to smear Trump has not only
backfired, but it could have very serious legal ramifications against him and others in his
administration.
Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive
presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting
with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before
being forced to
correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in
Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.
> I can't for the life of me understand why Democrats have such an obsession with
"Trump colluding with Russia" when the Democrats are continually cosying up to CHINA. So it's
bad if Russia interferes with the US, but it's OK if China does? I don't for a moment believe
Trump has ever colluded with Russia, but would 100% believe that the Democrats are in the
pockets of the Chinese. How much Chinese money has Pėlosí & Co pocketed in
exchange for spouting pro-Chinese anti-American propaganda?
The USA is going to have to make a big decision in prosecuting Obama and all his
accomplices for the crimes of using the intel agencies to create and implement a
fraudulent/illegal scheme to remove a legally elected president. My guess is that everything
will be delayed until Trump wins his second term. Then the full force of the government will
hold all Obama officials responsible for their crimes. That is my guess.
"If you can't beat them, smear them," say the Democrats. Nobody is brainless enough to
vote to the Democrats, so they are importing their votes as cast by the illegal immigrants!
Then they accuse the Republicans of foreign influence in our elections!!??
Recently, there's been rather heated
debate – a sort of progressive civil war – over what's being called "
lesser
evil " voting. To Biden, or not to Biden; that seems the existential question. However,
most discussion centers on whether Joe Biden would be a meaningfully better than Donald Trump
on domestic policy: healthcare, taxes, immigration, and – of course – the
coronavirus response. Fair questions, all; but on one subject – over which presidents
have near
limitless power – Biden's extensive record provides clear answers. For when it
comes to foreign – especially military – policy, the man has hardly ever been
right. On war, Biden's is a blood-soaked litany indeed.
Biden's foreign policy has been one big series of gambles. In the past, he's even framed
it as such. Undoubtedly, few remember the time way back in Barack Obama's first term, when
Biden – assigned as the administration's point-man on all
things Iraq – predicted with absolute certainty that the Baghdad government would
accede to the enduring presence of small numbers of American troops after the December 31,
2011 "end of combat operations." In fact, the ever-folksy Biden told the New York
Times
he would bet his vice presidency that Iraq would extend this Status of Forces Agreement
(SoFA). It didn't. Nevertheless, Joe reneged on the wager and kept the number two spot in the
land. Biden, like just about every establishment policymaker in both major parties,
underestimated the independence and growing
hostility of the Shia strongman Nouri al-Maliki, whom the
vice president himself helped install after
the prime minister had lost an election.
Yet Biden's Iraq War record goes far deeper. Sure, he voted for Bush's
initial invasion. Only that's not the half of it. From his senior perch as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the future vice president quite literally sold the
war to his more doubtful colleagues – twisting arms, making calls, and applying the
classic Biden-charm – and to the American people writ large. Then, months after it was
crystal clear that the invasion had been built on lies
(no WMDs, no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, etc.) – and by which point chaos and local
resistance already reigned – Biden continued to defend the war and
the "popular" president who orchestrated it. Biden didn't just vote for aggression and mayhem
in Iraq; he championed it.
Beyond Baghdad, Biden's national security positions have also been abysmal. What's more,
based on his own published campaign
vision , other than the discrete Iraq War vote itself, the presumptive Democratic nominee
is unwilling to apologize for, or meaningfully alter, his past formulas for failure. It's
what Biden's "vision"
doesn't mention that's most troubling: Obama-
destroyed Libya, his old boss's floundering quagmire in Syria, any meaningful challenge
to Israeli apartheid , or
commitment to a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Mideast disaster areas. Better
yet, the word "drone" doesn't appear once – so one assumes the terror bombing won't
abate under Biden. In the final analysis, Joe offers little more than the
status quo from West Africa to Central Asia – an intolerable situation he himself
crafted over decades as the Democrats' leading foreign policy guru.
When it comes to war and peace, nominating Biden is like assigning the criminal with
solving the crime. Indeed, so consistently wrong has he been on these issues, that one
wonders whether he's a secret (if nefarious) genius. As I've sardonically theorized , being policy-wrong
every time – like scoring zero on a multiple-choice test – almost requires
knowing all the right answers and choosing to fail. Yet it seems unlikely that this
sort of cynical savvy applies to ole Joe.
Is he better alternative than Trump on foreign affairs? Yes and no. Despite his populist
"bring home the troops" campaign rhetoric – and occasional reprises
in office – The Donald has hardly followed through. Often he's escalated
bombings and
boots-on-the-ground in the Greater Middle East. And admittedly, Biden seems more likely
– but hardly
certain – to reinstate the Iran nuclear deal and modestly tone down the
march-to-war rhetoric. Then again, so far – though the colluding duo of
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu try to gin up
real combat – Trump has shown eleventh-hour restraint and
eschewed full-blown war with Tehran. Not to say that The Donald, who has aggressively
upped-the-ante on
unwarranted conflict with Iran merits apologia. However, so far at least – an
inconvenient admission for some – Trump is the first president since Jimmy Carter who
hasn't attempted an overt violent foreign regime change. True, this is a low bar indeed.
Make no mistake, Donald Trump is temperamentally, intellectually, and morally unfit to
serve as commander-in-chief. His ignorant and bellicose position on nuclear weapons makes him
a potentially
existential threat to life well beyond America's borders. Still, even Trump's more
vociferous opponents should know what they're getting when they gamble on Biden: nothing more
than a
polite emperor to replace the rather coarse and clothes-less current occupant of the
throne.
Even if he's preferable on some individual foreign policy issues, Biden has never
questioned the imperium itself. That he won't change his spots and suddenly do so, is
undergirded by the fact – as Chris Hedges recently
pointed out – that "the ruling elites would prefer Biden" over the "vulgar
embarrassment" of Donald Trump. Thus, selecting an emperor – given a presidency long
unfettered
by constitutional checks and balances – amounts to a matter of taste; of style over
substance.
The "masters of the universe" that Hedges describes aren't remotely troubled by reliable,
known-quantity-Joe's sordid foreign policy past. Neither, apparently, are Washington
insiders, mainstream media pundits, or – if we're being honest – most common
citizens. There's certainly been no penalty for Biden – or anyone else – being
repeatedly dead wrong on the most decisive decisions a leader can make. American politics
positively reinforces failure.
In even a marginally healthy republic, Biden's championing of the Iraq War alone –
and decades worth of pathological lying
about that record – ought to have disqualified him. That it hasn't
exposes – like the COVID crisis – the structural and societal rot
undergirding this country. Among the senior ranks of politicians, soldiers
, and corporate oligarchs ,
obvious and undeniable failure carries few consequences. Blame and punishment is reserved for
the lowest level of practitioners whilst power and profits continue to accrue to existing
national security elites.
In contemporary America, there's zero accountability for top policymakers – even
those a heartbeat away from the presidency – who repeatedly gamble soldiers (and
foreigners) lives in far-flung adventures and regularly lose big. Neoconservative and
neoliberal militarist leaders who drummed up disasters like the 2003 Iraq invasion should've
been forever discredited. Instead, they've been laundered like dirty money,
rehabilitated , and born-again as expert analysts on CNN or MSNBC. These, of course,
being the very networks that – in the case of the Bush-era figures, at least –
once lambasted them. As for the real heavy-hitters – Iraq cheerleading Biden and Libya
regime change
architect Hillary Clinton – the Democratic Party "opposition" runs them for
president.
The narrowness of permitted debate on US war policy – and of the electoral options
the two-party duopoly provides – is obscene. It's also proof positive that real
challenges to American militarism must come from outside the system. At stake this November
is more than what some sardonically call " choosing
between two rapists ." What's really on the ballot is the minor matter of emperor
selection. And the choices ain't great. Throughout his nearly 50 years of senior-level public
service, Biden consistently made high-stakes war wagers – playing on credit with blood
and treasure. So far his losses amount to $6.4 trillion in taxpayer cash,
more than 7,000 dead troopers, 21 million refugees, and 335,000 civilian lives.
With that sort of track record at the life-and-death tables, Biden should really seek a
meeting .
Instead, he's become the last great white hope of polite liberals everywhere. And make no
mistake, this doesn't end well. So be careful gambling on Biden. Like Joe betting his vice
presidency on Iraqi elections, it might be a sure loser.
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.com. His work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
Do the Democratic Party's leadership and its many allied mainstream media outlets have no
shame? They are determined to run Joe Biden, a presidential candidate who embodies many of the
evils for which they condemn Donald Trump. Corporate Joe
Democrats rightly charge the reputed billionaire Donald Trump with
serving the wealthy few . Yes, but what about Joe? His corporatist and pro-Wall Street
record in
Congress included votes to rollback bankruptcy
protections for college graduates (1978) and vocational school graduates (1984) with
federal student loans.
He
worked with Republicans to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act, which put " clean slate " Chapter-7 bankruptcy out of reach for millions of
ordinary Americans (2005).
Biden voted against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers
of the costs of only making minimum payments. He honored campaign
cash from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that permitted soft-drink producers to skirt
antitrust laws (1979).
He joined just one other Congressional Democrat to vote against a Judiciary Committee
measure to increase consumers' rights to sue corporations for price-fixing (1979).
He strongly
backed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and
commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. (This helped create the
2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession, which led to a massive taxpayer bailout of
the rich combined with little for the rest of the population – a policy that Biden backed
as vice presidential candidate and as Vice President).
During his time as a US Senator, " lunch bucket Joe " Biden
supported the globalist investor rights North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
cost millions of US manufacturing workers their jobs.
Adding neoliberal insult to neoliberal injury, presidential candidate Biden has criticized
those who advocate a universal basic income (a fundamental need, in the wake of the current
Covid-19 crash) of "
selling American workers short " and undermining the "dignity" of work.
Biden opposes calls for supposedly " too expensive " universal Single Payer health
insurance, going so far as to say he would
veto a Medicare for All bill as president! He defends Big Business and the rich from
popular criticism, mocking those who "want to single out big corporations for all the blame"
and
proclaiming " I don't think five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble.
The folks at the top aren't bad guys. "
Biden even says he has "no empathy" for Millennials' struggle to get by in the savagely
unequal precariat economy he helped create over his many years of service to the Lords of
Capital. " The younger generation now tells me how tough things are -- give me a
break, " said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times two years
ago. " No, no, I have no
empathy for it, give me a break ."
Biden has not spoken one critical word about Trump and Congress's taxpayer-funded bailout
for the American capitalist "elite" and its top corporations and financial institutions in the
wake of Covid-19 – a massive and largely
unaccountable giveaway that puts no caps on executive compensation and elite profits while
offering little more than a pittance to the nation's working-class majority.
The Democrats and their media
rightly accuse Trump of serial deception, misstatement, and lying. Okay, but what about
Joe? In
a lie told twice , in 2001 and 2007, Biden falsely and viciously claimed that his first
wife and baby boy were killed by a drunk truck driver in 1972.
On the campaign trail last year, Biden told a ridiculous tale (a longstanding recurrent
Biden fib) about his supposed heroic role in honoring a medal-winning US soldier in a war zone
as vice president.
Last February, at a campaign event in South Carolina, Biden tried to win Black votes by
falsely claiming to have been arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela in jail during
the apartheid era in South Africa.
Last January, during a debate, Biden claimed that he argued against George W. Bush's
invasion of Iraq immediately after it began. In fact, it took Biden two years
to admit that Bush's war and Biden's own Senate vote to authorize it were "mistakes" (try
'crimes').
Sleepy Joe
The Democrats and their media raise legitimate questions about Trump's mental health and
fitness. Fine, but what about Joe? Earlier this year, he strangely invaded centrist MSNBC host
Joy Reid's physical space to accuse her of being a radical who wants "
a physical revolution ."
As a presidential candidate in the current cycle, Biden has forgotten
what state he's in,
confused his wife with his sister , and claimed that he would have " beaten the
hell out of Trump " in high school. Last September , he tried to woo Black voters
with a bizarre and rambling story about an alleged past adolescent swimming pool confrontation
with a young Black tough named " Corn Pop ."
On the campaign trail in Iowa, an unhinged Biden
said this to an older white male Elizabeth Warren supporter who dared to ask about the
corruption involved in Hunter Biden's lucrative presence on the board of a gas company in
Ukraine: " You're a damn liar .Look, fat you're too old to vote for me ."
Speaking in Texas last March, Biden made audience members cringe when he called Super
Tuesday " Super
Thursday " and tried to quote from the American Declaration of Independence. " We hold
these truths to be self-evident ," Biden gaffed: " All men um, are created by the, um,
co, oh, YOU KNOW THE THING !"
Biden responded
to a debate question about racial inequality, segregation, and the legacy of slavery last
September by smirkng and then awkwardly telling Black parents to " put on the television, I
mean the record player " for their children.
Last February, he called a young female voter in New Hampshire
" a lying dog-faced pony soldier. " He also said that
"150 million" Americans – almost half of the US population – " have been
killed " due to gun violence.
In debates and interviews, the 77-year old Biden routinely loses his train of thought in
mid-sentence, mis-pronounces his words, forgets basic facts, and generally looks confused while
seeming to rave and be on the verge of punching someone.
Bodyguards have had to stand between Biden and voters because he lacks the impulse control
to stop himself from
touching, sniffing, and massaging women in his vicinity.
It's not for nothing that the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign are
keeping "Sleepy Joe" as much
out of the public eye – almost literally locked in his basement – as
possible.
But just as FOX News looks the other way when it comes to Trump's mental illness and
difficulties, the liberal mainstream media is shockingly silent on Biden's clearly fading cognitive health.
In 2020 as in previous US elections, Democrats are telling American progressives yet again
that they must vote for an inadequate, duplicitous, imperial, and corporate-captive
presidential candidate as " the lesser evil. " In reality, however, Lesser Evil-ism is
a self-fulfilling prophecy that helps move the narrow American major-party spectrum further to
the right while channeling popular political energies into an electoral system that does not
represent the nation's working- and middle-class majority.
Aptly described by the late left political scientist Sheldon Wolin as " the
Inauthentic Opposition, " the neoliberal Democratic Party offers no serious resistance,
electoral or otherwise, to the corporate and financial class rule advanced by the rightmost of
the only two viable political organizations. The mentally declining liar and corporatist Joe
Biden is graphic and depressing evidence for Wolin's thesis.
Paul Street is the author of numerous books, including They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy
(Routledge, 2014) and The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power
(Routledge, 2011).
While this is somewhat questionable take, because a bitter infighting between two
major camps of the US neoliberal elite is ignored, there some truth in the statement that
Clinton wing can live with Trump's second term.
Chris Hedges is definitely wrong about Sanders and now he probably realized that. I
also think that this infighting is a positive thing, the implicit search for the
direction, which might help the country, not only bare knuckle, raw fight for power as he
thinks (although abuse of intelligence agencies by Clinton wing spoiled the broth) . The
misery of the working class in the USA in comparison with the same in East Asia, or Latin
America is still far less despite sliding standard of living. Three person family were
each adult earns $10 an hour can still survive. The real misery is concentrated mainly in
single mothers segment of population.
At least he raises important questions:
There is only one choice in this election. The consolidation of oligarchic power
under Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden.
The oligarchs, with Trump or Biden, will win again. We will lose. The oligarchs made
it abundantly clear, should Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party
nominee, they would join forces with the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if
Sanders was the nominee, instantly be shorn by the Democratic Party elites of his
demons and his propensity for tyranny.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a
Hillary Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They
prefer Biden over Trump, but they can live with either.
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is
not the consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the
surveillance state. It is not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is
the primacy of corporate power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of
the working class in misery -- and the continued increase and consolidation of their
wealth.
Biden represents the old neoliberal order. He personifies the betrayal by the
Democratic Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling
elites across the political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like
Trump, who at least understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly
offer change.
He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same.
The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy
or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the
electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office.
..By voting for Biden, you You vote for deregulating the banking industry and the
abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical
corporations and against universal health care. You vote for bloated defense budgets.
You vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy our elections.
You vote for a politician who during his time in the Senate abjectly served the
interests of MBNA, the largest independent credit card company headquartered in
Delaware, which also employed Biden's son Hunter.
The right wing uses those on the margins of society as scapegoats. The culture wars
mask the reality. Both parties are full partners in the reconfiguration of American
society into a form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you want it dressed up.
" By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their
interests a priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of
an opposition party in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact,
doing little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism
He thinks "We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and
corporations. ". Easier said then done because there is no politically organized
countervailing forces that can oppose Wall Street and large corporations. They own the
Capitol Hill. But clearly Biden while preferable to Trump is one step forward two steps
back.
Tara Reade says Joe Biden once grabbed her privates and demanded sex. Will that change the
election in November?
The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings were a turning point, when the presumption of
innocence was thrown out in favor of a new standard, "credible accusation." Evidence was
replaced by #BelieveAllWomen. Praised by Dems and the media as fierce justice then, it's
Biden's turn now.
Imagine the same type of proceedings directed at him. Amy Klobuchar repeats her accusation
that Kavanaugh, er, Biden, is a drunk, with about as little evidence now as then. Senator Dick
Durbin demands Biden demand an FBI investigation into himself. Durbin says of Biden, as he did
of Kavanaugh, that if he has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear, a line often
attributed to Joseph Goebbels. Kamala Harris goes in as bad cop, righteously shouting down
whatever is said to her by Biden. The truth? You can't handle the truth.
After that show, imagine a second one where Elizabeth Warren, long-shot Biden VP pick
Florida Representative Val Demings, Kirsten Gillibrand, Stacey Abrams, and Michigan Governor
Gretchen Whitmer all show up to stand by Biden, not believe Reade, and/or remain silent when
asked. Watching people force themselves to support Biden under these conditions is what I
imagine the Beach Boys looked like backstage trying to mix Viagra and meth so they could get
through "Surfin' USA" one more time.
To flesh things out, voters could call in to ask those Democratic leaders how the very
serious business of #MeToo got turned into just another political tool by the "party of women."
Alyssa Milano, whose take on the Kavanaugh hearings was that she believed all women without the
need for due process, could be brought out to explain how now "the notion that this should be
disqualifying to Biden in a race against Trump is patently ridiculous. Anybody who claims
otherwise is using sexual assault as a political football."
US voters are caught between a rock and a hard place -- Morton's fork , which is: a choice between two
equally unpleasant alternatives (in other words, a dilemma), or two lines of reasoning that lead
to the same unpleasant conclusion. It is analogous to the expressions "between the devil and the
deep blue sea,"
“In philosophy seminars, the choice is usually between good and evil. In the real
world, however, the choice is often between a bad guy and a worse guy.” ― Dinesh
D'Souza, Letters to a
Young Conservative
“Every four years we go through the same cycle of hope and disillusionment.”
― Sheri Holman, The
Mammoth Cheese
“Voting Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote for the common people.” ―
Steven Magee
“Typically, in politics, more than one horse is owned and managed by the same team in
an election. There's always and extra candidate who will slightly mimic the views of their team's
opposing horse, to cancel out that person by stealing their votes just so the main horse can win.
Elections are puppet shows. Regardless of their rainbow coats and many smiles, the agenda is one
and the same.” ― Suzy Kassem, ― Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy
Kassem
“Voter: someone smart enough to choose how to be fooled.” ― Jakub
Bożydar Wiśniewski
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps the most devastating dimension of Trump's time in office, on a policy level, is how the Republican establishment brilliantly exploited Trump as a Trojan horse for its extreme agenda. It is unlikely that any of the GOP's preferred candidates could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump dragged the Republican Party kicking and screaming back into executive power. For them, he was a messiah they chided and scorned when he first appeared, but now they prostrate themselves before him every minute of every day. ..."
"... More broadly, the real terror of the past three and a half years boils down to this: The consolidation of power by some of the most vile figures and interests in the Republican party. This includes the scores of federal judges named to the bench, the shaping of the Supreme Court, the radical drive toward deregulation, and the canceling of even the most minimal commitments the U.S. has made to try to confront climate change. What the Republicans have managed to accomplish on a policy level in Trump's time in office is profound and terrifying. ..."
"... Trump's economic policies have enriched corporations and special interest groups beyond their imaginations, while sawing off the already inadequate social programs in this country. We still have no idea of the extent to which Trump and his family are financially benefiting from his presidency. He talks about women in disgusting ways, including attempting to publicly humiliate the women he is accused of raping and assaulting. And the sick reality is that a significant number of people in the U.S. clearly like these things even if they won't openly admit it, though a disturbing number of them do feel emboldened to admire it. Trump has offered up an IPO on ignorance and hatred as a source of pride, and a lot of people enthusiastically bought in. ..."
"... Trump's rise to power is, in many ways, the logical product of the U.S. as a failed state. Trump says the quiet parts about the system out loud. ..."
"... It's always worth remembering that Biden was picked in 2008 to make Obama less threatening to moderates -- so we can't even bank on a return to Obama's brand of neoliberalism. ..."
Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 on an often ad-libbed and reactionary campaign of
hate, greed, xenophobia, misogyny, and racism. He clearly viewed the fact that a black man had
ascended to the presidency as an abomination and rightly assessed that there were a lot of
racists in this country who saw the eight years the Obamas spent living in the White House as a
crime against the real, white America. Trump already had a brand, realized early on the power
of being an outsider in U.S. presidential elections, and focused on some key economic issues,
including trade, that would play well with people dissatisfied with the two party system's
regular offerings. And he focused on hate.
To directly call Trump fascistic is not incorrect, but it also may give him too much credit.
He has largely been an incompetent authoritarian, albeit one whose key policies have caused
massive suffering and death. What we have seen throughout his career and his three and a half
years in power is that Trump is primarily concerned with making money for himself, his family,
and his cronies. Literally everything this man does is a racket.
His foreign policy has been hawkish and reckless, but aside from his often insane rhetoric
and public threats to annihilate various countries, it has not represented a radical departure
from that of his predecessors. He acts like an unstable buffoon on the international stage, and
he burns bridges with traditional U.S. allies, governments, and international bodies across the
globe. Trump openly embraces vile authoritarians and mocks democratic leaders and institutions.
All of this is certainly dangerous and unsettling, though some of it is disproportionately
offensive to establishment foreign policy elites. Trump's predecessor started his own share of
wars, did some regime change, ratcheted up an existing war, downsized another, and greatly
expanded the use of weaponized drones and so-called targeted killings. But Barack Obama
delivered these policies with an intelligently crafted, though at times absurd, justification
wrapped in the notion of inventing a "smarter" way to wage war. Liberals ate it up. Obama's
policies killed a lot of innocent people.
The few times Trump has signaled his openness to pursue a less militaristic approach to
long-existing crises, such as the war in Afghanistan or the conflict with North Korea, he has
been ridiculed by leading Democrats and liberal pundits. In terms of Trump's military pursuits,
he has proven less murderous than George W. Bush and more of a war criminal than Jimmy Carter.
So far. That can certainly change with a second term.
Perhaps the gravest threat posed by the unstable narcissist in the White House is that of
the use of a first strike nuclear weapon. It has never been beyond the pale to imagine an
apocalyptic nuclear scenario that begins with a tweet from a foreign leader Trump hates. The
fact that we can even imagine this is nothing to wag a stick at.
Trump's monumentally incompetent handling of the coronavirus pandemic hammers home some of
the greatest dangers posed by his presidency. It has highlighted the extent to which he is
motivated not by any sense of duty or concern for his fellow citizens, but by money and his
popularity among a fairly small circle of corporations, television hosts, and special
interests. That Trump uses the daily platform of what are supposed to be public health
briefings by professionals to pontificate ignorantly, babble incoherently, or to score points
politically underscores how little he actually cares about the U.S. public and our lives.
Instead, he is obsessed with the stock market as an imagined extension of his own ego. It is
the sign of a deeply sick individual that he would effectively make aid conditional on how nice
governors are to him. Trump encourages group protests against Democratic governors during a
pandemic with scores of people refusing to wear protective gear, while his administration has
insisted on testing visitors for coronavirus before meeting with the president or vice
president. All of this costs lives, as sure as any military operation.
Perhaps the most devastating dimension of Trump's time in office, on a policy level, is
how the Republican establishment brilliantly exploited Trump as a Trojan horse for its extreme
agenda. It is unlikely that any of the GOP's preferred candidates could have beaten Hillary
Clinton in 2016. Trump dragged the Republican Party kicking and screaming back into executive
power. For them, he was a messiah they chided and scorned when he first appeared, but now they
prostrate themselves before him every minute of every day.
The real terror of the past three and a half years boils down to this: the consolidation of
power by some of the most vile figures and interests in the Republican party.
The public still does not know the full story of how Mike Pence ended up on the ticket as
Trump's running mate, but when it was announced, it was clear that the professional Republicans
and the extremist evangelical lobby had their inside man. With Mitch McConnell running the
Senate and Pence babysitting the president, Trump could focus on barking for the crowds in
between golf outings and Twitter rants while the political hitmen in Washington dust off every
extreme right-wing initiative they've cooked up for decades and which they work day and night
to methodically ram through. Trump has had his signature moments, but much of his policy has
been outsourced to craftier and more sophisticated policymakers.
Trump is famously not a fan of reading detailed briefings, but give him a few nuggets of
oversimplified policy talking points to pepper throughout his rants, and he's going to be your
gaudy QVC host pitching the crappy product to his base. The bonus is that none of it actually
has to be true, it just needs to be acceptable to the right people and truthfully exposed or
documented by journalists whom he can then dismiss as the fake news media.
More broadly, the real terror of the past three and a half years boils down to this: The
consolidation of power by some of the most vile figures and interests in the Republican party.
This includes the scores of federal judges named to the bench, the shaping of the Supreme
Court, the radical drive toward deregulation, and the canceling of even the most minimal
commitments the U.S. has made to try to confront climate change. What the Republicans have
managed to accomplish on a policy level in Trump's time in office is profound and
terrifying.
Out in full view, Trump has presided over the separation of families and the locking up of
immigrant children in cages, empowering ICE agents to act as storm troopers. He has intervened
to protect war criminals from accountability, threatened to kill the families of suspected
terrorists, sought to ban -- and in some ways has succeeded in banning -- Muslims from entering
the country. His threat to fill Guantanamo prison back up still looms, especially in the era of
the coronavirus pandemic. Is it so hard to imagine it becoming a disease-ridden black hole for
migrants seeking refuge?
Trump's economic policies have enriched corporations and special interest groups beyond
their imaginations, while sawing off the already inadequate social programs in this country. We
still have no idea of the extent to which Trump and his family are financially benefiting from
his presidency. He talks about women in disgusting ways, including attempting to publicly
humiliate the women he is accused of raping and assaulting. And the sick reality is that a
significant number of people in the U.S. clearly like these things even if they won't openly
admit it, though a disturbing number of them do feel emboldened to admire it. Trump has offered
up an IPO on ignorance and hatred as a source of pride, and a lot of people enthusiastically
bought in.
Trump's rise to power is, in many ways, the logical product of the U.S. as a failed
state. Trump says the quiet parts about the system out loud.
Donald Trump's presidency is not an aberration of U.S. history in substance. His rise to
power and the policies he has implemented are, in many ways, the logical product of the U.S. as
a failed state, politically and functionally. Trump says the quiet parts about the system out
loud, but his agenda is firmly rooted in the bloody history of this republic. And his rise was
made possible by the failed two-party system and the corporate dominance of electoral politics
in the U.S. Also, let's not pretend that congressional Democrats have not enabled Trump by
regularly voting for his obscene military budgets and sweeping surveillance powers while
simultaneously calling him the most dangerous president in history.
What would happen if Trump wins the election in November? In practical terms, it would be a
nightmare.... Four more years of this will be deadly.
... ... ...
Biden has an abominable public policy record on a wide range of issues. He has a penchant
for lying -- about his role in the civil rights movement and about being arrested in apartheid
South Africa. He continues to lie and mislead about his support for the war in Iraq, the most
consequential foreign policy decision of the post-Vietnam era. He has been accused by eight
women of misconduct, including one allegation of very serious sexual assault by his former
Senate staffer Tara Reade. Biden's cognitive health and mental acuity is, to say the least,
questionable, particularly when you compare his current performance with videos from just a few
years ago. He frequently rambles without a clear point, forgets what office he is running for,
and has to rely on teleprompters and notes to make it through interviews and speeches without
saying something embarrassing. In numerous interactions with voters, Biden has poked their
chests in an aggressive manner; told an immigrant rights activist to "vote for Trump"; called
voters childish names; and threatened a union worker in Detroit, telling the man to stop
objecting to Biden pointing his finger in his face unless the worker "want[s] to go outside
with me." Let's not even discuss the tale of his showdown with a rusty razor-wielding "Corn
Pop" at the pool. Trump's temperament is frightening, but Biden isn't exactly a cool head who
exudes competence or confidence.
Liberals may poo poo the whole Hunter Biden-Burisma-Ukraine-China attacks from Trump, but
this is going to be a problem in the general election. On many of the key issues where
Democrats could attack Trump, Biden is going to be virtually incapacitated by his own
skeletons. What Sen. Elizabeth Warren did to Mike Bloomberg at a February debate would be
impossible for Biden to do to Trump. "You have more allegations of sexual assault than I do,
Donald," is not a good line. "Your sons have profited off the presidency more than my son did
off my vice presidency" -- also not a winning zinger. And don't think for a moment that Trump
won't hammer away on Biden's Iraq War vote and his trade policies. The Democratic primary is
not the general election.
It's always worth remembering that Biden was picked in 2008 to make Obama less
threatening to moderates -- so we can't even bank on a return to Obama's brand of
neoliberalism.
There is no point to going through and listing all of the terrible aspects of Biden's
career, his policy record, his mental stamina, or his substantial failures to make himself
visible or consistently cogent since securing the presumptive nomination. All of this is going
to be put on display for the next six months. The Democratic Party and the voters in the
roughly 50 percent of primaries that were held have committed our fate to Biden's candidacy.
Obama and other senior party leaders, major news organizations, and a lot of money deployed to
attack Sen. Bernie Sanders also played a role in manufacturing this reality. Sanders ending his
campaign and vowing to support Biden leaves people with two viable candidates on the ballot.
Barring a health crisis or death of one of these older men, the only two candidates with enough
public support to win the presidency will be Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
What we get with Trump is as clear as it is terrifying. What we get with Biden, in his
current form, is less apparent. Biden will have a team of competent (for better and worse)
technocrats and, in all likelihood, an incredibly influential vice president and an unelected
chief of staff running the show. Biden's administration will also include appointments aimed at
throwing some bones to progressives and likely other Cabinet appointments that recognize the
growing influence of progressive ideas. It will, without a doubt, also be riddled with a
disproportionate number of hawkish, corporatist Democratic apparatchiks. It will be an
administration that does the bidding of Wall Street, believes in bloated war budgets, and will
put a friendlier face on the worst excesses of empire. It's always worth remembering that Biden
was picked in 2008 to make Obama less threatening to moderates -- so we can't even bank on a
return to Obama's brand of neoliberalism. But there will be policy areas where some victories
may be possible for a well-organized and militant left willing to take Biden on. Such a dynamic
wouldn't be the worst thing in the world and would be better for more people than a second
Trump term in virtually every tangible way.
The dems are incapable of finding a credible stand in for Biden.
Some flunky might come to the fore but thet will most likely be the result of a 'committee'
decision as the dems have cancelled democracy and decency.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | May 5 2020 18:31 utc |
4
Seeing everyone get worked up over Biden is funny. Do you think you'll get a better
candidate? Bernie dropped out for a reason. He was never a real candidate. There will not be
any real candidate for change.
Killary's pretended "health problems" in 2016 seem like a fore-shadowing of Biden's. May
be she really is the ultimately "the one" in 2020.
It doesn't matter who the nominee is, and that's true for both parties. As I believe we all
know, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and, to some extent, the bureaucracy, are
what drives the agenda. The goons heading up the parade are simply an odd form of bread and
circus.
Cthulhu couldn't destroy the US any more than its politicians and other leaders in its
other institutions (in education, in the entertainment and media industries, in the financial
sector, in the defence industry) have already done so perhaps his time has come.
The other players would seem to be DSA and the Greens, and I'm not sure what they would
think of this. But taking a big chuck of the labor movement out of the Democrat orbit would be
interesting. Especially considering that nurses are as well-liked as, say, firefighters.
This is useless (most politicians are sexual predators; that comes with the territory) but
pitch perfect interpretation of Biden's Tara Reade story from Onion
"We'll be honest -- this isn't going to be cheap. It's not just going away like we thought
it would. We know it seems like we can coast off the media suppressing the story, but there's a
lot of important work to be done behind the scenes to ensure these accusations never see the
light of day.
These sexual assault allegations have already broken through to The Washington Post, and if
we don't meet our fundraising goal by midnight tonight, it could be front page news
tomorrow."
The degree to which government "by and for the people" cannot create consensus is the measure
of its failure to represent the people. The government is not trusted because it is
undemocratic. Rule By Secrecy is the rule.
Where did the Patriot Act come from? This abridgment of liberty appeared seemingly out of
nowhere in October 2001. No representative of the people actually read it and yet it was
voted into law. ( Hint: Joe Biden is principally responsible for the Patriot Act )
The surveillance state is well established in our midst and in our minds and the need to
promote the general welfare by defending against pandemics will entail more surveillance and
more constraints on personal liberty. The degree to which the government must rely on secrecy
and denial of the Bill of Rights to remain in power is the degree to which it will earn the
fear & loathing of the people and simple mistrust will become violence. When Elon Musk,
one of our favorite oligarchs, attacks government for its handling of the pandemic,
government should worry.
1. Joe Biden is accused of having done what Trump bragged about, i.e., having inserted
finger or fingers into a woman staffer's vagina by force and without her consent, she being a
senate staffer at the time. Is this not rape?
having done what Trump bragged about, i.e., having inserted finger or fingers into a woman
staffer's vagina by force and without her consent,
My understanding was that Trump claimed that any woman would consent to Trump's advances,
and thus Trump always claimed to enjoy the consent of any woman he grabbed. Whatever Trump's
sins, I doubt that Trump has groped as many women and children as Biden has.
I have to say that as a Democrat, I believed the accusers of Trump and Kavanaugh. So I also
have to believe the accuser of Biden. Because of this and his apparent old age disabilities,
I will not vote for him, or Trump either for that matter. But I am 71 years old and I guess
it is up to other generations to determine the fate of the country.
Yves here. Larry Summers watchers may recall our piece,
Why Larry Summers Should Not Be Permitted to Run Anything More Important than a Dog Pound .
Summers had put his hat in the ring to become Fed chairman, which elicited an impressive level
of negative coverage. So memories have now faded enough that Summers be allowed to hold an
important domestic role again?
In fairness, Summers has attempted some rehabilitation, and now regularly takes positions to
the left of the former boundary-setter of the limits of Goodthinking Liberal policy, Paul
Krugman. Not that that stands for much.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny
Joe Biden has chosen as his economic adviser the main Democratic proponent of the China
PNTR deal and Wall Street deregulation. Apparently, Biden may really have meant it when he
said "nothing will fundamentally change." https://t.co/UokamnmgyA
Over the past three decades, Summers has amassed a policy record of almost unrivaled
social ruin.
-- Zach Carter, Huffington
Post
In a slap
in the face to progressives , Joe Biden, who has already announced that if he's elected
"nothing would fundamentally change," has appointed the head of Barack Obama's National
Economic Council, Larry Summers, as a key adviser to his campaign.
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers is advising Joe Biden's presidential campaign
on economic policy, including its plans to revive the U.S. economy after the coronavirus
pandemic, according to five people familiar with his involvement.
The Obama and Clinton administration veteran's role roiled progressives who view his past
work on the 2009 recovery as too favorable to big banks. That's awkward for the Biden
campaign at a time when it is trying to win the trust of former supporters of Bernie Sanders
and Elizabeth Warren.
Five people confirming is a deliberate leak, especially since non of them are said to be
"unauthorized to speak about the matter."
Progressive groups are aghast, of course:
Two Sanders-aligned groups, Justice Democrats and Sunrise Movement, said Friday they "hope
Biden publicleconomic y rejects Summers's role as an economic adviser to better earn the
trust of our generation." They said they also plan to start a petition calling on Biden to
pledge to exclude Summers from his transition team or administration.
" Larry Summers's legacy is advocating for policies that contributed to the
skyrocketing inequality and climate crisis we're living with today," the groups said in a
joint statement.
But as Rising's Saagar Enjeti
points out , the real group that Biden needs to assure isn't Progressive Avenue, or even
Main Street -- it's Wall Street -- and leaking via five sources to Bloomberg News that Summers
is now in Biden's inner circle does just that. As Bloomberg put it, with this move Biden has
"offered some reassurance [to] Wall Street that Biden is not moving too far to the left from
the centrist positions that earned him his establishment support."
I'm not if sure this will get him elected, but it is certain to be noticed, even by
not-well-read voters who nonetheless care about the direction of the country. Summers was a
marquee name in the Obama administration. As Robert Kuttner points
out :
Under Clinton, Summers was a prime architect and huge enthusiast of what proved to be
fatal financial deregulation. He was also in charge of Clinton's economic policy for post-Soviet Russia
, and was responsible for pushing for early and catastrophic privatization of state assets, a
fire sale that led directly to the creation of Russia's oligarchs. As president of Harvard,
he proved to be both arrogant and sexist, to the point where he got himself fired.
[As Obama's chief economic advisor, Summers] not only lowballed the necessary economic
stimulus and ended it prematurely, but he successfully fought for rescuing the biggest
banks rather than taking them into temporary receivership . Back at Harvard, Summers
earns over $600,000 as a university professor but also moonlights at the hedge fund D.E.
Shaw, where his compensation is well into the seven figures. (Some would say he moonlights at
Harvard.)
There are so many ways that Summers is a bad choice, it's difficult to enumerate them,
though both Kuttner and the HuffPost's Zach Carter try. ( Carter
: "Over the past three decades, Summers has amassed a policy record of almost unrivaled social
ruin." Then he lists the ways.)
It's sufficient to say that his appointment is the economic-policy equivalent of bringing in
Rahm Emanuel, who famously called liberals " fucking
retarded ," to handle the Biden's relationship with progressive groups.
If Larry Summers' appointment is part of the mainstream Democratic plan to unite the Party
and rally "change voters" behind the Biden candidacy, good luck.
I sincerity doubt that Bernie supporter would vote for Neoliberal Dems (Clinton wing of Democratic Party) at all.
Most probably will vote for the third party, or not vote at all. Few will vote for Trump -- much less then in 2018 as it is
not clear what Trump represents and it has nothing to do with bernie program.
What? After appointing Summers as an economics advisor!? I don't get that as a progressive
move, especially after (Biden ally) Pelosi appoints Shalala to oversee CARE. In fact I see no
explicit concessions to progressives by the D's or Biden and would welcome the chance to be
wrong.
Meanwhile, in my neighborhood, one car with a "Bernie" sticker now has a (home-made) "F*ck
Biden" sticker. So there's at least one person Status Quo Joe hasn't convinced.
"Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California
Evidence Code sec 140
Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted
there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long
history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of
the Biden campaign staff?
Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,
beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond
" is just "Good journalism."
He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I
can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first
in line at the MMT watering hole
i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my
brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.
They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at
this point.
Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable
lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was
once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let
my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it.
Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history
of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't
feel bad letting my subscription go.
I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit
to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy
editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the
main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm
quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like
she'd fit in quite well here!
I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post
9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line
it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
RIP
The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something
happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later,
but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has
been in the unbearable category for many years now.
Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden
had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against
Trump.
I wrote this in reply:
So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying,
even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack
the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he
wrote:
"It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously
America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove
to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends
confirmation."
Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."
Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny
and sexual misconduct)?
But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that
got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in
a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear
football?
Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three
eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or
more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).
We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus
on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.
(Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please
Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).
Joe Biden is sunk if the "Blame China" meme endures.
Hello Hunter B. and $1.5 billion deals with Chinese banks!!
Hunter Biden appears to still be on the board of a Chinese private equity firm he
co-founded, despite his lawyer pledging late last year that the potential first son would
resign, a report alleges.
Chinese business records, the Daily Caller reports, still list Robert Hunter Biden --
the younger Biden's full name -- as a director and board member of BHR Partners.
George Mesires, a lawyer for Biden, said back in October that Biden would be
relinquishing his director title "on or by October 31," but the outlet reported that
business records it obtained were submitted as recently as March 24.
Perhaps as the election year continues to drag on with Trump desperately flailing around for
anything to rally his supporters (hit hard by COVID-19 now that the contagion has reached all
50 states) and the increasingly dementia-addled Joe Biden having nothing to say, it's time
for the imagination-deficient Democrats or the FBI to go over Christopher Steele's dog-eared
dossier again with the most powerful microscopes they have to find evidence that Beijing as
well as Moscow was also assisting Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign.
Would sheeple around the world fall for a whopper like that? Australian news media eedjits
certainly would.
As above, so below.
I wonder how one would go about valuing evil on one's balance sheet?
I used to think that the proper term to describe a group of Evils was : "A plethora of
evils." Now I know that the proper term of venery to describe a group of Evils is: "An
incorporation of evils."
"... Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com, ..."
"... "Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." ..."
"... , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) ..."
Systemic FBI Effort To Legitimize Steele and Use His Information To Target POTUS
Newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's December FBI report reveals that senior Obama officials, including
members of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team knew the dossier compiled by a former British spy
during the 2016 election was Russian disinformation to target President Donald Trump.
Further, the partially declassified footnotes reveal that those senior intelligence
officials were aware of the disinformation when they included the dossier in the Obama
administration's Intelligence Communities Assessment (ICA).
As important, the footnotes reveal that there had been a request to validate information
collected by British spy Christopher
Steele as far back as 2015, and that there was concern among members of the FBI and
intelligence community about his reliability. Those concerns were brushed aside by members of
the Crossfire Hurricane team in their pursuit against the Trump campaign officials, according
to sources who spoke to this reporter and the footnotes.
The explosive footnotes were partially declassified and made public Wednesday, after a
lengthy review by the Director of National Intelligence Richard
Grenell's office. Grenell sent the letter Wednesday releasing the documents to Sen. Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisconsin, both who requested the
declassification.
"Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant
Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." Grenell
consulted with DOJ Attorney General William Barr on the declassification of the
documents.
Grassley and Johnson released a statement late Wednesday stating "as we can see from these
now-declassified footnotes in the IG's report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier
before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central
piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation."
"Thanks to Attorney General Barr's and Acting Director Grenell's declassification of the
footnotes, we know the FBI's justification to target an American Citizen was riddled with
significant flaws," the Senator stated. "Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team did
what neither the FBI nor Special Counsel Mueller cared to do: examine and investigate
corruption at the FBI, the sources of the Steele dossier, how it was disseminated, and
reporting that it contained Russian disinformation."
The Footnotes
A U.S. Official familiar with the investigation into the FBI told this reporter that the
footnotes "clearly show that the FBI team was or should have had been aware that the Russian
Intelligence Services was trying to influence Steele's reporting in the summer of 2016, and
that there were some preferences for Hillary; and that this RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]
sourced information being fed to Steele was designed to hurt Trump."
The official noted these new revelations also "undermines the ICA on Russian Interference
and the intent to help Trump. It undermines the FISA warrants and there should not have been a
Mueller investigation."
The footnotes also reveal a startling fact that go against Brennan's assessment that Russia
was vying for Trump, when in fact, the Russians appeared to be hopeful of a Clinton
presidency.
"The FBI received information in June, 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there
were personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's Primary Sub-source,
contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration
in June/July 2016 [redacted] and the sub source voicing strong support for candidate Clinton
in the 2016 U.S. election. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have a
Section 702 vicarage on any other Steele sub-source."
Steele's Lies
The complete four pages of the partially redacted footnotes paint a clear picture of the
alleged malfeasance committed by former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper and
former CIA Director John Brennan, who were all aware of the concerns regarding the information
supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele in the dossier. Steele, who was hired by the
private embattled research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for his work through the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee. The FBI also paid for Steele's work before ending
its confidential source relationship with him but then used Obama DOJ Official Bruce Ohr as a
go between to continue obtaining information from the former spy.
In footnote 205, for instance, payment documents show that Steele lied about not being a
Confidential Human Source.
"During his time as an FBI CHS, Steele received a total of $95,000 from the FBI," the
footnote states. "We reviewed the FBI paperwork for those payments, each of which required
Steele's Signed acknowledgement. On each document, of which there were eight, was the caption
'CHS payment' and 'CHS Payment Name.' A signature page was missing for one of the
payments."
Footnote 350
In footnote 350, Horowitz describes the questionable Russian disinformation and the FBI's
reliance on the information to target the Trump campaign as an attempt to build a narrative
that campaign officials colluded with Russia. Further, the timeline reveals that Comey, Brennan
and Clapper were aware of the disinformation by Russian intelligence when they briefed then
President-elect Trump in January, 2017 on the Steele dossier.
"[redacted] In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's
frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarchs, we identified
reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for
Russian disinformation influencing Steele' election reporting," stated the partially
declassified footnote 350. "A January 12, 2017 report relayed information from [redacted]
outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of
Michael Cohen. The [redacted] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of
Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
A second report from the same [redacted] five days later stated that a person named in the
limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the
[redacted] assessed that the person's denials were truthful. A USIC report dated February 27,
2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia
who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow
during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian
Intelligence Services) 'infiltrate[ing] a source into the network' of a [redacted] who
compiled a dossier of that individual on Trump's activities. The [redacted] noted that it had
no information indicating that the individual had special access to RIS activities or
information," according to the partially declassified footnote.
Looming Questions
Another concern regarding Steele's unusual activity is found in footnote 210, which states
"as we discuss in Chapter Six, members of the Crossfire Hurricane Team were unaware of Steele's
connections to Russian Oligarch 1."
The question remains that "Steele's unusual activity with 10 oligarch's led the FBI to seek
a validation review in 2015 but one was not started until 2017," said the U.S. Official to this
reporter. "Why not? Was Crossfire Hurricane aware of these concerns? Was the court made aware
of these concerns? Didn't the numerous notes about sub sources and sources having links or
close ties to Russian intelligence so why didn't this set off alarm bells?"
More alarming, it's clear, Supervisory Intelligence Agent Jonathan Moffa says in June 17,
that he was not aware of reports that Russian Intelligence Services was aware of Steele's
election reporting and influence efforts.
"However, he should have been given the reporting by UCIS" which the U.S. Official says,
goes back to summer 2016.
Footnote 342 makes it clear that "in late January, 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane
team received information [redacted] that RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] may have targeted
Orbis."
Noticed that in American politics, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Obama all
endorsed Joe Biden this week. Can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the
rising profile of NY state governor, Cuomo. Cuomo must have the backing of some of New York's
most powerful.
Are the New York elites jumping ship? I think about the rats deserting a sinking ship,
with Washington DC as the ship, but it seems a lot of rats are still on that ship (with
Captain Joe at the helm.) Maybe it's the deplorables among the New York upper-crust who are
deserting Good Ship Washington?
It makes me wonder what they know that I don't. And then it leads to intriguing thoughts
of what political structure could emerge from this. An aristocracy?
Of course we should be search for intelligence assets under each bed. But Bernie in retrospect does look like a second rate
preacher who was controlled or whom campaign was infiltrated by intelligence agencies having completely different agenda and pushing
him to self-destruct. His approval of Russiagate tells you everything you need to knoww about him: a sheep dog on a mission.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT be televised . ..."
"... Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys! Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won. ..."
"... Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that ..."
"... Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their own social conditioning agendas. An example of that elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. ..."
"... That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
Before the loss of momentum on Super Tuesday the mounting enthusiasm among Berniecrats was palpable. Was Gil Scott-Heron wrong,
was the revolution going to be televised?
Tulsicrats already knew the revolution would not be televised. Tulsi Gabbard took down The [Intelligence] Man 's #1 choice
to lead Amerika, and that was televised live to the world. Kamala Harris had the
full backing of the Clinton/neocon foreign policy establishment . Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but
also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT
be televised .
After seeing the revolution begin to be televised, The [Intelligence] Man went after Tulsi will all the ferocity
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine could muster by inundating America 24/7 with:
Tulsi Gabbard works for Putin, she's a nazi, a fascist, a monster and (gasp) a Republican!
The [Intelligence] Man even
got some "Berniecrats" to smear
Tulsi . To make sure the revolution will not be televised The [Intelligence] Man then deplatformed Tulsi from televised
town halls, televised debates, and televised news.
The [Intelligence] Man then saw Bernie Sanders gaining momentum over the crowded field of candidates. The [Intelligence]
Man knew from seeing Tulsi in the debates that the revolution could be televised , but, The [Intelligence] Man
also knew he couldn't deplatform a front runner like Bernie. The [Intelligence] Man 's choice moving forward was simple
and obvious to calculate. Americans needed to learn that Bernie's economic plan to help the working class -- was in reality a communist
plot.
The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine went into overdrive to tell Americans that Bernie Sanders is an incarnation
of Karl Marx, of Mao and Stalin, of Venezuelan poverty, of Cuban totalitarianism, of all things Un-American. Just because Tulsi had
shown that the revolution could be televised .
Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding
being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys!
Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won.
The revolution will not be televised . The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't know how to relate to the average middle class
American. Why did they embrace The [Intelligence] Man 's negative branding? Did they believe they could easily change the
average American's attitude towards communism and socialism because like The Blues Brothers, they're on a mission from God?
Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that.
Couldn't he see that by embracing being branded as The Socialist Savior™ it would ensure their campaign was doomed? Wasn't it obvious
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine would work 24/7 to convince Americans that Bernie Sanders is a communist
if he accepted the socialist branding? The [Intelligence] Man 's plan was simple and obvious -- repeat to people over and
over every single day that socialism=communism. That socialism=taking your money away. That socialism=making America a failed state.
That socialism=totalitarianism. The tactic to brand Bernie as a communist, as an enemy of the freedom loving American people, was
obvious to everyone in politics. Except to the people running Bernie's campaign. It seems they had no qualms with socialist branding.
The Sanders campaign embraced the socialism™ brand instead of fighting it. They embraced woke branding as well. Didn't they know
that the African American community are to a great extent devout Christians? Their vote was needed to have any chance of winning
the primary. Using a lot of political energy on promoting Identity politics may be popular with college kids and liberal elites,
but that worldview typically runs counter to the Bible based morality believed in by so many in the African American community. Devout
people don't like to be told there is something wrong with them if they believe in scriptural authority. And woke politics is nothing
if not a subjective exercise in didactic moralizing. So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their
own social conditioning agendas. An example of that
elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. Did anyone ask why she felt confidant enough
in that liberal upper-class environment to say that? She was playing to a crowd she was intimate with. She knew they had the same
type of liberal elitist views as her own. Which are a woke version of the attitude of Professor Henry Higgins towards the Eliza Doolittles
of the working class -- as in this video:
That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so
many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against
invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change
wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So the revolution will not be televised.
That let-them-eat-cake liberal upper-class attitude gets people killed. And not only in interventionist regime-change wars.
You see almost all liberal elites in America supporting harsh economic sanctions against countries who voted for the wrong type of
leader. Those leaders who nationalize natural resources instead of letting American and European corporations control them, tend
to find themselves all of a sudden being labeled dictators and drug kingpins. They find themselves all of a sudden fighting for their
lives against an opposition armed to the teeth. They see the liberal elite in America going all in for sanctions against their countries
which leaves their economies in tatters. For example, Trump's sanctions and coups against numerous leftist governments in Latin America
are supported by
the liberal elites . So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's surrogates who push their own pet social agendas in order to "educate" Americans lead people to feel like they are trying
to convert them to a religious cause. What they want is to be offered political help from a politician. Instead they often feel like
they are being asked to support a cause. That mentality doomed Liz Warren and it doomed Bernie Sanders as well. Those surrogates
may well know how to appeal to their like-minded trust fund nepotistic media gentry pals and liberal elites from Brooklyn, D.C.,
and L.A. -- but they know how to appeal to average Americans about as much as they do to Martians. Is that why Bernie lost even with
so much good will going into the primary? I don't know what went on inside their decision making process, all I can offer is what
I saw as an average person outside the campaign who wanted Bernie to succeed.
It is funny not-funny how Tulsi Gabbard always came to the aid of Bernie when The [Intelligence] Man was smearing
him. Whether it was over sexism claims or Russiagating him or anything else -- Tulsi always had his back. But Bernie was reluctant
to have anything to do with Tulsi when she was being openly deplatformed. Was it his decision or the people running his campaign
who helped to deplatform and shut down the only other true progressive and only ally in the primary? Who can say if it was their
pet causes which guided them? Or maybe it was their not wanting to jeopardize jobs after the Sanders campaign in the liberal elite
neocon dominated media/political job market? Or maybe it was something more basic. Like love for liberal elite money. Or love for
TurkishSaudiQatariPakistani money? With all those influences on the people running his campaign and on his media surrogates, who
can say if Bernie was sabotaged by them (like they did to Tulsi) or not. The revolution will not be televised.
"American collusion with kleptocracy comes at a terrible
cost for the rest of the world. All of the stolen money, all of those evaded tax dollars sunk
into Central Park penthouses and Nevada shell companies, might otherwise fund health care and
infrastructure. (A report from the anti-poverty group One has argued that 3.6 million deaths
each year can be attributed to this sort of resource siphoning.)
Thievery tramples the possibilities of workable markets and credible democracy. It fuels
suspicions that the whole idea of liberal capitalism is a hypocritical sham: While the world is
plundered, self-righteous Americans get rich off their complicity with the crooks.
The Founders were concerned that venality would become standard procedure, and it has. Long
before suspicion mounted about the loyalties of Donald Trump, large swaths of the American
elite -- lawyers, lobbyists, real-estate brokers, politicians in state capitals who enabled the
creation of shell companies -- had already proved themselves to be reliable servants of a
rapacious global plutocracy.
"Richard Palmer was right: The looting elites of the former Soviet Union were far from rogue
profiteers. They augured a kleptocratic habit that would soon become widespread.
One bitter truth about the Russia scandal is that by the time Vladimir Putin attempted to
influence the shape of our country, it was already bending in the direction of his."
Sanders supporting Biden just as his message had relevance suggests he was a "stalking horse"
from the very beginning. If the DNC replaces Biden with Governor Cuomo (New York) or Governor
Newsom (California) ... in spite of the primary elections ... it will prove beyond a doubt
that democracy in the USA is a sham. The evidence suggests that federal elections are decided
in back rooms and then posted on the Internet with storylines that fake elections.
No wonder neoliberals (a euphemism for globalists) hate Trump. He pulled a fast one on the
establishment. Hillary rolled up a few population centers ... but they forgot about the
Electoral College that abrogates "one man one vote" in Presidential elections by giving the
states in the Great Flyover more votes than the coasts. Trump "out scammed the scammers" ...
a cardinal sin in neoliberal politics. The neoliberals desperately want revenge to ensure
this never happens again.
Pindos | Apr 13 2020 18:51 utc | 5 "Sanders - a weak commie. His jew pals are embarrassed. 🤢"
You got it the wrong way round.
On the morning after Sanders withdrew from the race DMFI** president Mark
Mellman sent out an email to supporters expressing his pleasure over the result. He also took
some credit for the outcome "Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign for president. That's a
big victory -- one you helped bring about."
Mellman also reminded his associates that the victory was only a first step in making
sure that the Democratic Party platform continues to be pro-Israel, writing that "Extreme
groups aligned with Sanders, as well as some of his top surrogates -- including Congresswomen
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar -- have publicly declared an effort to make the platform
anti-Israel. As a career political professional, I will tell you that if Democrats adopt an
anti-Israel platform this year, the vocabulary, views, and votes of politicians will shift
against us dramatically. We simply can't afford to lose this battle."
**Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) . The DMFI is a registered political action
committee (PAC) that lobbies on behalf of the Jewish state. It was organized in 2019 by
Democratic Party activists to counter what was perceived to be pro-Palestinian sentiment
within the party's progressive wing.
Basically they did a "Corbyn" on a candidate who was considered a "socialist" and too
pro-Palestinian.
The following quote has been attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson by Ronald Kessler, journalist
and historian.:
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since
they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little
something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
I'll have those n**gers voting Democratic for 200 years.
Looks like Johnson was right! All it took was the Civil Rights Act to get blacks to vote
against their best interests for 56 years. So there's 144 years left before blacks realize
they sold their soul to a blue devil that's no different from the red devil and until
progressives will finally have a real democracy. Oh how I despise herd mentality.
Look, I'm not going to trash Bernie Sanders, because I know his heart, and I now see the
majority of blacks will never be with him no matter what he tried to gain their confidence,
so he was doomed whichever way you look at it.
That said, Biden is out of the question and I'll be damned if Democrats are going to win
after what they pulled on Bernie again.
Looks like Ziofascist Trump regime is set to win again.
How almost everyone dropped out after the South Carolina primary looks staged. But Sanders,
the sheepdog candidate is also a part of the play, whether he is fully aware of it.
What reason would there be for voting for a corrupt neoliberal proponent of all illegal US
wars of aggression who played a key role for mass incarceration and whose career was
bankrolled by the credit card industry and other special interests? Close to none, certainly
for people who are remotely progressive. There had been little reason for supporting a
far-right warmonger like Biden a few years ago, and with obvious signs of mental decline,
there are hardly more reasons.
But with Bernie Sanders, a center-left candidate who, in contrast to Biden, has some
semblance of personal integrity, campaigning for the corrupt warmonger, there may be the hope
that some people who do not share Biden's far right views will still vote for him. But I
think Sanders' behavior does more for undermining his own credibility than for creating the
illusion that Biden has any credibility.
So there I was wreching - Bernie endorses the babbling crook Biden... and then - well full on
barfing! Michelle O'Bomber!!??? What exactly is her skill set? other than the fact that she
is married to the manchurian O'Bomber - who bombed at least one somebody - often without even
knowing the victims name/s - Every Single Day of his Miserable Regime. Just call him Mr.
Dyncorp. Really, as William Griff observed in another thread, murkans are
completely irreparably delusional.
Sad to see that whatever political legacy Bernie Sanders leaves behind, it will be tainted by
his behaviour and decisions he made during his Presidential election campaigns in 2016 and
2020. Particularly inexplicable is how he failed to challenge the Super Tuesday results back
in March. Surely of all people, given his career background, Sanders could have disputed the
results.
Makes me wonder if Bernie was an "asset" the whole time. Certain elements make more sense
that way. I am both horrified and amused at the way progressives seem to be on board
with the sellout. Ah well, looks like I'll actually have to vote for Trump this time. Didn't
see that coming but I'll be damned if I silently consent to Biden being President.
I'll have to start building guillotines for the spike in demand come next year.
Former longtime Bernie-booster Jimmy Dore has been ripping Sanders relentlessly (and
hilariously) on his YT channel for weeks, ever since Bernie rolled over and went dead during
debate w/Biden.
Sandersites here can protest all they want that they did not expect "this", it doesn't change
the fact that Sanders was nothing but the sheepdog that gets out at every election season.
Now that all those Sanders-supporting boobies have definitively destroyed any chance of doing
anything significant in the way of third parties, it's useless to protest that they "won't
vote Biden". The useless Hopium-addicted gulls already did the wrecking job, even though they
had been warned. Both times. Good job... liberals.
re Josh | Apr 14 2020 0:44 utc | 54 who claimed "When he decided to run as a Democrat you
have to sign a contract that you will endorse the person nominated" As you conceeded it
isn't the convention yet so sanders did not have to endorse right now. That and the way it
was done - not a quiet press release, he took part in creepy joe's campaign release to make
his fawning pronouncement. Nowhere does that get stated in any 'contract'.
It is plain that if sanders isn't some sort of dungeon visiting masochist who enjoys the
humiliation, he has to be a run of the mill greedhead prepared to do say anything that will
get a cash payoff. That was probably his plan from the beginning as everything he did from
the 1st caucus to the end was all about scraping and bowing to his 'betters' no mind what
cheating and robbery was inflicted on his campaign.
A liar, a sellout who has created another generation of cynics - well done 'bernie'.
For anyone running for office in modern
America, accusations of sexual assault are par for the course. But when it comes to weighing up these accusations, the US’
mainstream paper of record applies some very uneven standards.
Take Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee. If doubts weren’t already raised by his fondness for
sniffing women,
the emergence last month of a sexual assault allegation against the former vice president could have caused a major headache for
his campaign.
Yet amid the coronavirus pandemic, and given the political leanings of most media outlets, the scandal barely registered.
The
Intercept ran a story in March on how Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, claimed that in 1993 Biden pushed her against a
wall, groped her, and penetrated her with his fingers. Reade had spoken up about the alleged incident a year earlier, but was
met with accusations that she was doing Russia’s bidding. The US media was still doing ‘Russiagate’ back then, remember?
A lot of illusions. Democratic Party is a party of neoliberal billionaires and want to remains this way. They will never
reform. They are a part of Pepsi-Cola scam -- the party duopoly in the USA.
In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on
a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable
situation right.
Notable quotes:
"... The Republican Party was already unspeakably odious before Trump waddled into the scene, but, by giving a large and growing segment of its base – its mainly male, mainly rural, mainly geezerly, poorly educated, socially dislocated and economically stressed component -- permission to give their most noxious impulses free rein, Trump has turned the Republican Party into a personality cult for him to manipulate as he sees fit. ..."
"... Meanwhile, playing on their rank opportunism and mindless disregard of values and principles, he has brought the God Squad, rightwing Christian evangelicals and their Jewish counterparts, into the Trumpian fold, along with many of the most base and shamelessly venal plutocrats and plutocrat wannabes in creation. ..."
"... Biden is a doofus who, even in his prime, could actually make the Clintons look good. That was surely one of the reasons why Barack Obama picked him to be his running mate; the future President Drone and Deporter-in-Chief, anticipating taking up where Bill Clinton left off, wanted to look good too. ..."
"... ["Kakistocracy," for those who still don't know, is an old word that has lately become timely. It means: rule of the worst, the most vile, corrupt, and incompetent.] ..."
"... One would think that mainstream Democrats would have learned something from 2016 about the wisdom of fielding a stalwart of the ancien régime , a "moderate" -- she called herself a "progressive pragmatist" – against a buffoonish, sociopathic liar, a reality TV conman, who promises "to drain the swamp." ..."
"... There is a certain irony in what Democrats are now saying about that prospect, now that, barring a miracle, Biden is the presumptive nominee. They are saying just what people were saying about Trump when his more thoughtful supporters were starting to anticipate and then to experience voters' remorse – that, however awful he may be, however much out of his depth in the Oval Office, "the adults in the room" will be there to keep him in line. ..."
"... By almost any relevant standard, Franken was a far better Senator than Biden or, for that matter, than nearly every other Democratic Senator, Gillibrand included. By almost any relevant standard, Biden, even in his prime, was a dunce. But no matter. Anything for banality's sake; anything not to field a candidate worth supporting. ..."
"... In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable situation right. ..."
"... Obama's Original Sin, and also Eric Holder's, was to let the war criminals in the upper echelon of the Bush administration off scot-free. I fear that just as Trump takes his cues from Fox News, Biden will be taking his from what Obama did a dozen years ago. ..."
"... Back then, Obama said that he wanted "to look forward," to let bygones be bygone. Because that is precisely what he did, the Bush-Cheney perpetual war regime became his own. It is still with us too, and Biden is no doubt itching to take up where his Best Friend Forever left off. ..."
"... Were that to come to pass, the countless, legally actionable crimes that Trump and his kakistocratic minions have committed, now including the depraved indifference to human life and the menace to public health that Trump has been exhibiting daily since the corvid-19 crisis broke, would go unpunished, setting an even worse precedent than the one set by Obama. ..."
Donald Trump is
a paradoxical creature. On the one hand, he resembles nothing so much as a dumbass teenage boy,
and, on the other, a barfly, long in the tooth and good for nothing but mouthing off.
This from an obese septuagenarian who doesn't drink and who, unlike Richard Nixon, his only
near rival in political depravity, is as unconflicted and intellectually shallow as they
come.
Nixon was good at many things. In politics, Trump is good at only two.
One is using corporate media to his own advantage. To be sure, Trump has Fox News and talk
radio, propaganda assets Nixon could hardly have dreamed of, in his pocket, but they were in
place, dumbing down and otherwise doing harm, long before he came onto the scene. What Trump
has managed to do is to get the ostensibly respectable cable networks, CNN and MSNBC, to offer
him their platforms for free.
This, as much as Hillary Clinton's politics and her failures as a candidate, helped him get
elected in 2016. It is helping him stay afloat now, even as the utter incompetence of his
handling of the on-going covid-19 crisis that he did so much to exacerbate becomes stunningly
clear to anyone not hellbent on denying the obvious.
CNN's and MSNBC's hatred of the Donald is as palpable as it is justified, and yet he plays
them like a fiddle.
The other thing he is good at is turning the GOP into an instrument of his will.
The Republican Party was already unspeakably odious before Trump waddled into the scene,
but, by giving a large and growing segment of its base – its mainly male, mainly rural,
mainly geezerly, poorly educated, socially dislocated and economically stressed component --
permission to give their most noxious impulses free rein, Trump has turned the Republican Party
into a personality cult for him to manipulate as he sees fit.
Meanwhile, playing on their rank opportunism and mindless disregard of values and
principles, he has brought the God Squad, rightwing Christian evangelicals and their Jewish
counterparts, into the Trumpian fold, along with many of the most base and shamelessly venal
plutocrats and plutocrat wannabes in creation.
And what does the other duopoly party offer in response? Joe Biden. Seriously.
Biden is a doofus who, even in his prime, could actually make the Clintons look good. That was surely one of the reasons why Barack Obama picked him to be his running mate; the
future President Drone and Deporter-in-Chief, anticipating taking up where Bill Clinton left
off, wanted to look good too.
Another reason was to reassure Wall Street. They had already vetted him out the wazoo, but
with serious money involved, they were still a tad worried. Team Obama therefore felt it
expedient to set their minds at ease. Biden on the ticket would seal the deal.
In those bygone days of yesteryear, Democratic Party honchos still knew what they had to do
to win elections that weren't handed to them on a silver platter. Where, then, are they now, those savvy Party grandees? And why don't their paymasters
intervene? Why are they being so stupid?
Whatever the answer, it hasn't made them too stupid to hold onto their power.
Sad to say, though, that they were still clever enough to realize that Sanders, and maybe
Elizabeth Warren as well, were everything they didn't want Obama to be. And so, aided and
abetted by CNN and MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and the whole motley
mess of "liberal" corporate media, they quashed their candidacies well.
Sadder still, after the powers that be pulled off the South Carolina and Super Tuesday
fiascos and then promptly got the other "moderates" to throw in the towel all at once, it
became clear that the old régime would win again.
All doubts about that ended when the pandemic made door to door canvassing, rallies and
nearly all the other usual forms of electoral politicking impossible. Almost overnight, the
only two candidates in the Democratic field worth taking seriously had no chance at all of
making the Democratic Party anything more than a lesser evil. The bad guys had won.
But still the question remains: why are the winners being so stupid?
Even if all they want is a colorless stooge whose only virtue is that he is not Trump, or
Pence or any of the other kakistocrats in the Trumpian fold, surely they could at least do
better than taking on the Trumpian juggernaut with a second-rate dodo leading the charge.
["Kakistocracy," for those who still don't know, is an old word that has lately become
timely. It means: rule of the worst, the most vile, corrupt, and incompetent.]
In a saner political environment, or even in the one we knew before Clinton, the Queen of
Ineptitude, blew a sure thing in 2016, Trump and his minions could be counted on to defeat
themselves.
In the actual world, the chances are good that this will still be the case. Corporate media
give Trump precious airtime, but they also display his and his administration's mind-boggling
awfulness day by day.
With the economy collapsing and the corpses piling high, and with rural America about to
feel the pain along with the urban centers, it is hard to imagine that at least some of the
lost souls in the Trump cult won't see the light and defect.
But Democrats these days are born to lose; it might as well be in their genes.
Therefore, like the Wall Street financiers in 2008 whose minds were set at ease when Obama
put Biden on the ticket, voters who get what Trump is about could still use some
reassurance.
Trump may advertise his awfulness with every breath he takes, but with our electoral
institutions being what they are, and with his base still standing by their man, the chances
that Democrats will blow it again can seem greater than trivial.
One would think that mainstream Democrats would have learned something from 2016 about the
wisdom of fielding a stalwart of the ancien régime , a "moderate" -- she called herself
a "progressive pragmatist" – against a buffoonish, sociopathic liar, a reality TV conman,
who promises "to drain the swamp."
But leave it to Democrats and Democratic voters to draw precisely the wrong lesson from that
debacle. Leave it to them to field a candidate who is even worse than Clinton this time
around.
Needless to say, better a President Biden than a President Trump; better by far. But even
befuddled moderates should be able to figure out that a Biden presidency will be a disaster in
its own right.
There is a certain irony in what Democrats are now saying about that prospect, now that,
barring a miracle, Biden is the presumptive nominee. They are saying just what people were
saying about Trump when his more thoughtful supporters were starting to anticipate and then to
experience voters' remorse – that, however awful he may be, however much out of his depth
in the Oval Office, "the adults in the room" will be there to keep him in line.
That by running Biden, they are squandering an historically unprecedent opportunity to make
basic, urgently needed, structural changes in the economy and society, and to transform the
Democratic Party, presently part of the problem, into a force for genuine progressive change,
at least to the extent that it was in the more radical phases of the New Deal and then later
before the Vietnam War undid the Great Society, doesn't seem to matter to a large segment of
the Democratic electorate – not yet, anyway.
If they have qualms, they comfort themselves by telling themselves that, unlike Trump, Biden
will appoint good people to run the show. And when that thought doesn't quite suffice, the
default position seems to be that at least he, like Obama, will be a No Drama president, which
is, they claim, just what the country now needs.
These wrong-headed but cheery bromides are not entirely without merit.
With Trump gone and Democrats eager to take over from the kakistocrats he empowered, the
national government probably will become not exactly "great again," it never was even close to
that, but at least not stunningly abominable.
And although Biden, unlike Sanders and Warren, has hardly comported himself in a way that
suggests competency or, for that matter, a fully functional mind, and although Andrew Cuomo and
other governors have far outshined him since the corvid-19 plague erupted, at least he is not a
narcissist, a sociopath, or a barely constrainable maniac.
But what's wrong with Democrats? Why don't they dump him while they still can?
Even Kirstin Gillibrand, scourge of womanizers who like Al Franken couldn't keep his hands
enough to himself, seems OK with Joe, notwithstanding the fact that he is credibly accused of
having done far worse than Franken ever did.
By almost any relevant standard, Franken was a far better Senator than Biden or, for that
matter, than nearly every other Democratic Senator, Gillibrand included. By almost any relevant
standard, Biden, even in his prime, was a dunce. But no matter. Anything for banality's sake;
anything not to field a candidate worth supporting.
And at a time when "the homeland," as we now call it, is facing a crisis the likes of which
has not been seen on these shores for more than a hundred years, how can it still be that, for
so many Democratic voters, it is practically axiomatic that only a paragon of banality can
defeat the most inept and villainous president that the United States has ever had to
endure?
The Democratic establishment is incapable of redemption. They have demonstrated time and
again that they will do anything to maintain their own power, and the power of the forces they
represent. That would be the obscenely rich; the beneficiaries of an increasingly inegalitarian
distribution of income and wealth that, regardless the intentions of a few kindly billionaires,
puts nearly everything on earth that is worth saving in mortal jeopardy.
But Trump is their enemy too. They could at least stop helping him out to the extent that
they are.
Lately, for whatever it's worth, Democratic Party honchos have been floating the idea of
running Warren for Vice President. I suspect that they are just blowing air, and I would be
surprised and more than a little disappointed in her if she would go along with that; I'd
expect her to have more integrity. But some good come of that possibility.
After all, while there is death and the twenty-fifth amendment there is hope. Not much,
though; not anyway in this "one nation under (Mike Pence's) God."
I, for one, have been waiting for nearly four years for cholesterol and a sedentary
lifestyle to relieve us of the clear and present danger we face. Now there is the corona virus
as well. But here we are. I would say, though, that were the Donald to follow the lead of his
British counterpart and soul-mate, Boris Johnson, and then go one step beyond, I might almost
start believing in that (alleged) divinity.
In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on
a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable
situation right.
It is too late now for Sanders and probably for Warren as well, even if she does become
Biden's running mate. It probably always was; the fix was in too deep. What those two wanted to
do was obviously better than any of the moderates' nostrums. But the dodos calling the shots
would not abide Democrats doing the right thing or even some pale semblance of it. Those
bastardly dodos won.
But, even if only out of self-interest, and also in order to make the demise of Trump and
Trumpism more likely than it already is, they surely ought to be able to bring themselves to
pull off something like a deus ex machina trick -- by dumping the doofus for another
"moderate," one less retrograde, less risible, and less likely to inspire potential anti-Trump
voters to stay home.
They could put Biden back out to pasture where he so plainly belongs. As Trump might say
"what have they got to lose?" Of course, when Trump says it, the answer is always "everything."
In this case, it would be "nothing at all."
But I wouldn't hold my breath. It is more likely by many orders of magnitude that we will
have a Clintonesque, Obama-inflected, déja vu all over again in our future.
But even with the Forces of Darkness running the Democratic show, the forty or fifty percent
of Democratic voters who favored Sanders or Warren still have leverage over where the
Democratic Party goes.
They could and should use it to push Biden and the Democratic Party establishment as far to
the left as they can.
They should also insist on at least two things.
The first is obviously in the interest of all Democrats, the ones who are, for whatever
reason, still wedded to the status quo. as well as those who understand the need to transform
the lesser evil party fundamentally.
That would be to defeat Republican efforts at voter suppression. It is plain as can be
– so plain that even Trump has said as much – that if the black, brown, and youth
votes are not suppressed, Republicans would have hardly any chance of electing anybody, much
less Trump himself.
Anyone paying attention to the April 7 primary election in Wisconsin, conducted at great
peril to voters in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic, could hardly fail to understand how
important this is.
Republican lawmakers in the heavily gerrymandered and therefore Republican led Wisconsin
state legislature, and so-called "conservative" but actually radical rightwing Republican
judges in the Wisconsin and then the U.S. Supreme Courts put peoples', mainly black and brown
peoples', lives at risk in order to secure the electoral victory of one Dan Kelly, a retrograde
state Supreme Court Justice whom they can count on to ease their way.
In light of that, who knows what mischief Trump and the cult around him have in store for
November. The problem is especially acute now that, thanks to the machinations of Mitch
McConnell, arguably the most malign figure in the entire Trumpian firmament, the judicial
system is so profoundly compromised.
Congressional Democrats must therefore, first and foremost, guarantee the right to vote for
everybody eligible to vote. This means, among other things, making voting by mail an option
that even troglodyte Republican judges cannot refuse to honor.
Surely, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the other party leaders can do that much.
If they have the sense they were born with, they will do everything in their power to make
the November election a referendum on Trump. If it is, Trump will surely lose.
On the other hand, if it devolves into a choice between him and Biden, Trump will only just
probably lose, the probability depending on how the corovid-19 virus is doing by then, the
state of the economy, and the extent to which the good citizens of the United States of Amnesia
keep in mind even just a tiny fraction of all the harm that the Trump presidency has done.
In any event, the less Biden is exposed to the public, the more he stays bunkered down in
Wilmington or wherever he has been hiding out, the better. The more voters see him as the only
feasible alternative to Trump, the more electable he will be. The more they reflect on his
merits, the more reason there is for concern.
The other "non-negotiable demand" should be to insist on holding Trump and his factotums
accountable. That will require riding herd over the doofus because, having attached himself to
Obama's "legacy," letting it all go has become his default position.
Obama's Original Sin, and also Eric Holder's, was to let the war criminals in the upper
echelon of the Bush administration off scot-free. I fear that just as Trump takes his cues from
Fox News, Biden will be taking his from what Obama did a dozen years ago.
Back then, Obama said that he wanted "to look forward," to let bygones be bygone. Because
that is precisely what he did, the Bush-Cheney perpetual war regime became his own. It is still
with us too, and Biden is no doubt itching to take up where his Best Friend Forever left
off.
Does anyone doubt that, left to his own devices, a President Biden would repeat Obama's and
Holden's mistake? Banality and the absence of drama are his trump card, after all; letting
bygones be bygone is his thing.
Were that to come to pass, the countless, legally actionable crimes that Trump and his
kakistocratic minions have committed, now including the depraved indifference to human life and
the menace to public health that Trump has been exhibiting daily since the corvid-19 crisis
broke, would go unpunished, setting an even worse precedent than the one set by Obama.
When that comes back to haunt us, as it surely will with Biden continuing the political line
that made Trumpism all but inevitable, it won't be pretty. With the bar now set so low, the
next demagogue in the Trumpian role is likely to be a lot smarter and more capable than Trump,
and therefore a lot more dangerous.
Surely, even the "moderates" in the House and Senate Democratic caucuses could at least
force the dodo they are inflicting upon us to pre-commit, as it were, not to stoop so low as to
give get-out-of-jail-free cards to the likes of Trump, his family and inner circle, and the
most criminal of the base and servile sycophants he has inflicted upon us.
The judgment of history is sure, but it is inevitably slow in coming, and the time for
guarantees that Trump et. al . will be held to account, just as soon as Trump vacates the
premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is now.
If a Democratic president isn't good even for that, then, when the judgment of history comes
down on the Democratic Party establishment too, as it surely will, they will have a lot more to
answer for than squandering a chance to make up for the neoliberal turn their party has been on
since the Jimmy Carter days, and for all the many other post-Watergate ways that it has been
making life better for the rich and heinous and worse for the working class.
I am probably a case in point for this article. When Trump was elected, I got a "sharing
my grief" letter from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). This was my response to his letter, posted
November 18, 2016:
Thank you, Sen. Merkley, for the reassurance and encouragement.
Although I voted a straight Democratic ticket, I had no enthusiasm for Hillary
Clinton.
I was angry that the Democratic Party has allowed itself to fall into the neo-con,
neo-liberal, globalist approach/understanding of our most important issues and gave up the
nationalism and populism that was so important to the Progressive movement. This morphing
of the Party is something I've watched with considerable dismay for many years. The powers
and influences that have taken over the Party are bringing it to ruin, and are ultimately
responsible for this mind-boggling defeat.
We are all going to have to pay a lot more attention to politics in the coming years. We
no longer have the luxury of tending to our own families and affairs, trusting that our
government is in good hands, led by people who will do the right thing and not let anything
catastrophic happen. I did not have such confidence in Hillary Clinton, by the way. From
the outset I was in favor of a Biden/Warren ticket, and hoped that Elizabeth would be our
first female President, not Hillary. But then, I grew up in Oklahoma, and believe she's a
progressive, Oklahoma populist down deep.
The news coverage of the election by NPR was abysmal, in my view. This defeat was not a
revolt of the "losers," of the declining White middle class males, and the rise of
misogyny, racism and isolationism. (Those words were not used, of course, but that
understanding appeared to me to be embedded in the analysis.)
Isn't it possible that liberal, progressive, educated Americans might be unhappy with
the way American power, prestige, money and "soft" power has been squandered, and towards
what ends? Do you think educated
Americans are in favor of paring down the Constitution, beginning with the First and
Second Amendments? Do you believe that ordinary American citizens are to be feared, are the
enemy? Do you think they are all on board with spending trillions of dollars on Middle East
wars, creating destabilized states and the refugee crisis, and letting our own
infrastructure deteriorate and
Social Security go bankrupt? Will the SS funds borrowed to fund these and other wars,
and to balance budgets, ever be repaid? Do you think Americans are so dumbed down and
cynical that they would look to the Clintons as "wholesome" examples of what is best in
America and for uncorrupted leadership? Do you think no one either heard or remembered "We
came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, ha"? Or have not heard Hillary's intent to establish a
no-fly zone in Syria, knowing full well that such an action could lead to war with Russia?
Do you think educated Americans really bought the "killing of Osama bin Laden" theater? Did
you? I admit that the tired "Osama" specter had to be laid to rest, but why not do it in an
upright and out front manner? Why all the deceit? It is this kind of deeply embedded
dishonesty and resulting corruption of justice, integrity and open political process that
has brought the Democratic Party into disrepute. Do you think people remain ignorant of the
Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play method of enriching themselves, or that the Foundation
transferred $1.8 billion to Doha? Where did all that loot come from? We are not talking
here of Bill Gates, or the CEO of Google. Where did the money come from?
I do not put you in the same camp. My first encounter with you was when you gave the
keynote speech at the first graduating class of the MET in Tigard. You have never tainted
yourself with lies and falseness. Maybe it is easier to retain your integrity being from
Oregon, since I have the same high regard for Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. You
are the exemplars of liberal, progressive values and grassroots democracy, not Hillary
Clinton.
As much as I have grown to dislike Hillary Clinton, listening to her concession speech,
I had a sense of tragedy. She seems such an intelligent, lovely woman.
It could and probably should have ended differently. Was it ambition that destroyed her,
or hubris and lack of humility? What happened to her respect for the intelligence and basic
decency of the American people? Where has simple honesty gone?
She appears to me to have taken the "left-hand path," and perhaps it is better that she
be personally ruined than allowed to take the country to ruin along with her, since that
path always ends in ruin.
I hope for the best. We will, I trust, survive a Donald Trump administration. There will
be damage, of course. Trump has to repay supporters who put their own political careers at
risk to back him. This is frightening all by itself–imagine a Sarah Palin in charge
of the Department of Energy! I fear the dismantling of all the federal regulatory agencies
that five generations of Americans have worked so hard to put in place–one of the
great achievements of the Progressive movement. Imagine BPA sold off to the highest bidder,
or our public lands bartered off to pay for the ruinous wars we have been visiting on the
Middle East!
By writing you in this frank way, I do not mean to be disrespectful. As I said, I hold
you, Rep. Blumenauer and Rep. DeFazio in high regard, and believe Oregon has the best
congressional delegation in the nation, bar none. More tThan ever, we all depend upon you
to be honest, vigilant and courageous, and prevent the worst possible outcomes from this
disaster from being realized.
"... There is a video on the Status Coup YouTube channel, that shows how misinformation can lead low information voters to the wrong candidate decision. ..."
"... technically, he wasn't lying about "cutting Social Security, Medicare and Veterans' benefits" as Bernie suggested in the debate. The video clips cited show Biden talking about "freezing" those programs, i.e., leaving them at the same level as part of a "balanced budget" proposal. ..."
"... Additionally, I'm afraid this coronavirus scare helps Biden's electability to the following extent: if an unacceptable level of fatalities occur, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, helping the Democratic challenger. Also, if there's an economic downturn because of all the business closures, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, again helping the Democratic challenger. ..."
"... In other words, the Coronavirus may do for the Dems what Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate couldn't -- knock Trump out of office and elect a Dem. ..."
"... Joe went on meet the press back when Tim did it and admitted that he wanted to cut it. But more importantly he wanted to gut Medicare. It's in the Ricci tweet if you can watch it. ..."
"... Social security has been on the chopping block during D admins since Clinton. He was ready to do it when the Monica scandal hit. Biden was involved with it then. ..."
"... We needed a fighter not a party loyalist. ..."
"... With Provigil, Methylphenidate and/or Adderall. My wife takes Provigil and Methylphenidate to help her concentrate due to the brain injury she suffered from her chemo. In the short term, 4-6 hours max, it can be very helpful to people suffering with cognitive issues. ..."
"... What I saw last night from Biden, though full of lies, was like my wife when she's medicated. Very hyper, more talkative, less confused. Joe looked very, very sped up. He even spoke much faster than I've seen him at other times. It looked nothing like what we've seen on his regular campaign stops. ..."
@longtalldrink
, it's going to get worse, and if you step back it looks like their real target is the true left itself.
"I think that Bernie Sanders is riding a tiger. And that tiger has fangs, and teeth, and they come after anybody that gets
in their way," Simmons told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an interview for this week's episode of
"The Takeout" podcast. Sanders needs to wind down his campaign "in a way that tiger doesn't turn on him or on the rest of the
party and does do real damage," Simmons explained.
Simmons also said that Sanders supporters, who are often called "Bernie Bros," need to "process their grief" about the likelihood
that Sanders probably does not have a viable path to the Democratic nomination.
"You kind of have to let that energy burn off a little bit before you end this campaign," Simmons said.
Republican political consultant Terry Sullivan, who also appeared on this week's episode of the podcast, called Sanders'
continuing campaign "pointless" and a "fool's errand."
but technically, he wasn't lying about "cutting Social Security, Medicare and Veterans' benefits" as Bernie suggested in
the debate. The video clips cited show Biden talking about "freezing" those programs, i.e., leaving them at the same level as
part of a "balanced budget" proposal.
Additionally, I'm afraid this coronavirus scare helps Biden's electability to the following extent: if an unacceptable
level of fatalities occur, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, helping the Democratic challenger. Also, if there's
an economic downturn because of all the business closures, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, again helping the
Democratic challenger.
In other words, the Coronavirus may do for the Dems what Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate couldn't -- knock Trump out of office
and elect a Dem.
I can, however, think of one way this could possibly help Bernie. In the remaining primary states, some voters (of a more conservative
nature) may elect to stay home because of concern about being in a public place and getting exposed to the virus. This group is
likely to include older voters (known to prefer Biden) and voters whose commitment to the candidate is "soft" (certainly more
true for Biden than Bernie). So, the polls forecasting Biden landslides in upcoming states may be off -- and I'd note the lack
of MSM coverage of Bernie's trouncing Biden by 2-to-1 in the Northern Mariannas caucus - the only electoral contest over the weekend.
Having said all this, sorry for all you Bernie fans out there, much as I like the guy I can't see voting for any 70+ white
guy when Tulsi is still on the ballot and still in race. I firmly believe she's the leader we need for this country, and I'd cite
as just one example the fact that she was posting warnings about this Coronavirus about two weeks before any of the other candidates
(including Trump) began giving it serious attention.
Joe went on meet the press back when Tim did it and admitted that he wanted to cut it. But more importantly he wanted to
gut Medicare. It's in the Ricci tweet if you can watch it.
Ryan Grim from the internet has an article on how many time Biden wanted to do that. And most recently was during Obama's tenure
with the cat food commission. Social security has been on the chopping block during D admins since Clinton. He was ready to
do it when the Monica scandal hit. Biden was involved with it then.
No need to apologize for voting for Tulsi or whomever else floats your boat. But the Bernie bro was not needed. It is an insult
to woman who are not you know...'bros.
but technically, he wasn't lying about "cutting Social Security, Medicare and Veterans' benefits" as Bernie suggested in
the debate. The video clips cited show Biden talking about "freezing" those programs, i.e., leaving them at the same level
as part of a "balanced budget" proposal.
Freezing wages and benefits = reduced income because the buying power of a $1 today is less than $1 tomorrow. (Except in a
massive deflationary cycle, but that goes with a Great Depression.)
Joe's ignorance on that point is only exceeded by his "balanced budget" fetish. Joseph Stiglitz made this easily comprehensible
in his book "The Roaring Nineties."
Calling it "not a cut" is eliding important context. It's the same trick, in fact, that Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives
used to try when lauding RR's tax cuts. They used to point out how tax revenues doubled over the 80s, but conveniently left out
inflation because it didn't fit the narrative. Accounting for inflation revealed that revenues decreased sharply after the cuts
and then rose at about the same rate as prior to the cuts--it took a few years to just return to pre-cut revenues. The same principle
applies here: every year a freeze is in effect under inflation is effectively a cut.
if bernie had challenged him on the lies. biden seems to lose his shit when challenged. He didn't challenge on the majority
of lies and confirmed to me he's just too nice to be president. We needed a fighter not a party loyalist.
Trump will likely win regardless of the economy and virus. His followers will storm the voting booth while many dims say
"fuck it" and stay home or vote green.
I don't vote blech no matter who.
With Provigil, Methylphenidate and/or Adderall. My wife takes Provigil and Methylphenidate to help her concentrate due
to the brain injury she suffered from her chemo. In the short term, 4-6 hours max, it can be very helpful to people suffering
with cognitive issues.
What I saw last night from Biden, though full of lies, was like my wife when she's medicated. Very hyper, more talkative,
less confused. Joe looked very, very sped up. He even spoke much faster than I've seen him at other times. It looked nothing like
what we've seen on his regular campaign stops.
@WoodsDweller
If Bernie dropped dead tomorrow, what he was trying to do would still be alive, if we carried it on. If he sucks as a candidate,
his ideas didn't.
And Bernie's message has greatly
helped revitalize what was a dormant, barely existing Left. I think in that sense he's won, although he likely won't get the two-fer.
"Bernie Sanders is Ending his Campaign for 2020, making Joe Biden essentially the
presumptive Dem. Nominee to face Trump."
Good.
I'm still a Trumper and like the way he's moving from helping the self-worshipping
"Israelis" to ambush themselves, to helping the self-worshiping Swamp to ambush itself. I
mean, how unhinged does Darth Pompeo have to be to ramble on about war-mongering and
genocidal sanctions, in the middle of a catastrophic health crisis?
There's circumstantial evidence that every POTUS since J Carter, at least, with the
possible exception of Bush 1, has been the recipient of "The Chat" from the Permanent
Bureaucracy in AmeriKKKa and imo Trump was aware of how the system works before he nominated
himself.
When Trump has finished with Biden the Dems will probably have to apologise to US Citizens
for nominating a sleazy jackass.
I never mentioned or voiced any support for Trump or Pelosi, and speaking of straw, you
probably don't even realize that your response is a textbook example of a straw man argument
which involves refuting an argument that was not actually presented. Well done.
I live in Hawaii and know what my neighbors think. I'm glad Gabbard is back here and
making a difference instead of wasting more time on the pointless theatre of the DNC. I don't
like the Biden support but name one serious candidate who fought the MIC these primaries or
got 5% of the MSM hostility that Gabbard took. That would be no one. Your disappointment is
of no concern to the people of Hawaii.
Like I've said before. I'll wait to hear about the Biden issue from the candidate herself
before breaking out the tar and feathers. Right now she's got more important things to do
that satisfying random bloggers.
I am fine with Tulsi bailing out for her community and that is precisely the most sincere
thing to do. I applaud that move.
Endorsing Biden at any time? NO WAY> that man is a republican in drag, a scumbag in a
suit, a thief in in a cassock,a creep in the vestry, a carpetbagger backing fascist Ukraine
and stealing from their people. He and his decrepit son stole the USA and IMF loans and left
the Ukrainian people to pay them off. She endorsed that shit.
Silence would have been the appropriate action and tactically correct until after the
Convention if she was politically intent to await the process between the B and the B.
President Trump on Friday fired the intelligence community inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, who brought a hearsay whistleblower complaint to Congressional Democrats, kicking off
President Trump's impeachment.
Atkinson's closed-door testimony was so troubling to House Republicans that they launched an
investigation into his role into what President Trump and his allies coined the 'impeachment
hoax.'
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-CA) told
SarahCarter.com that transcripts of Atkinson's secret testimony would expose that
he either lied or needs to make corrections to his statements to lawmakers.
Trump notified the Senate and House Intelligence Committees of his decision to fire
Atkinson, according to
Politico , citing two congressional officials and a copy of a letter
dated April 3.
"This is to advise that I am exercising my power as president to remove from office the
inspector general of the intelligence community, effective 30 days from today," wrote Trump,
who added that he "no longer" has the fullest confidence in Atkinson.
"As is the case with regard to other positions where I, as president, have the power of
appointment, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is vital that I have the
fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Trump wrote. "That is no
longer the case with regard to this inspector general."
Trump knocked Atkinson on January, noting that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam
Schiff's (D-CA) decision to withhold Atkinson's testimony was a "major problem."
....the Ukraine Hoax that became the Impeachment Scam. Must get the ICIG answers by Friday
because this is the guy who lit the fuse. So if he wants to clear his name, prove that his
office is indeed incompetent." @DevinNunes @MariaBartiromo @FoxNews
The ICIG never wanted proof!
Democrats had a fit at the news, with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark
Warner (D-VA) calling Atkinson's firing "unconscionable" while accusing Trump (with a straight
face?) of an ongoing effort to politicize intelligence.
"In the midst of a national emergency, it is unconscionable that the president is once again
attempting to undermine the integrity of the intelligence community by firing yet another
intelligence official simply for doing his job," wrote Warner in a statement.
Warner's House counterpart, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) called
Atkinson's firing "retribution" in the "dead of night" - adding that it's "yet another blatant
attempt by the president to gut the independence of the intelligence community and retaliate
against those who dare to expose presidential wrongdoing."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck 'six ways from Sunday' Schumer (D-NY) said Atkinson's firing
was evidence that Trump "fires people for telling the truth," according to Politico .
Whistleblower lawyer and
Disneyland aficionado Mark Zaid - who once bragged about getting
security clearances for pedophiles , called the firing "delayed retaliatory action" for
Atkinson's "proper handling of a whistleblower complaint."
"This action is disgraceful and undermines the integrity of the whistleblower system," said
Zaid. "It is time GOP members of the Senate stand up for the rule of law and speak out against
this president."
The whistleblower complaint effectively kicked off the House's impeachment inquiry, which
began in late September amid allegations that Trump had solicited foreign interference in the
2020 election when he asked Ukraine's president to investigate his political opponents,
including Joe Biden.
Atkinson opposed the decision by then-acting director of national intelligence Joseph
Maguire to withhold the whistleblower complaint from the House and Senate intelligence
committees -- in particular, Maguire's decision to seek guidance on the issue from the
Justice Department, rather than turn it over to Congress as required by law. -
Politico
To learn more about Atkinson, read
here and
here .
"... And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something. THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for Clinton. ..."
"... One of my far left Bernie buddies said something interesting ..."
"... . "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy establishment." ..."
You just Freudianly said something interesting. As a former Democrat, I am proud of NEVER have
voted for anyone named "Bush". The entire family is as crooked as it gets. The entire
anti-Trump, never Trumping RINOs are led by the Bushes and their crooked apologists, like Bill
"I love me some Bush Oil Wars" Kristol.
How much did the Bush family throw at Jebby, in hopes he get the nomination in 2016? I think
it was $150m in Iowa alone?
And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something.
THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for
Clinton.
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between the ENTIRE Democratic party and RUNOS - because they are
the same crooked, corrupt and terrible people. Same scam artists. Same criminals.
Thanks for pointing it out. One of my far left Bernie buddies said something
interesting. "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved
Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love
the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups
of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy
establishment."
There are many previously existing problems with the Trump presidency and with Trump himself.
As a bioscientist with an advanced degree I'm particularly troubled with his seeming
purposeful deceit or perhaps even idiocy about how to address this pandemic. I have my doubts
about his suitability for this monumental task.
That said, I'll certainly be voting for Trump in the upcoming election if Biden is his
opponent. Biden's an obvious mental midget suffering from all those impairments that
accompany old age.
And, I believe that, if he's elected, the Democrats are quite capable of conducting what
may very well qualify as a coup in that they will allow him to decay to the point that he'll
resign and they can bring in from the Vice Presidency the candidate they'd really have
preferred, certainly to include HRC.
Again, that said, I'm wary of Trump's seemingly scientifically irrational approach to the
public health issues that will be essential to defeat this pandemic. I think that at least
hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of Americans will be at risk because of his
risky behavior.
No scientist like myself would favor or even consider the plight of the markets compared
to the plight of the people. I guess that's because I was trained to care for people, even
those with meager means, more so than to cow-tow to the rich.
@Longfisher Age is a factor in mental capacity for some, not all. Be careful
generalizing. I just taught myself a new computer language at 85. It was harder than
expected. Not impossible. We are not on rubbish tip of humanity yet.
Currently Biden is holding the front position with 1,217 delegates, while Senator Sanders has
914 delegates
The comedian argued that Biden "can barely remember what he's talking about while he's
talking".
"You have to be able call out shit that's wrong on your side. And this is one of the
problems that the Democratic Party is having right now with this Joe Biden guy. You guys got to be able to call it out. You can't let this slide, because everybody
else sees it and Trump is going to eat him alive. He's going to eat that guy alive".
Notable quotes:
"... "It's like they got the formaldehyde in him already" I literally laughed coffee out my nose ..."
Will Sanders supporters vote for Biden? I think the answer is NO.
Notable quotes:
"... His campaign is awash in cash from the interests that Sanders is challenging as the very source of the blockage to progress. Are we going to get a re-treading of the policies that helped vault Trump to the White House in 2016? ..."
"... The Black vote saved his campaign in South Carolina and strengthened his Super Tuesday and subsequent performances. ..."
"... The new Democratic party that has over the past forty years or so become more like the Republican party has done little for Blacks. So how do we explain the apparent love affair they have for the Democratic party establishment? They went for Hilary at this same juncture in 2016, neutralizing Sanders' momentum and effectively ending his run. ..."
"... It's the power of the Black leaders to represent their constituents in ways that counter their core concerns ..."
"... Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the recent primary, made his denouncement of Medicare for All and especially the Sanders progressive agenda quite clear in this support. This is no great surprise since between 2008 and 2018 he took more than $1 million from the pharmaceutical industry ("Mystique of the 'Black Vote'," Common Dreams ..."
"... Of course, the culture of these Southern states, mostly Republican, has been dominated by the Wall Street neoliberal consensus ever since the Democrats lost their hold on the region. ..."
"... Sanders' progressive restructuring has been rejected for policies that mesh with the neoliberal consensus, like the racial programs for the educated and upwardly mobile that stress entrepreneurship and business development. ..."
"... These brokers' support of the neoliberal consensus has been secured through framing the larger issue as the preservation of rights. Mara Gay explains James Clyburn's strong support of Biden as someone he knows personally who will fight for the basic rights that are eroding under a Trump administration that has brought back the "same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow." ..."
"... For Chris Hedges the power elite is always eager to keep discussions within the confines of special discourses like race, gender, religion, immigration, gun control, freedom, etc., because these issues are "used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel virulent hatreds and antagonisms," and they divert attention from class, the concept they fear the most ("Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget," Truthdig ..."
"... The opinion-shaping machine is strong enough to encourage Blacks to overwhelmingly support Biden who pushes virtually nothing related to class or structural change. ..."
"... It's about strategy and pragmatism. He believes Biden can win, and Sanders can't, and this is all important given the dire situation in the Black community. ..."
"... The rift would seem too wide to bridge. Trusting elites to change the system from the top down, persuading members of their power bloc to do the right thing, is a gamble given all the betrayals from the Democratic party over the past few generations. ..."
Wall Street broke out its checkbooks for
Joe Biden in the wake of Super Tuesday, no surprise since his campaign is already its major
recipient. Plus, he was the VP for an administration greatly indebted to it. Transparency.
His campaign is awash in cash from the interests that Sanders is challenging as the very
source of the blockage to progress. Are we going to get a re-treading of the policies that
helped vault Trump to the White House in 2016?
Biden is the last moderate standing, having positioned himself clearly against the Sanders
"revolution" in the debates, though it's difficult to conjure a theme or concept that shapes
his campaign besides beating Trump, the perception he can giving him an edge. We can thank the
Democratic party establishment for pressuring the other moderates out of the race to prop Biden
up (Matthew Stevenson, "The Super Tuesday Sting," 3/6/20, CounterPunch ).
But race played a curious role. The Black vote saved his campaign in South Carolina and
strengthened his Super Tuesday and subsequent performances. He trumpeted his record on
race in the debates which Kamala Harris -- who has now endorsed him -- exposed as checkered at
best. Though avoiding any direct discussion of Obama's policies, he has at least been
mentioning him more often. This surely gave him a bump as well since the former president is
still popular among Blacks. Though selective amnesia likely rules here since the Congressional
Black Caucus separated itself from him early in his administration. The new Democratic
party that has over the past forty years or so become more like the Republican party has done
little for Blacks. So how do we explain the apparent love affair they have for the Democratic
party establishment? They went for Hilary at this same juncture in 2016, neutralizing Sanders'
momentum and effectively ending his run.
Black voters make up 56% of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina and Biden got an
estimated 61-64% of it. Sanders received 17%. These proportions generally hold nationally
through the latest series of primaries. But Blacks have the largest support of any group for
the signature progressive issue endorsed by Sanders, single payer health insurance. The
national percentage is 74%. Since it's hard to believe such deep-seeded beliefs could be
countered, what intervened? The all-out media assault from sundry front groups doing the
bidding of the private insurance industry to dissuade voters from choosing any candidate
spouting Medicare For All was surely influential but hardly determining.
It's the power of the Black leaders to represent their constituents in ways that counter
their core concerns , like their decreasing standard of living and their increasing
economic insecurity, according to Adolph Reed Jr. and Willie Legette. In the run-up to the 2016
South Carolina primary, for example, Congressmen James Clyburn (D-SC), John Lewis (D-GA), and
Cedric Richmond (D-LA) denounced calls for free public higher education as "irresponsible"
because "there are no free lunches." Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the recent primary,
made his denouncement of Medicare for All and especially the Sanders progressive agenda quite
clear in this support. This is no great surprise since between 2008 and 2018 he took more than
$1 million from the pharmaceutical industry ("Mystique of the 'Black Vote'," Common
Dreams , 3/7/20).
Of course, the culture of these Southern states, mostly Republican, has been dominated
by the Wall Street neoliberal consensus ever since the Democrats lost their hold on the
region. The expectation has been that the post-Civil Rights semblance of movements would
coalesce around a resistance to this bloc, but the Black brokers and opinion shapers have
mostly relished their roles in the dominant power structure. Since 2016, according to Reed and
Legette, it has converged around a narrative that Sanders has difficulty appealing to Black
voters, even as polls have shown repeatedly that his program is more popular among Black
Americans than any other group. It has graded Sanders down for his critique of Obama and
especially for mounting a primary challenge against him. Sanders' progressive restructuring
has been rejected for policies that mesh with the neoliberal consensus, like the racial
programs for the educated and upwardly mobile that stress entrepreneurship and business
development. Its main objective is to "undermine Black Americans' participation in a broad
movement for social transformation along economically egalitarian lines. "
These brokers' support of the neoliberal consensus has been secured through framing the
larger issue as the preservation of rights. Mara Gay explains James Clyburn's strong support of
Biden as someone he knows personally who will fight for the basic rights that are eroding under
a Trump administration that has brought back the "same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism
that marked life under Jim Crow." She finds that voters concur, believing that Biden will
fight for those rights since, as one representative interviewee claims, he was "with Obama all
those years." The clincher is that he is also the best bet to beat Trump. They're "deeply
skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr. Trump" ("Why Southern
Democrats Saved Biden," New York Times , 3/6/20).
Is this an elite-fed discourse that stuck, or possibly some toxic populism like what
circulates among Trump supporters? An investment in the good ole days when the Civil Rights
Movement was ascendant is a worthy sentiment for sure. Where would racial relations be without
the historic transformation that produced the pivotal "rights" legislation in the 1960s? And
many who passed through those moments might have a romantic attraction to Biden's image even
though his support of Blacks before Obama hitched him was feeble.
But consider what's happened since. The turn to the right in the 1970s brought on a mild
"Reconstruction"-era backlash whose signal legal event was the Bakke case in 1977 which
weakened Affirmative Action and banned quotas that were now deemed proof of "reverse
discrimination." The down-turning economy during this decade was the start of a structural
change that revealed the widening wealth and income gap between the lower and upper classes,
and Blacks were hit disproportionately hard. The rights legislation that helped to narrow the
gap in the prior decade offered less protection.
The Reagan administration attempted to turn the clock back to the pre-Civil Rights era and
partially succeeded in wiping away the gains Blacks had made. Toward the end of the decade
protections, especially Affirmative Action, were further weakened legally, and culturally as
"reverse discrimination" claims from intellectuals like Charles Murray and others compounded,
supporting the rollback of social policy initiatives. These sympathies were also evident in
Black communities where leaders pondered how to do the right thing and reverse the loss of
ground. Many began to view Affirmative Action, for example, as a fetter, a burden that tainted
performance by suggesting it was undeserved. The 1990s went far in dismantling all regulatory
regimes, discrediting social policy initiatives, heeding the suggestions of Murray and passing
the burden of improvement onto responsible individuals. The 1996 welfare "reform" law
crystalized these changes, reversing AFDC and its underlying concept, no-fault entitlement, and
the impact on Blacks was devastating. The Clintons were staunch advocates but somehow this
association didn't erode Hilary's huge support in the Black community in 2016. Any gains for
those who got the point and took personal responsibility after this change and tried to work
the market to their advantage were wiped out by the effects of the 2008 Great Recession. As
recent studies show, this event severely impacted Blacks, deflating their capital assets --
mainly property values through the housing market crash -- to a level not seen for many since
the pre-Movement years, widening the wealth gap with whites.
Mara Gay claims that "despite enormous progress," referring to South Carolina, "poverty in
this still largely rural region, for Southerners of every race, remains crushing." Enormous
progress for what strata of society? Is every race being crushed equally? Progress and regress
exist here in a kind of murky relationship. Who are the winners? If there is only a
generalized, abstract poverty, then perhaps Blacks just see themselves as part of one big
unfortunate swatch of misery and there's no need for a special candidate to articulate their
issues. Biden will do just fine!
Do the Blacks who voted for Biden really believe that rights, and possibly a stronger
Affirmative Action, will get them better jobs and health care and education and housing, what
polls say they want? The Supreme Court certainly weakened provisions of the rights legislation,
ironically during the Obama years, and that needs to be redressed. But rights for individuals
or a group need to be expressed with the potential of producing results. They could be in the
1960s when the kind of liberal Democrats Sanders espouses controlled Congress and our society
was an ascendant, center-left one, mostly sympathetic with improving the plight of the
underprivileged. Now structural change needs to accompany the expression of rights and
compensate for this loss of sympathy in a society that is much more unequal generally, and
especially within racial and ethnic groups.
A romantic attachment to the legacy and concept of civil rights in a vacuum allows the
discourse of identity politics to capture the critical energy of race. The times demand the
opposite, the link between rights and social justice; the gathering of all identities,
affiliations, and dispositions together to discuss the common structure that can overcome
division and artificial barriers. Class is such a structure. The delink of rights and social
justice converts to the denial of the realities of class.
For Chris Hedges the power elite is always eager to keep discussions within the confines
of special discourses like race, gender, religion, immigration, gun control, freedom, etc.,
because these issues are "used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel
virulent hatreds and antagonisms," and they divert attention from class, the concept they fear
the most ("Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget," Truthdig ,
3/3/20).
There's a striking inequality gap within the Black community that's been widening for some
time, as William Julius Wilson's research has amply documented for nearly half a century. The
failure of rights activism has left many in the lower and working classes behind as the
educated professional class has separated itself from them and achieved significant success.
It's interesting that nearly 9% of Blacks voted for Trump in 2016. Why have so few of the Black
masses been absorbed a half century after Martin Luther King's death? The inclusion of more
from the lower strata will need to break down the not-very-visible structural barriers to
mobility that divide and exclude. Something like the pro-active re-structuring pushed by the
Rainbow Coalition, Jesse Jackson's multi-racial, structural response to the widening of the
inequality gap in his 1980s run for the presidency, which was clearly the revival of MLK's late
expression of the link between race and class. The distance between King's social justice
vision and activism and the rights-rhetoric infused activity of today is remarkable. It's
interesting that Jackson recently endorsed Sanders.
The opinion-shaping machine is strong enough to encourage Blacks to overwhelmingly
support Biden who pushes virtually nothing related to class or structural change. Further
evidence of this strength came recently in an interchange between Michael Eric Dyson, a
persistent critic of the Obama legacy, and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a staunch Sanders supporter
(DemocracyNow. 3/16/20). Dyson has endorsed Biden, a surprise to many progressives given his
critical history of mainstream liberalism. His reasoning is curious.
It's not that he feels Biden is or has become a progressive. It's about strategy and
pragmatism. He believes Biden can win, and Sanders can't, and this is all important given the
dire situation in the Black community. There's a hint it seems that Biden could be in the
early stages of conversion to progressive ideas, or at least perhaps is a latently aggressive
liberal and spirited supporter of the Black cause who can make change if elected because he --
and the Democratic Party? -- have been pushed to the left by the Sanders "revolution" begun in
2016. Biden has the best "methodology" and will be able to "deploy" it.
A staunch advocate of structural change, Dyson now seems to be saying that it can be
accomplished through Biden who will have the authority and desire to marshal the necessary
forces and interests together to build alliances, forge a consensus. It's true that Biden's
public relations gestures -- considered separate from his debate focus -- have passed the
desire test. He's come out liberal and even progressive-sounding on most issues, pushed there
perhaps by Sanders' momentum as Dyson suggests ("Joe Biden's Positions on the Issues,"
Politico , 3/5/20).
But what will he forge a consensus about? In the process of marshaling forces together will
he become a converted progressive, pumped up by his successes as an alliance builder? Will he
support Medicare for All from having witnessed the effects of our health care system straining
under pressure from the coronavirus? Will he be able to convince Sanders' supporters to come
along and bide their time as this -- utopian -- process evolves?
The rift would seem too wide to bridge. Trusting elites to change the system from the
top down, persuading members of their power bloc to do the right thing, is a gamble given all
the betrayals from the Democratic party over the past few generations.
... ... ...
John O'Kane teaches writing at Chapman University. His next book, From Hyperion to
Erebus, is due out this year from Wapshott Press.
"... It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did ..."
"... Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East. Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States. ..."
"... Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy. ..."
"... Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president. ..."
Now that the
Democratic Party has apparently succeeded in getting rid of the only two voices among its
presidential candidates that actually deviated from the establishment consensus, it appears
that Joe Biden will be running against Donald Trump in November. To be sure, Bernie Sanders and
Tulsi Gabbard are still hanging on, but the fix was in and the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) made sure that Sanders would be given the death blow on Super Tuesday while Gabbard would
be blocked from participating in any of the late term debates.
It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete
Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an
intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering
the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and
throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did. Rumor has it that Klobuchar might well
wind up as Biden's vice president. An alternative tale is that it was a much more threatening
"offer that couldn't be refused" coming from the Clintons.
... ... ...
Both Trump and Biden might reasonably described as Zionists, Trump by virtue of the
made-in-Israel foreign policy positions he has delivered on since his election, and Biden by
word and deed during his entire time in politics. When Biden encountered Sarah Palin in 2008 in
the vice-presidential debate, he and Palin sought to outdo each other in enthusing over how
much they love the Jewish state. Biden has said that "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a
Jew to be a Zionist" and also, ridiculously, "Were there not an Israel, the U.S. would have to
invent one. We will never abandon Israel -- out of our own self-interest. [It] is the best $3
billion investment we make." Biden has been a regular feature speaker at the annual AIPAC
summit in Washington.
Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as
surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is
criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being
said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a
consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East.
Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States.
Trump similarly reversed himself on withdrawing from Syria when he ran into criticism of the
move and his plan to extricate the United States from Afghanistan, if it develops at all, could
easily be subjected to similar revision. Trump is not really the man who as a candidate
indicated that he was seriously looking for a way out of America's endless and pointless wars,
no matter what his supporters continue to assert.
Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate
Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack
Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to
create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that
had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was
suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until
after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy.
Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which
include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he
actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is
clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the
establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president.
And Biden's foreign policy reminiscences are is subject to what appear to be memory losses
or inability to articulate, illustrated by a whole series of faux pas during the campaign. He
has a number of times told a tale of his heroism in Afghanistan that is
complete fiction , similar to Hillary Clinton's lying claims of courage under fire in
Bosnia.
So, we have a president in place who takes foreign policy personally in that his first
thoughts are "how does it make me look?" and a prospective challenger who appears to be
suffering from initial stages of dementia and who has always been relied upon to support the
establishment line, whatever it might be. Though Trump is the more dangerous of the two as he
is both unpredictable and irrational, the likelihood is that Biden will be guided by the
Clintons and Obamas. To put it another way, no matter who is president the likelihood that the
United States will change direction to get away from its interventionism and bullying on a
global scale is virtually nonexistent. At least until the money runs out. Or to express it as a
friend of mine does, "No matter who is elected we Americans wind up getting John McCain."
Goodnight America!
Philip Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. A former
CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and
the Middle East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with honors from the University of
Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London. "
Source "
Not surprising. They only want the kickbacks not any actual work. Here's a good lesson for
that squad - now they can witness how the dimwits work for the people! Tlaib is stepping up.
Who will be next? Anyone? Anyone?
should just spend every minute of his time saying "where was Joe hiding during the pandemic?
How are you going to lead a country by hiding during an emergency, Joe?".
Trump should just spend every minute of his time saying "where was Joe hiding during the pandemic? How are you going to lead
a country by hiding during an emergency, Joe?"
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
I'm reminded that fiction at times is more powerful than truth. Most here are old enough to
remember when They Shoot Horses,
Don't They hit the movie theaters in December 1969, although they may not recall the
tale told. Quite a lot of what's current reminds me of that film.
I can't recall who made the comment equivocating US citizens to salespeople on these
threads, but it did spark the thought that it has quite a lot of truth evoked from memories
of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman . And now
with movie and stage theatres, concert halls and music dives of all types closed, the
public's options for entertainment and education via that realm while more diverse than ever
are also poorer than ever before, with little enlightened guidance offered by adults. But
then how many families have a copy of The Naked and the Dead
where they can gather around dad as narrator to experience a great literary work. I see
families as too atomized nowadays, incapable of even coming together during a crisis, mired
in their phones.
Is that enough to explain Biden's ascendency over Sanders--the utter ignorance of the
forces behind the current crisis and their ongoing inhumanity. I read today that Biden
represents the Status Quo, and asked myself: Who in their right mind wants a continuation of
what's clearly deplorable and disgusting, debilitating and mind-numbing? IMO, the US
polity has a Death Wish. I'm reminded of accounts of how the Brits felt at WW2's
end--relieved that the war was over but having great trepidation over the future as most were
aware their days as an Imperial Master were at an end. Perhaps that's why Biden and Trump are
being subconsciously chosen for the role of Robert in Horses so they can be put out of
their misery.
The fundamental question IMO is why did Biden garner any support to begin with given he
abetted all of Obama's crimes and Bush's before him. And Status Quo candidate?! Did you get
the tie-in I attempted between the politics and the movie? Actually, the aim of the comment
was to show that truths often appear in fiction and become better teachers than reality. I
expanded it some prior to publishing it at my VK space. It took most of my life to discover
why my mom preferred literary works to the reality surrounding her. IMO, that would likely be
true for millions if they actually took the time to read.
"... This is a transformational moment in history that will allow American politics to socialize and turn away resolutely from the anti-government stupidity represented by Trump and all the anti-New Deal elements among the elite predators that have dominated politically since Reagan. It is a mistake to chose Biden, chief author of the Patriot Act, business-as-usual candidate, corporate lackey, weasel. ..."
This is a transformational moment in history that will allow American politics to socialize
and turn away resolutely from the anti-government stupidity represented by Trump and all the
anti-New Deal elements among the elite predators that have dominated politically since
Reagan. It is a mistake to chose Biden, chief author of the Patriot Act, business-as-usual
candidate, corporate lackey, weasel.
Bernie is the only rational choice, but the American
people are not rational, and do not yet understand the urgency of a radical left turn. Much
suffering will be the result and a radical right turn could occur, although disenchantment
with the blithering idiocy of Donald Trump has already deprived him of any chance of
re-election. The virus is going to take him down before profound political embarrassment.
He's a dead man walking.This may be true of Bernie & Biden as well, but I say this
without prejudice.
The Chinese clearly knew the character of this virus before it became apparent to the
world. They did not react so swiftly or dramatically to earlier outbreaks like SARS, swine
flu, avian flu and etc. They had prior knowledge of the potential of nCov2019. The US did
not.
Why do we have a National Security Council or a Department of Homeland Security if they
cannot read the writing on the wall? It was an accidental release of a weaponized virus. The
US should have taken a cue and reacted with similar conviction shown by the CCP. But we have
no leadership worth a shit.
Our representative republic has suffered an embarrassment in this failure to protect the
people while a so-called national enemy, a communist dictatorship, has demonstrated more
effective leadership and greater capability to protect its people. This is more than an
embarrassment. It is an indictment of our political system.
It is time to turn sharply left to social democracy.
| | Interviews Scott
interviews Branko Marcetic about his new book, Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe
Biden , which explores the arc of Biden's decades-long political career. Marcetic explains
that Biden has never really had serious ideological commitments, and instead has simply wanted
power and prestige since he was a kid. This has led to a life of switching positions on major
issues when he perceived that it would be to his benefit, as he has done on the wars in the
Middle East, the drug wars at home, welfare-state economic policies, and "humanitarian"
interventions abroad. All of this, Marcetic asserts, makes Biden the wrong candidate for
today's Democratic party. He has already faced some scrutiny from his more progressive
colleagues, but Scott and Marcetic know this will only intensify if he has to face President
Trump in the general election.
Discussed on the show:
Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden (
Amazon )
You end up with Joe Biden, running on three things: 1) he's not Trump; 2) maybe he'll die in
office and his VP will take over early in his term; and 3) Joe's cognitive decline appears
slightly less severe than Trump's. Not exactly "Hope and Change."
Biden candidacy also means sweeping three years of Democratic messaging under the bed. The
list of once-familiar subjects Joe won't be able to talk about is a long one. Russiagate
imploded on its own.
Impeachment centered on Hunter Biden and ain't nobody on the Democratic side gonna bring
that up.
President Bone Spurs? Biden received
five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, same as Trump. In 1968, when his
student status was wrapping up, Biden was medically reclassified as "not available" due to
asthma. Yet in his autobiography , he
describes an active youth
as a lifeguard and high school football player. He also lied about being on
the University of Delaware football team.
Trump's naughty finances? After leaving the Obama White House, Joe and his wife made more
than $15 million ,
mostly via sweetheart
book deals. They made nearly
twice as much in 2017 as they did in the previous 19 years combined. The University of
Pennsylvania gave Joe
$775,000 to teach, and then was nice enough to grant him indefinite leave of absence from
actually teaching. Biden charged the Secret Service
$2,200 a month in rent for a cottage on his property so they could protect him. Since
leaving office, he's made
$2.4 million on speaking engagements, including
$10,000 for travel expenses to the University of Buffalo. A speech at Southwestern Michigan
in October 2018 included
$50,000 in travel expenses.
Taxes? After failing to close the loophole with Obama, Joe left office to create his own S
Corporation. As a result, he receives money for things like book advances and speaking fees not
directly, which would cause him to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as with salaries, but
laundered as divestitures from a corporation he owns. As corporate money, nasty personal
taxes are fully avoided, and the corporation can claim nearly unlimited "business expenses" to
be deducted against those profits. Joe's S Corp also donated his own money
back to his PAC. Legal laundering.
... Biden represents to many Democratic voters that they will never see health care reform
again in their lifetime (his comeback drove a
$48 billion gain for health insurance stock; they know.) They also won't see a woman
president for who knows how many years. Income inequality will remain the salient
characteristic of our society. To win, the 77-year-old Biden will have to break the record for
oldest man sworn in as president (Trump holds the title now).
In 2016, Democrats nominated Hillary who was under criminal investigation. Now they're
looking to nominate Joe Biden, who's under criminal investigation in Ukraine. I guess
they're making a tradition of it.
In 2016, the DNC* nominated Hillary who was under criminal investigation by rigging their
own primaries so rank-and-file Democratic primary voters never really had a choice (which
DNC successfully argued in court is entirely their right to do as a private organization,
defrauding their own voters with rigged primaries is their legal prerogative, a right which
they proudly reserve). Amazing Democrats did not learn even after their shocking loss with
Hillary to Trump in 2016, they want the "safe" establishment choice who is "electable", the
same logic that led Republicans to nominate Presidents Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt
Romney...
Yesterday's Man exposes the forgotten history of Joe Biden, one of the United
States's longest-serving politicians, and one of its least scrutinized.
Over nearly fifty years in politics, the man called "Middle-Class Joe" served as a key
architect of the Democratic Party's rightward turn, ushering in the end of the liberal New Deal
order and enabling the political takeover of the radical right.
Far from being a liberal stalwart, Biden often outdid even Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush,
assisting the right-wing war against the working class, and ultimately paving the way for
Trump.
The most comprehensive political biography of someone who has tried for decades to be
president, Yesterday's Man is an essential read for anyone interested in knowing the
real Joe Biden and what he might do in office.
Essentially Dems "royalty" (few regular voters vote in primaries; mostly those are party
activists) voted for the Obama-style neoliberal status quo.
Sanders was hampered by his support of open borders policies and his cozy attitude to the
establishment democrats to the extent that he really sounded again like a sheep dog (Biden is my
friend; which such friends who needs an enemy)
As we approach the middle of March 2020 with Super Tuesday behind
us, the moderate candidacy of Joe Biden has gained momentum, notching ten victories. The recent
spat of moderate candidates dropping out (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Steyer) alongside
Elizabeth Warren's decision to stay in for Super Tuesday (and dropping out right after) boosted
Biden into the lead in delegate count, but it is unclear going forward whether he will be able
to gain ground or maintain his advantage.
His campaign is essentially a redux of Hillary Clinton's in 2016, a dystopian offering of
neoliberal establishment ideas: essentially the most harmful, bland, out-of-touch, uninspiring,
and ignorant set of centrist policies. Biden offers nothing new, substantial, or exciting; and
he himself stated to donors last year that "nothing would fundamentally change" under his
presidency. By continuing to go with "moderate", centrist agendas, the Democratic Party
establishment, corporate America, and mainstream media reveal they would rather lose to Trump
than get behind the progressive choice, Bernie Sanders.
Support for Bernie Sanders is strong across all national polling, yet in past debates, his
moderate rivals continued to shoot themselves in the foot by offering up the most ridiculous
arguments against progressive causes. Regardless of his success, Biden has learned nothing and
absorbed no lessons from his fellow moderates' failures or the excitement and promise offered
by the progressive wing of his party. He is a living fossil. Like his corporate-backed
counterpart moderates, his whole shtick is based on presenting himself as the lesser of two
evils, offering the most milquetoast set of policies, and attempting to make voters fearful of
Sanders' incremental reforms by casting them as socialist and authoritarian.
By representing Sanders' social democratic policies as "dangerous" as well as his supporters
as being rude on social media because they actually care and are passionate about changing the
direction of this country, the centrist hydra of campaign rhetoric and establishment media
devolved into offering an infantile, McCarthyite debating style.
Much like the centrist triad of Biden, Buttigieg (who suspended his campaign March 1st), and
Klobuchar (also suspended March 2nd), who are equal parts sell-outs, windbags, and sycophantic
brown-nosers to the ruling class, the professional class choice, technocrat, pseudo-progressive
Elizabeth Warren as well as what I'd call the "Silicon Valley candidate" Andrew Yang also
represent the epitome of "big-brained centrist" thought.
Basically, this term represents the attitude of mainstream liberal as well as conservative
candidates, commentators, and their supporters who believe they truly understand the world
better than anyone else due to what they consider their meritocratic success, and use all sorts
of neoliberal fallacies, deliver paeans to pragmatism and bipartisanship, mock social
democratic reforms with calls to be "reasonable", and generally act as puppets of corporate and
imperial power. Of course, it should be obvious that those who harp on achieving "realistic
goals" are those that view anything involving a transformation of society involving
redistribution of wealth from the rich to the working classes as prima facie
unrealistic.
As for Steyer and Bloomberg, they too fall prey to neoliberal notions of rugged
individualism; i.e., that their economic success is due to their own "hard work", and were so
completely out of touch that they cannot realize the electorate is not prepared to substitute
one billionaire for another, no matter what party they represent, or what good they claim
they've been able to accomplish in their philanthropic endeavors.
All of the candidates, except for Bernie Sanders, completely debased themselves when asked
if the candidate with the most delegates should get the Democratic nomination. That's how
democracy is supposed to work, right? The person with the most votes should win, no? Not if you
want to suck up to the ruling class, who are deathly afraid of Sanders' redistributive
agenda.
Climbing corporate and political hierarchies as well as the fake meritocracy in this country
inflates politicians' egos and warped the ability to self-reflect on their own abilities and
intelligence. In psychology, this is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect, defined as : "a
cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific
area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately
assessing their skills."
Terrifyingly, one of the consequences of this effect is that many of the afflicted exude
rare confidence due to their overestimation of their skills that can be mistaken for
dedication, passion, expertise, and conviction. While truly intelligent people constantly
question and doubt their own ideas and preconceived notions, lesser intellects rigidly cling to
dogmas in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This was summed up best by Yeats,
when he wrote: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate
intensity."
In politics and social relations, this effect is compounded because the awareness of the
suffering of others is blunted the higher you go on the socio-economic scale. The effect of
ascending political hierarchies is not much different in a capitalist economy, because the
higher you go the more beholden you are to elite interests. As studies have shown, Emotional
Intelligence (EQ) declines significantly the higher you look on the corporate ladder. CEOs and
business owners tend to have more sociopathic, narcissistic, and psychopathic traits.
This is why it is so hard to change the minds of the privileged and affluent: it is not
simply a matter of intellect and rational argumentation to help bring change to another's
belief system. If only logical persuasion worked that effectively! One must also help cultivate
awareness, a sense of interconnectedness with the less fortunate, the environment and the
universe, and a way to empathize with poor, vulnerable, and minority communities. One can prove
empirically over and over how a socialist economy, universal healthcare, and a society of free
association of producers would significantly improve the lives of people around the world.
Those in denial still won't believe you, because their self-awareness and sense of empathy for
the poor, dispossessed, and vulnerable has atrophied.
It is at this stage in history that the nihilism of rich liberals and conservatives as well
as the professional-managerial class reaches truly epic proportions, threatening the survival
of humanity and most species on the planet. The real material conditions and problems of
working people are abstracted as inequality rises. The obvious cause of the immiseration of the
population and the devastation of the environment, capitalism, is obscured. Conservatives and
republicans are even more delusional due to their slavish devotion to the status quo and
political and economic hierarchies, as well as their mythical belief that the capitalist "free
market" can solve all manner of problems. Further, conservatives view any government
intervention to regulate corporate monopoly power and lessen environmental degradation as an
infringement on their rights, or inane arguments that sensible environmental regulation will
hurt the economy are used.
The only option left for moderate liberals is to succumb to the dystopian vision of
neoliberal thought which dominates center-left and center-right thinking, because it is
all-pervasive. Even mild progressives who stray even a bit to the left (such as Warren) are
instantly and predictably vilified by the press, by billionaires who literally cry in public in
protestation of her wealth tax. This leads the opportunistic and ambitious (Warren, just like
Obama before her) to tack to the center in order to secure donors to stay in politics and keep
their jobs.
The moderate candidates know their ideas are viewed as trash by a significant amount of
voters, so identity politics, as well as rhetoric and euphemisms about "structural change" are
predictably trotted out. Neoliberal is now a dirty word, so liberal politicians deflect as much
as possible and claim their policies are "pragmatic" and are willing to work across the aisle
and compromise, in contrast to the "uncompromising" style of Sanders. These are the big-brained
centrists, who let their ruling class donors do all their thinking for them as to what
constitutes an acceptable and "realistic" policy.
Big-brain centrism is also a term to describe a type of neoliberal wonkery which emphasizes
that only technocratic policy, which echoes the Third Way of Blair and Clinton, a centrism in
which the patina of "progressivism", economic "pragmatism", and the appearance of caring for
marginalized groups dominates. Increased political representation of minorities is a wonderful
thing, but the moderate democrats will never grow a spine and ask for economic redistribution
from billionaires to poor people of color. Only "moderates" can deliver the best model for
liberal democracy, and everyone to their left, even the mild-mannered reformism of Bernie
Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is an "extremist" or a "populist". Of course, this
hodge-podge of power-hungry politicians, clueless think-tank sycophants, and conniving
corporate vampires are totally beholden to elite interests, as they represent a class of smug
affluent liberals and republicans who pray to the Almighty Dollar.
The big-brained liberals are hypnotized by the concept of bipartisanship, which is what
Obama tried and failed to do for eight years. For the centrists, the idea that the two-party
system is become more polarized is an unmitigated disaster, leaving only "far-left" politics in
fashion (we wish!) alongside far-right politics (accurate). True progress can only be made "in
the middle", what some like to call "radical centrism" and politicians should not pander to
their constituents with "empty promises" and "populist rhetoric." What this radical centrism
misses is the rightward shift in economics and federal policy which has been underway for 40+
years, and the consequent shift in the Overton Window: the range of ideas that are considered
acceptable in US politics. In the 1960s, for instance, Sanders' reformism would have been seen
as standard, middle-of-the-road liberal set of policies, rather than today, where social
democratic agendas induce shrieking from rich know-nothings and talking heads who insist that
Bernie is an authoritarian communist.
In this Beltway bubble-world, Sanders is simply the converse of Trump, a dangerous left-wing
populist, who, in words of Buttigieg, "wants to burn this party down." What Sanders simply
wants is to bring the US into the 21st century by adopting the social democratic policies of
Scandinavia and most European nations. Yet, this is unacceptable to the "realistic" and
"electability" thought-police. Big brain centrism is what it would look like to put Thomas
Friedman and David Brooks in a room together and let them try to come up with federal policies.
Their policies and worldview probably would not look very different from some of the ideas and
concepts of each of the recent candidates, presented below.
The main thing to recognize is that all the moderate candidates, Warren included, are
careerists. It's not about helping others, it's about them. If and when politics no longer is a
viable career path for them, they will be happy to sell themselves as consultants, lobbyists,
mainstream media propagandists, sit on corporate boards, and rack up speaking fees to parrot
back to the ruling classes what acceptable discourse and policy is, within a capitalist and
imperialist framework.
To see more examples of what I mean by Big-Brained Centrism, we will look at a statement,
tweet, or policy idea from many of the moderate candidates, even the ones who have dropped out.
We'll start with a statement from Andrew Yang, because it might be one of the best examples of
big-brained idiocy.
Yangonomics: "Beware the Technocracy", The Accelerationist Candidate
Andrew Yang's entire campaign and many of his tech/start-up supporters represent exquisite
examples of the big-brain mindset. In his final debate, he stated:
The entire capitalism/socialism dichotomy is completely out of date. The fact is when
people were talking about these economic models they did not foresee the technology getting
stronger, more powerful, and capable of doing the work of thousands of humans what we have to
do is get the markets working to improve our way of life instead of following GDP and
corporate profits off a cliff, we should be measuring our own health and wellness the way
forward is a new human-centered version of capitalism that actually uses the markets to
improve our families lives.
This is absolute garbage, cloaked within the progressive notion of redefining national
well-being and taking easy shots at corporate greed. Capitalism is utterly and inexorably based
on over-consumption and chasing profits over everything else; there is no way to make it
"human-centered"
If we were to take him at his word of meeting in the middle, a fair response would be that
the closest version of a compromise solution for the "outdated dichotomy" is the social
democratic and redistributive agenda of Bernie Sanders. More importantly, Yang is attempting to
erase two hundred years of public debate as to the distinctions between two radically different
economic models and the invaluable contributions of generations of activists, scholars, and
citizens. Perhaps he believes that by virtue of being a "successful entrepreneur" and business
owner, he can see things the rest of us can't.
As for the "no one could have foreseen technology getting stronger " give me a fucking
break. You have to be drop-dead naïve or just plain ignorant to think this. You don't
think people who built the first trains, light bulbs, cars, worked in the first mills and
factories, etc., couldn't see how these inventions and new methods of production would reshape
the world? Indigenous peoples, radical artists, environmentalists, communists, and anarchists
have been warning about the negative impacts of industrial-scale technology for generations. In
Western literature, towering figures like William Blake and Henry David Thoreau as well as many
others prophetically warned of the dangers posed by the Industrial Revolution.
What happened, of course, is that the monopoly power of capital never allowed for the more
efficient distribution of resources to make lives better for the working classes, because there
is little money to be made by helping and caring for people and the environment. Capitalism
relies on parasitical master-servant relationships, exploiting nature and the working classes
for as many resources and as much labor as possible in order to produce the most profit in the
shortest amount of time.
Contrary to Yang's ahistorical word salad and his implicit assumption that people in the
past were stupid, those who lived hundreds of years ago were just as intelligent as today (if
not more so) and realized exactly where this was leading. In a very good
piece for The Guardian, Yanis Varoufakis explains how Marx and Engels predicted our
crisis over 150 years ago:
Anyone reading the [Communist] manifesto today will be surprised to discover a picture of
a world much like our own, teetering fearfully on the edge of technological innovation. In
the manifesto's time, it was the steam engine that posed the greatest challenge to the
rhythms and routines of feudal life. The peasantry was swept into the cogs and wheels of this
machinery and a new class of masters, the factory owners and the merchants usurped the landed
gentry's control over society. Now, it is artificial intelligence and automation that loom as
disruptive threats, promising to sweep away 'all fixed, fast-frozen relations'. 'Constantly
revolutionising instruments of production,' the manifesto proclaims, transform 'the whole
relations of society', bringing about 'constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation'.
Like the rest of the moderate candidates, Yang is a product of his insular milieu, his
ideology molded by anti-communist/Cold War/red scare propaganda and the fevered dreams of
Tech-mogul capitalists. Being an entrepreneur apparently means one does not have to read or
understand political economy, or basic history; one is a political expert simply based on the
ability to "create jobs." He is the Silicon Valley candidate, those true believers in
unrestrained automation who believe they understand the economy better than everyone else
because they've spent the most time sitting through meetings about "corporate synergy."
"Sensible" policy must be in the center, as one of his slogans suggests: "Not Left, Not
Right, Forward." Yang, Warren, and Mayor Pete were considered "the smart candidates" by the
media and many liberals. Primarily because they mirror back upper-middle class narcissism and
promise not to disturb the security and comfort of the affluent. This just goes to show how
simpleminded and anti-intellectual mainstream political commentary has become. Capitalism has
had over 200 years to develop the chance to become "human centered." It cannot because it is
fundamentally set up to serve the profit motive over basic needs of people. Capitalist markets
have always skewed the vast majority of benefits to the upper classes, with pipe dreams of
wealth "trickling down" to the masses.
Yang could have made much more progress had he tacked harder to the left, but instead he
falls prey to his belief in "human-centered capitalism." His UBI proposal was popular; yet as
an affluent business owner and stand-in for the entrepreneur class, he could not manage to go
against his donors as well as his own interests by creating a framework for price controls to
fight against inflation and parasitical price-gouging. Despite his concern over AI and
automation leading to massive job loss, he does not fundamentally address the exploitative
relationship between employer and employees, or understand how increased digital and robot-led
production will lead to new levels of coercive labor monopolization of the means of
production.
One Mike Weinstein explains Yang's worldview quite well
here , in a piece titled "Beware the Technocracy":
Yang speaks the language of the ruling class, one of inscrutable economics to uphold the
narrative of technology as savior. His aim is cloak this in popular socialist ideas such as
universal healthcare and income. Yang promotes this package as a self-proclaimed
'human-centered economy'. It's worth noting that the robot antagonists in The Matrix had a
human-centered economy, too.
Andrew Yang is a privileged tech-bro, but he had one thing going for him, he was earnest,
somewhat open-minded, and willing to listen to others. In this
piece , his interviewer sketches out the basics of
accelerationism to Yang, implying that this is the first time Yang has heard of the idea,
and Yang responds with interest, wanting to know more. Yang, unlike the rest of the moderates,
might be a know-nothing; but at least he can have a human conversation, and is at least open to
learning about new ideas.
His refusal to include a social safety net for the needy, disabled, and elderly that could
stand to lose under his UBI, as well as his refusal to endorse Medicare for All, is further
proof of his myopia, however. See this summary of his
thought, published in Big Think , or
this one , at Ted.com , both of which specialize in big-brain centrism. Yang also
proposed to raise revenue for the UBI via a value-added tax, which is a tax on consumption and
disproportionately hurts low-income workers, rather than a more sensible wealth tax.
Warren: Feel-good candidate for the Professional-Managerial Class
Elizabeth Warren also tacked to the center, repeatedly describing herself as "capitalist to
her bones". While the act of adopting progressive liberal values and rhetoric mixed with
pro-capitalist corporate-speak worked in the past, for instance, for Obama and even for Jimmy
Carter before him, there is no popular "middle ground" to occupy now in the Democratic Party.
The 2008 economic crisis advanced political consciousness in such a way that mainstream
liberals now see the ground shifting underneath them. Either you are a firm Democratic
establishment centrist, or you're in the progressive/social democratic/democratic socialist
camp.
Warren, straddling both sides of this fault line, could not seem to pick a lane. Her attacks
on the banks and her wealth tax proposal would seem to mark her as a progressive, but her
professional-managerial class (PMC) background pulls her to support the Clinton/Obama
technocratic way of governing. Politics is about having big ideas and pointing out the systemic
problems in society (which Bernie Sanders has, and does) and finding ways to implement them;
not about having a series of band-aid solutions and incoherent plans for "structural change"
without examining the root cause of our maladies: capitalism. No one wants to hear
flip-flopping about a "transition plan" to shift to Medicare for All in three years. People
want to know that you will fight for them on day one, because every day that you hesitate poor
and homeless people literally die in the streets because of lack of access to health care; also
men, women, and children are killed each day due to our imperial and frankly genocidal foreign
policy, which she demonstrated hardly any basic knowledge of, or real interest towards.
Both Warren's wealth tax and her climate plan were considerable tamer than Sanders' plans.
If you're going to challenge corporate power, even within the confines of US electoral
politics, you can't excite the "populist" liberal-left with halfway measures. Voters were canny
enough to see through her fence-sitting, hence her relative lack of support, even within her
home state of Massachusetts.
One of Warren's most glaringly dystopian plans was for "fighting digital disinformation".
There is a glimmer of a good idea hidden in the concept, in that she proposed penalties for
those who engage in voter suppression. The real doozy is that she plans to criminalize
"disinformation" and wants the corporate social media behemoths like Facebook and Twitter to
censor and moderate political speech, as well as leaving the door open for government
censorship of news. In this she parrots the desires of the Democratic establishment who, of
course, are deeply entwined with the Military-Industrial-Intelligence complex. Liberal
establishment figures have become emboldened since 2016: for instance Hillary Clinton views
anyone who disturbs her as being aided by Russia; such as Trump, but also Jill Stein and Tulsi
Gabbard, absurdly. Liberals such as Warren aim to increase paranoia in the populace,
consciously or not, surrounding the idea of "foreign meddling" and seek to weaponize the
election interference narrative against any politicians who do not support the ruling class.
This is why Bernie Sanders was told his campaign was being aided by Russia, in effect to smear
his entire campaign. The real targets in the "interference" narrative are leftists who want to
redistribute wealth.
Agent Pete
Pete Buttigieg represents a special type of stupid. First, Buttigieg's policies (or lack
thereof) show just how worthless a Rhodes scholar-level education truly is, just like it showed
for Cory Booker. Just like Kamala Harris, Buttigieg is the offspring of a worldly and erudite
Marxist professor who didn't learn a thing; in Mayor Pete's case, he decided to rebel against
his father and work for the machine in the killing fields of Afghanistan and the corrupt
scandal-ridden firm McKinsey.
There is much more to the Mayor Pete back-story regarding his intelligence and national
security connections. He worked in Naval Intelligence in Afghanistan alongside the CIA. He
penned an op-ed in The New York Times with a friend about visiting Somaliland and
meeting with "local leaders." He keeps a map of Afghanistan displaying its mineral resources in
his study (the alarm bells should be going off). He wrote in his book about visiting a
"safehouse" in Iraq. Many foreign policy and national security figures backed his candidacy.
And yes, thanks to Left Twitter, #CIAPete was blowing up on social media.
Whether or not Mayor Pete is a spy asset or not does not really matter. What matters is he
thinks like them, and shares their worldview of supporting US imperial and economic
domination at all costs.
How do we know this is true? Buttigieg had a line in a recent debate about "being inclusive"
by taking donations from billionaires. Who honestly thinks taking money from billionaires is to
make society more inclusive? Only a little slug willing to completely debase himself to his
ruling-class overlords would admit this publicly; even Biden at his most incoherent would never
blurt this out.
Listening to Pete talk in general was just bewildering. He imitates Obama's style at every
turn, yet cannot match his soaring oratory and simply does not answer questions or deliver any
tangible idea of what he will offer. He is the platitude candidate; every time he speaks it's
like opening a fortune cookie, as he's full of vague truisms.
One of the most dystopian plans of Pete was a "National Service Program". Predictably, it is
framed with patriotic, nationalistic rhetoric. The goal would be to increase the service
program with the end goal being a "universal, national expectation of service" (from his
website ) while also claiming
it will be "strictly optional". High school and college students are already exploited enough
in the classroom and at their jobs, and funding a plan so that young people can put a gold star
on their resume pretty much sums up Pete in a nutshell. Here's his justification:
In the great unwinding of American civic society underway, and at a time when Americans
are experiencing record-low trust in fellow citizens and American institutions, few -- if any
-- single policy solutions carry the promise of democratic renewal more than national
service.
A simple rebuttal would be to ask what is causing the "unwinding" and "record-low trust".
It's obviously inequality, corruption in government, corporations which are legally bound to
choose profits over people, little to no regulation of technology and fossil fuel corporations,
monopolization in virtually every sector of the economy, lack of health care and a living wage.
There is no indication that this plan would solve any of these issues, because the
Oxford-educated Mayor cannot be bothered to think critically. Or, rather, an Oxford education
blinds one to the fact that capitalism is the root cause of our systemic crises. Typical of
elites, he confuses class conflict with national frailty and disunity, much like Trump. He is a
true believer in the system, and projects his privileged fake-meritocratic upbringing onto
everyone around him with a call to service. Any national service plan with Pete at the helm
feels like a plan for assimilating youth into our Death Star corporate-driven empire; for
creating a "McKinsey Youth" for America.
Steyer and Bloomberg: Upholding a Nation Run for Plutocrats, by Plutocrats
Today one must be for the poor and working classes to gain mass political popularity, like
Sanders; or conversely offer a proto-fascist program of a return to national greatness, like
the racist, money-worshipping, chauvinist Twitter troll, like Trump. That is why the elites are
even more afraid of Sanders, because he and more crucially his base offer a clean break and a
qualitatively better and more egalitarian organization of society.
The super-rich must be excluded from the political process because they will always put the
interests of capital above the common good, and refuse to see how their actions directly
contribute to the impoverishment of workers and the degradation of the environment. Any
intervention by them, in the name of philanthropy or donations to politicians, proves that
their money buys political power, social control, and makes a mockery of any notion of
"democracy" in this nation. This is called an oligarchy. Which reminds me, Mike Bloomberg
should no longer be addressed as "Mayor Bloomberg"; "Plutocrat Bloomberg" or "Oligarch
Bloomberg" would be more appropriate.
Amy's Rage
Amy Klobuchar is a lot of things. She is undoubtedly driven, hard-working, and passionate
about her work. The problem is the work she does is inherently bad for most people and she did
not have any good policy ideas that differentiated her from the other centrists. Her other
problem is that she has extreme anger issues.
Klobuchar is an abusive boss and her employees described her offices in Minnesota and D.C.
as a "hostile work environment." The most she's addressed this is by stating she's "tough" and
has "high expectations" for her staff. The clues to her barely-bottled rage are under the
surface, as this
article in The Atlantic opines: her childhood spent with a neglectful, alcoholic
father severely messed her up.
This is not an uncommon situation, with a subset of leaders put into positions of power that
were traumatized in childhood. Many become highly-driven over-achievers in the corporate and
political worlds: it's easier to run from the ghosts when you're showered with accolades and
money. Many also burn with rage, are vengeful and prone to irrational outbursts, consider any
slight or unavoidable accident a personal affront, and crave domination and control over
others. Much like management in large corporations, her former staff describes a brutal
hierarchical and tyrannical environment where the smallest mistake could set her off into
tantrums or the throwing of office supplies, forcing staff to do demeaning work involving her
personal effects, and would regularly condescend and shame her employees openly in person and
through email. We already have an authoritarian in the White House who needs psychological
counseling. Klobuchar should not be attempting to seek power: like the rest of the corporate
and political ruling classes, she should be seeking professional help.
Biden: Senior Moments
Let's just get it out of the way: Joe Biden is seriously slipping upstairs. I suppose that's
not an anomaly anymore for presidential politics, as we have dealt with cognitive decline
before with Reagan in his second term. We've dealt with not-so-bright presidents too: the
entire George W. Bush presidency, and now Trump. If Biden becomes the nominee and president it
will be a national, collective senior moment. I don't really have the words to describe a
head-to-head Biden-Trump debate, other than it being extremely depressing, and that I would
predict an increase in sales of alcohol. It would break the country on some visceral level.
Nominating Biden could end the Democratic Party for good, so maybe there would be a silver
lining.
Interestingly, Biden spoke to donors in 2019 and stated that "no one's standard of living
would change" and "nothing would fundamentally change" if he became elected. It would make for
an honest slogan, at least. Vote Biden in 2020: Nothing will change.
When moderate democrats say "be realistic", say it back to them: be realistic, Biden would
surely lose to Trump. Only Sanders has a shot at defeating him, as Trump would absolutely
eviscerate Biden and run circles around him. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and
Trump is as broken a person as they come; but he is smart enough to harp on Biden's mental
decline and his son's shady job as a board member of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, a
position he had absolutely no expertise in.
Oh Canada!?: Trudeau Marches for Climate
The most ridiculous and absurd example of big-brain centrism comes from our neighbor to the
North, however. In September of 2019, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took part in a
climate protest in Montreal. He tweeted: "Today we marched for our planet, our kids, and for
their future." It did not seem to dawn on him that his fellow citizens were marching to protest
the lack of action his government was taking to battle global warming. You're their
leader, Justin. If you want to take action, use every available mechanism in your own
government to make a change. The people put you in power to do exactly that. Was he
protesting himself? Was he admitting that even as PM he is as powerless as the average citizen
to fight the fossil fuel industries? Under his administration, Albertan oil sands continue to
be extracted, and new pipeline expansion is in place against the will of the Wet'suwet'en First
Nations tribe who are currently protesting.
The Moderates Serve the Ruling Class
Just to stick with Trudeau's nastiness for a moment, everyone should read
this article on the First Nation protestors in Canada fighting the Coastal GasLink Pipeline
expansion. If you feel called, watch the embedded video. The RMCP point their rifles at
nonviolent protestors- police who operate under the orders of Justin Trudeau. Make no mistake,
Biden would be no different in the US. He serves at the behest of the ruling classes. It
doesn't matter if it's Obama with Occupy Wall Street and the Dakota Access Pipeline, Trump,
Trudeau, or a possible Biden regime: they all will intimidate and if necessary kill their own
citizens who use direct action to resist fossil fuel expansion and corporate rule. It's all a
sick twisted game to protect the property of the rich for the "sensible", "highly-esteemed",
blue-check mark politicians and media flunkies.
Even if the moderate liberals gave one single solitary fuck about average working people,
the environment, future generations, and the citizenry they pander to, they are too weak-minded
because they insist everything be done at the glacial pace (as glaciers are now in rapid
retreat in many parts of the world this metaphor may no longer be useful, thanks to them) of
bipartisan electoral politics, and will compromise with conservatives at every turn to
water-down absolutely any and every possible progressive or radical legislative reforms.
Like Trudeau, they all want to have it both ways: to be seen as a progressive, "woke"
politician; a radical climate protestor in his case, while at the same time being central
figures of the establishment, upholding an inhumane system, walking corpses who prop up the
status quo, absolute tools of corporate and imperial rule. Which in the end means that they
really only care about themselves: their fame, power, glory, and their money.
Bernie Sanders has his own serious flaws, most especially in regards to foreign policy. Yet
he is the only candidate who speaks to the need to create a better, kinder, more reasonable and
egalitarian nation; and the best chance to popularize socialism right now, however ill-suited
he may be to the task.
Even Hillary Clinton weighed in on Sanders recently and said "nobody likes him, no one wants
to work with him." It might be worthwhile for citizens and neoliberal imperialists like
Clinton, Biden, Trudeau, and the rest to question what it means to be "popular" and what
positive "work" has actually been accomplished in a Congress which hasn't cracked a 30%
approval rating in over
10 years .
There are a couple of references from pop culture which sum up the sad but true nature of
the centrist liberal and conservative politicians. Their commitment to strengthening capitalism
at all costs leads to a hollow shell of a life. The first quote is from the movie Casino
Jack, a fictionalized version of the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff's life. When the walls
are closing in on him, his wife reminds him there will be no one to help: "We have no friends,
Jack, none. All we have are people we do business with."
The second set of quotes, which I'll end with, are from rap legend Tupac Shakur. In the song
"Holler If You Hear Me", 2pac warns of the perils of compromising one's beliefs for material
gain:
To the sellouts livin' it up/
One way or another you'll be givin' it up.
In the last verse, 2pac has a prophetic line, alluding to black militancy, manufacturing
consent and the return of the repressed in American society. His words remain eerily prescient,
and remind me of the way moderate liberals and conservatives view the rise of Bernie Sanders
and socialism in the US today as dangerous:
And now I'm like a major threat/
'Cause I remind you of the things you were made to forget
Several good points on Biden foreign policy record. The author missed his dismal record, the record of rabid neocon, in
Ukraine and Georgia. As well as his role in unleashing the Iraq war.
When former Vice President Joe Biden presented
his vision for "rescuing" U.S. foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, his grim performance in
the early election contests suggested he would never get the chance to put his ideas into
practice. But now that Super Tuesday has propelled his candidacy to frontrunner status, it's
time to take a second look at what Biden is proposing.
Biden offers a proudly restorationist foreign policy. His main pitch is to bring back U.S.
global "leadership" after its supposed Trumpian aberration, rather than to deliver what the
American people need and increasingly demand: a clean break from decades of policy failure, to
which Biden himself has contributed.
Ignoring Obama's failures
One would expect Biden to defend the overall foreign policy record of the administration in
which he served as vice president. Yet one might also expect him to tell voters a few ways in
which he intends to do things differently. Biden declines to do so. His essay ignores the
debacles of the Obama administration, if he recognizes them as such.
Biden does not reference the chaos in Libya to which the administration contributed by
bombing the country and prolonging its civil war, still raging to this day. He says nothing
about how the administration armed unaccountable, allegedly moderate Syrian fighters for years,
compounding the country's humanitarian nightmare. He does not acknowledge U.S. complicity in
the 2009 military coup in Honduras that destabilized the country and sent thousands fleeing as
refugees. To the contrary, Biden boasts of his success in helping to secure "a $750 million aid
program to back up commitments from the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to take
on the corruption, violence, and endemic poverty driving people to leave their homes
there."
Biden deserves credit for stating flatly that he would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led
war in Yemen. But he does not acknowledge how such support began -- under what he now likes to
call the "Obama-Biden" administration. Nor does he grapple with the basic reason for U.S.
involvement in a place like Yemen: Washington's desire to dominate the region by force,
including by closely aligning with one set of repressive states in the region and making
enemies of the rest.
Biden does more than miss an opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes of the Obama
administration and explain how he would do better. He extends his nostalgia even further, and
to less defensible terrain. "For 70 years," he writes, "the United States, under Democratic and
Republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules, forging the agreements, and
animating the institutions that guide relations among nations and advance collective security
and prosperity -- until Trump." Does Biden really believe that President George W. Bush
conducted a responsible, constructive, rule-abiding foreign policy?
Forever war, forevermore?
Almost all the contenders in the Democratic primary have pledged to bring America's endless
wars to a close. Biden is no exception: he vows in his Foreign Affairs essay to "end the
forever wars." Yet in the very next sentence, Biden pledges to bring home only "the vast
majority" of troops from the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That is, he signals that
he will leave thousands of ground troops in Afghanistan and beyond. Nor does he convey any
sense of how he might try to win the nearly two-decades-long war in Afghanistan that he intends
to continue. The dying will go on, even in the pursuit of defeat.
In addition to failing to promise the full withdrawal of ground troops from Afghanistan,
Iraq, or Syria, Biden staunchly defends forms of warfare that carry smaller domestic political
costs but kill people and create blowback. Few foreign policy experts would reject Biden's
advocacy of "using a few hundred Special Forces soldiers and intelligence assets to support
local partners against a common enemy." But rather than lay out a vision to reduce the United
States' proliferating counterterrorism operations, Biden makes a blanket endorsement of them.
"Those smaller-scale missions are sustainable militarily, economically, and politically, and
they advance the national interest," he writes. The word "drone" does not appear in the essay.
One is left with the impression that a Biden administration would bring continued if
smaller-scale ground wars and unlimited drone strikes and special operations raids.
On the whole, Biden threatens to repeat the pattern of the Trump administration of promising
to end endless wars while waging them all the same.
Status quo in the Middle East
When it comes to the Middle East, Biden extends fewer rhetorical concessions to his left
than some centrists would. He says nothing about America's intimate partnership with Saudi
Arabia, even though this is the one area of Mideast policy most ripe for change given support
across party lines for reducing arms sales to the kingdom and demanding accountability for
Saudi human rights abuses. Biden's one line on Israel -- "We need to sustain our ironclad
commitment to Israel's security " -- shows that he will maintain the status quo of aiding the
country's annexationist march. He makes no mention of Palestine or Palestinians.
On Iran, Biden renders an ambiguous verdict on the assassination of Qassem Soleimani that
nearly plunged the United States into a new war. He praises the U.S. strike for removing a
"dangerous actor" while expressing concern about an "ever-escalating cycle of violence" in the
region.
Importantly, Biden supports the nuclear deal with Iran, the signature foreign policy
achievement of the Obama administration. Still, his rhetoric arguably seems designed to appeal
to hawks more than those who support moving toward a normal diplomatic relationship with Iran.
"Tehran must return to strict compliance with the deal," Biden writes. "If it does so, I would
rejoin the agreement and use our renewed commitment to diplomacy to work with our allies to
strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against Iran's other
destabilizing activities."
This formulation allows Biden to claim he cleanly supports the nuclear deal but would also
get tougher on Iran by "more effectively" countering its influence. Biden might instead have
acknowledged a willingness to make concessions to Iran given that it was the United States that
breached the agreement and continues to impose strangling sanctions on a country that was
living up to its end of the bargain.
A missed opportunity
A bright spot is Biden's treatment of China. As my Quincy Institute colleague Rachel Esplin
Odell argues , Biden avoids Cold War-style inflation of the China threat, which politicians
and pundits from both parties have hyped over the past three years. At the same time, neither
does Biden entertain ways to deescalate militarily over issues like disputes in the South China
Sea that mean little to U.S. interests and risk antagonizing major powers.
Indeed, Biden does not wish to demilitarize U.S. foreign policy in any structural sense. He
expresses no desire to cut the Pentagon's trillion-dollar-a-year budget, even though surveys
have found that the single most popular foreign policy stance among the American public is to
spend less money fighting wars in order make more investments at home.
The United States is currently obligated to defend approximately one-third of the world's
countries, and informally dozens more. As long as the United States divides the entire world
into protectorates and, implicitly or explicitly, enemies, it will struggle to cut its military
spending significantly. That is apparently the way Biden wants it. His stance toward military
alliances is nothing short of reverential: NATO, Biden writes, is "sacred."
For all the investment in war and weapons that Biden proposes, he is disappointingly shallow
about the biggest global threat of all: climate change. Biden seems stuck in a Paris-style
framework that has struggled to create positive-sum cooperation among nations. If the United
States wants to lead, it ought to provide solutions to the rest of the world, whether by
offering green technology at low or no cost, investing in the Green Climate Fund, or creating a
Green World Trade Organization. By contrast, Biden's outlook is punitive and short-sighted:
make sure other countries don't undercut America economically, and pressure China to stop
promoting fossil fuels abroad. While the United States should pressure China in this regard
(and, more importantly, to replace coal-fired plants within China), Biden disregards the
greater need for bilateral cooperation in order to develop and utilize clean technology and
limit the intensity of a security competition that could thwart the green transition.
***
As a candidate for president, Biden has an opportunity to put forward plans that confront
the failures of decades of foreign policy made by Democrats and Republicans alike. Hopefully he
will do so as the campaign proceeds. So far, however, it looks like he will not only prolong
the endless wars but also restore and revive the ideas that generated them in the first
place.
The author of this article is an informal, volunteer adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders'
presidential campaign.
I have been a stutterer for my whole life. I consider myself an expert.
The person who wrote this article should research stuttering more.
Many of the things he is doing with his speech are things that stutters do: word
substitution accounts for many of his gaffes. For instance -- he didn't forget Obama's name,
he realized he couldn't say it so he quickly said "the president"
And word avoidance accounts for many other mistakes "you know the rest" was an avoidance of
having to recite part of the constitution.
Part of stuttering is also becoming consumed with avoiding stuttering and having to try extra
hard to keep on track. This gets much harder with age. It's mentally tiring.
All this is not to say that every gaffe is caused by his stutter or that he is a strong or
week candidate.
This post is not politically motivated.
I guess the thing that bothers me is that the author obviously didn't talk to a stutterer
or a speech therapist before writing the article. If she had she wouldn't have left out the
mitigating factors that I mentioned. She could have still written about gaffs that he made
that are clearly not related to his stuttering.
The fact that she didn't reach out to an expert and instead chose to merely list Mayo
Clinic's list of mayo clinics basic symptoms was remiss and actually despicable.
It is true that a large percentage of the clips are simple word substitutions, like
Senator for Supreme Court Justice. A smaller percentage is babbling, like the story about his
leg hairs, or vinyl records emerging from some deep recess of his mind. Then you have
thoughts that he says loudly, "you dog-faced pony soldiers", that resemble Turette
syndrome.
Vinyl records gaffe deserves a serious discussion. Said intelligently, children may be
provided with well designed educational aids to alleviate poor knowledge and vocabulary of
their family background. But I seriously doubt if listening to a random "four million words"
is beneficial. More likely, Biden remembered some simplistic explanation of the concept 40-50
years ago and in the meantime HE NEVER GAVE IT A THOUGHT. Biden never was a deep thinker (my
impressions of him go back a while), and now, with age, he pulls out those half-baked ideas
from the past out of context, and with some babbling.
To paraphrase probable candidates for this Fall, "Our nuclear was tired, but now it will
pat my hairy legs and it will be as good as new".
-- –
A random non-serious idea. [serious problem] The ratio of retired people over working
people is increasing, making it more and more difficult to provide the seniors with a decent
standard of living and health care. We may consider increasing the retirement age. But how
should we decided it? [non-serious solution] We can leave it to all voters. Any time they
elect someone older than the current retirement age plus 10, the retirement age will increase
by one year. Citizens can collectively decide when folks can still work, even at the position
of the highest responsibility.
rosemerry , March 9, 2020 at 14:29
Too much importance is given to the present contrived situation (by the DNC, which would
rather lose to Trump than have a "progressive" candidate for POTUS). Biden was only given the
VP job by Obama to ensure they got the votes of people otherwise unlikely to support Obama.
This also occurred with JFK choosing Lyndon Johnson for VP to help him in the South, as it
did. Biden has almost every fault possible except for being a "nice guy", like Dubya Bush
being someone you like to share a beer with!(even with a teetotaller!)
The US system is not designed to choose good candidates, and is not a system copied by other
nations ,perhaps for this reason. Biden is terrible, Trump and all his GOP competitors in
2016 were terrible, Hillary deserved to lose and Sanders did not fight to win. Sanders is
apparently now changing his emphasis away from what makes people want him!!! Biden cannot
win, would be no better than Trump and will we all survive till 2024???
Tony , March 10, 2020 at 10:59
JFK did not choose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate.
He chose Senator Stuart Symington. However, before the announcement could be made, he got
a visit from LBJ who was armed with a blackmail dossier provided by his friend J.Edgar
Hoover.
Inga Arvad was suspected of being a Nazi spy and JFK had had a relationship with her during
the war.
The fact that JFK changed his mind after a visit from LBJ is confirmed by Clark Clifford
in his memoirs 'Counsel to the President'. He describes how JFK called him up to his room and
told him he now felt he had a better chance with LBJ as his running mate. He was asked to
pass on the message to Symington.
Sadly, this later proved to be a fatal decision for Kennedy.
Chili Dogg , March 9, 2020 at 19:27
Did Biden sound like this his first few decades in politics? Did he stutter during that
timeframe? Not that I recall. The fact that he is doing this now, in his late seventies, and
that he did not sound like this when he was younger, strongly suggests cognitive issues.
P G , March 9, 2020 at 21:43
watch old videos of Biden, even 4 years ago. His speech is remarkably clearer and more
precise then. Stutterer or not, word substitution or not, he's clearly lost it and it's
getting worse weekly.
CB , March 9, 2020 at 13:07
Today, NPR has been playing clips from Biden's terrifyingly incoherent St. Louis speech.
He sounds like he's falling down drunk. Here's my transliteration of 31:10 on C-SPAN: "You're
all part ma movemen a moob men that has a backbone the backbone of the Democratic Party a
mooin's gun defeat Donald Trump." Hearing the clip this morning put tears in my eyes because
it so acutely reminded me of the final speech patterns of my grandfather, a brilliant nuclear
physicist who died of Alzheimers at age 78. I also cried at clip #33 because the pain in Jill
Biden's eyes projected me right back into the helplessness of witnessing Granddad's cognitive
decline. It's tragically time to take away Biden's car keys, and yet these endorsements are
trying to buy him a Maserati. How can this nightmare be happening. Thank you, Caitlin
Johnstone, for maintaining this much-needed reality check.
Chanel , March 10, 2020 at 22:08
Yes, please, Dear God, remove this man from the election theater. How? How is it possible
that he has come this far?? We are all doomed. From the earliest debates it was crystal clear
to me that he is in a state of decline and no match for Trump. It's true, the Democratic
establishment is corrupt, so afraid of a Sanders presidency that they have to prop up a man
in such a state of serious decline that we'll ensure another four years of Trump. Any of the
other candidates would have been great – any of them – Biden was my LAST choice,
not because I dislike the man, but my God, Trump, the narcissistic personality disordered
wunderkind will utterly destroy Biden in a debate. Just in the past 24 hours Biden was caught
in a disastrous nearly incomprehensible debate with an attendee in Michigan over gun control
– he was belligerent, incoherent, and unable to even have a simple exchange of ideas
with any clarity. Trump will annihilate him; all those with NPD are masters of winning
debates.
A 1-minute read about Biden's mental decline. "My Mom and Joe Biden", published at Medium
dot com. I wrote it.
My concluding words, on the result if the Dems nominate an addled Biden: "Come November,
there could be one of two terrible outcomes. The first is Biden could lose. The other is that
he could win."
?Before his dementia onset, Biden blazed a decades-long trail of destruction across
American life -- from Social Security and healthcare to disastrous wars and mass
incarceration (read: Jim Crow 2.0).
So with Wall Street Joe as the Dem nominee it would be heads we lose, tails we lose. ?
Q: Which would be worse: a mentally sharp President Biden or an addled one?
A: Let's not find out.
Linda Lewis , March 9, 2020 at 11:47
Thank you for your work, Ms. Johnstone. Dr. David Scheiner, who was Obama's doctor, lends
support to your hypothesis. About Biden, Scheiner told the Washington Examiner, "He's not a
healthy guy."
"Scheiner previously told the Examiner that Biden "looked frail" during the first
Democratic primary debate. "I sort of got the feeling he wasn't very strong. It was similar
to the feeling I got when Republicans started attacking Mueller so fiercely," he said." (New
York Post, Dec. 20) [That comparison suggests Scheiner is including cognitive ability in his
use of the word "frail."]
Scheiner had concerns, also, about Trump's mental health. "[H]e wants to see MRI results
for Trump to check for strokes, as well as a neurocognitive assessment. He raised concerns
about the president's speech pattern and behavior, saying it may be a sign of neurological
damage," reports the Examiner, and suggested "Something happened," with regard to Trump's
visit to Walter Reed.
In summary, there are questions about the cognitive ability of three people who have had
or could have extremely important government roles. That gives weight to Scheiner's
recommendation "that all candidates for the presidency should disclose far more medical
information than they do now and that it should be collected and disclosed by an independent
medical panel." (Examiner)
"The stakes are too high," Scheiner said. "If they make a mistake because their cognitive
skills are diminished, we pay the price." (Examiner)
see:
washingtonexaminer.com/news/lot-of-issues-former-obama-doctor-says-biden-is-not-a-healthy-guy
NY Post link: see:
nypost.com/2019/12/20/obamas-former-doctor-says-joe-biden-is-not-a-healthy-guy-report/
Anonymot , March 9, 2020 at 09:51
Thanks, that's a brilliant intensive lot of work.
However, you are looking a Very Important Point, the Democrats Establishment does not
care. Biden was put up to defeat Sanders, not Trump. Hillary, with Tom Perez as her vocal
cords, still controls the DNC. At all and any cost she wants Sanders out of the race. She
could have put up Mickey Mouse, makes no difference, because whoever she backs is guaranteed
to do exactly what she says once he is the party candidate. So he stutters. Her choice of
Biden's VP will also do exactly as she says.
But there is a more important question at the core of the Democrats. We understand clearly
that as the New York Times floundered its way to bankruptcy in 2014 it was saved by people
never really named. They were a threesome, Hillary brought in 2 billionaire friends: Diller
and Getty. Obviously there conditions required by the threesome – and it wasn't money,
they didn't need that, they needed print space. They had a cause. They got what they wanted
from the Sulzberger family, because there was no one else.
From 2015 the NYT was no longer what it had been, proud, objective, independant,
investigative in all the badness they could find. It was no longer one of the 5 best news
sources in the world. They changed their editorial and journalistic personnel to match the
required causes. They improved their financial position, because one of the 3 was a past
master at running big corporations that he pulled up out of the dust.
When the NYT dust settled, they often began agreeing with the Generals in Afghanistan and
Iraq. They not infrequently published articles that resembled State Dept. and CIA press
releases. And politically they began the fight to promote the 2016 Loser and defeat Senator
Sanders. Unexpectedly, they are at it again and Hillary, the 3, and the NYT are again willing
to promote a loser, win or not in the Presidency vote, they will maintain control of the
Democrats establishment!
And through all of that, I never see anyone, but me asking who are the backers of Hillary
Clinton? Who chose her? Who put her up? For whom is she really the voice?
JWalters , March 9, 2020 at 19:50
Thanks for that great info on the NYT. As for who is behind Hillary, she fits easily into
the story of war profiteers here
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com
[Remove all 3 asterisks and their flanking spaces after copying to browser's URL address
field. Links to that website are routinely sabotaged.]
Eugenie Basile , March 9, 2020 at 09:39
A stutter or dementia ?
That will be trivial as soon as the Ukraine documentary of O.Berruyer ( promoted last month
by CN ) will go viral in the US. The DNC will be ashamed of their preferred presidential
candidate.
joe , March 9, 2020 at 09:02
What is an obvious sign that Biden has vascular dementia is his slurring of his speech. If
you listen to most of his speeches, rallies, or even debates he slurs his speech. It is not a
stutter, but it is an easily discernible slurring of his speech and one of the major signs of
vascular dementia.
John Drake , March 8, 2020 at 11:34
Aside from the evidence of dementia, word salads etc., cognitive lapses, I find his
aggressiveness toward members of the audience who confronted him very disturbing, especially
at the young woman whom he threw a John Wayne misquote at. Can you imagine how someone in
their early 20's felt when a powerful US Senator insulted her on national media. All she did
was ask a difficult question. Then there is the guy he called "fat".
He shows disrespect for his audience. In that respect he is almost as bad as Trump.
Excessive irritability and paranoia is also a symptom.
AnneR , March 8, 2020 at 10:25
Frankly, dementia or not (and Biden clearly has some brain functioning problem) Biden is
an abominable person and definitely no one who should even be considered presidential
material. As indeed he wasn't until Bernie looked to be stronger than ever, which really
bothers the DNC and all establishment (basically all DC Demrats). Heaven forfend the hoi
polloi should actually get a real say.
What amazed me on on Tuesday night was the fact that so many African Americans chose to
vote for him – given his racist track record: support for the anti-Bussing movement on
the east coast (anti desegregation of schools) in the 1970s; Anita Hill; the Clinton
anti-crime bill (and not unrelated severe cut backs in welfare assistance which impacted the
African American poor – and paleskin poor, numerically more but proportionally?). His
eagerness to support any and all US invasions, bombing, killing campaigns against peoples
far, far from these shores. His efforts on behalf of the bankruptcy business – making
it all but impossible for ordinary folks to declare bankruptcy (as a means to clear the debt
decks) while businesses can do continue to do so, no matter how many it hurts.
One of a couple of questions that dogged throughout Tuesday night also concerned: all of
these southern states – haven't they enacted, over the past few years, a variety
anti-electoral registration measures, aimed at African Americans? So I wondered: are those
African Americans, swayed apparently by Mr Cliburn, who voted so decidedly for Biden, of the
middling classes? Of the well-educated? Possibly well health insured. What might have been
the results had the poorer, unable to register for a whole host of Jim Crow reminiscent
reasons, been able to have their say? Would they have gone for the Obama VP? Or Bernie and
his M4A?
The other question hovering in the air: what part is Obama playing in this? He would
definitely *not* be a Bernie fan.
Hmmm , March 8, 2020 at 23:29
Black primary voters also preferred Hillary Clinton to Sanders in 2016, so this isn't too
surprising.
Re: Anita Hill and Biden's role in the Thomas hearings: Polls showed that blacks were more
favorable to Thomas, both before and after the hearings, than whites. They were also less
likely than whites to believe Anita Hill. So I don't think that on balance that history hurts
Biden among black voters.
I think some of the other things you mention tend similarly to be of greater concern to
left-liberal whites than to blacks.
Suspected dementia won't stop the Democratic Party establishment from backing Joe.
Kamala Harris just added her unimpressive voice.
I don't think there is any doubt that the fix is in.
But they are putting themselves in a ridiculous position.
Even without the apparent dementia, Joe Biden is simply not an attractive candidate.
He has a seriously shabby side, and he has some embarrassing quirks – all besides
standing for almost nothing.
I believe he would be Trump's own choice as an opponent.
Meanwhile brave Tulsi Gabbard is getting shut out yet again with rule changes.
Some democracy.
I wrote an interesting speculation about an alternate scenario.
You can find it here:
chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/john-chuckman-comment-we-know-the-democratic-establishment-has-plotted-against-bernie-but-it-does-no-good-to-run-a-candidate-like-biden-who-is-likely-to-lose-is-there-a-secret-plan-concerning-a-d/
Nomisnala , March 8, 2020 at 01:08
I would still vote for Biden over Trump as I also think that Trump also has signs of early
dementia. I do see symptoms of early onset dementia, and as his wife is a physician, I am
sure she sees this as well. I do think that it is a mistake to suddenly thrust Biden into the
nomination. If one watches Biden work back in the 1980's when he was questioning Baker in
Congress about South Africa, and Reagans position, you would see a Biden who did not stutter,
did not forget things, and every time he could not complete a sentence, he did not say "look"
and then change his thought. On a good day he may be okay. But on many days he does not
complete the sentences that he starts.
Starshot2045 , March 10, 2020 at 04:19
Biden's wife is not a physician. She has an Ed.D. – a doctorate in education which
she got from the University of Delaware when she was 55 – about 13 years ago. Why she
runs around and feels she has to be referred to as "doctor" is not clear but it certainly is
misleading.
JoAnn Henningsen , March 7, 2020 at 17:30
I read Ms. Johnstone's article and the variety of comments with much sadness and
compassion. Whether I support Joe Biden or not, I believe his family and the DNC are well
aware of this disaster waiting to happen.
Have the results of the 2016 election really brought the Dems to the brink that the Party
will sacrifice a long serving public figure like Biden. This article is a drop in the bucket
as to what is ahead of us in the next several months. And, there will be tit for tat. Imagine
stories on Trump will be resurrected and expanded upon. We have sunk to new lows in America
and the World is watching in disgust.
Joe Biden had brain surgery for an aneurysm in 1988. These gaffes are definitely not just
a stutter or stammer. Whatever is going on is neurological, a sign of cell death (called
apoptosis), and Dems for sure were going to cut Bernie out. Politics has degenerated to this
ludicrous level!
L H , March 7, 2020 at 00:16
I'm a speech pathologist with specialized training in working with patients who experience
mild cognitive decline and progressive dementia. I'm seeing signs of stuttered speech and of
paraphasic errors. Mr. Biden had two brain surgeries in 1988 due to aneurysms, which a
residual effect could result in speech or language disorders. I suspect that he is a high
risk candidate for progressive neurogenic communication disorders.
Mr. Biden still speaks with intention and passion. He is trying to compete in a fast paced
race that demands automatic expression regarding today's technological lexicon. It's obvious
that his automatic language is centered around his years in the Senate and his early years in
the White House. His brain is defaulting to his past and his memory of those details seem
greater. He most likely tires easily and doesn't appear to be able to automatically recall
his previous "go to" campaign speech rhetoric. The last few videos he reacted as if he is
aware of his faux pas, even surprised or embarrassed by them. I predict that he will be
sticking to a teleprompter and rehearsed, shorter passages with a slower rate. Trump has many
of the same symptoms. However, he is mastering the use of shorter statements and vague,
shallow repetitive vocabulary. That way, he doesn't stumble over what he is saying and
doesn't have to rely on his memory.
I'm glad you are bringing awareness to this. It's concerning and we need to take notice.
Vetting the cognitive competency of our elected officials is of paramount importance.
Allan Millard , March 6, 2020 at 23:59
Biden has no speech impediment. The difficulty in starting some sentences is obviously
that he has lost the thread. He has a cognitive "impediment" which goes beyond the occasional
nominal aphasia. The author notes some interesting examples of filling in memory gaps with
false recollections, which poses a dilemma for Biden's campaign managers. He makes false
statements and we are left with two logical alternatives: He is deliberately lying or he
simply can't remember and invents. Either way he does not sound like presidential
material.
DW Bartoo , March 6, 2020 at 23:45
I agree with Caitlin.
Joe Biden is displaying the symptoms of dementia which will continue to progress.
Were Biden anyone but the Democratic Establishment's chosen sacrifice to "pragmatic"
defeat, his family would be striving to come up with the most gentle
and compassionate method they could find of taking away his car keys and lessening the
obvious stress of his continued effort to avoid coming to grips with his failing mental
health.
Anyone who has witnessed a family member, or of friend's families, who has developed
Alzheimer's or another form of dementia will readily recognize, in Joe Biden, certain
patterns of disorientation, confusion, word loss, an inability to complete thoughts and
sentences, a quick readiness to anger in response to social frustration, and compensatory
behaviors used by the person suffering from the dementia to reassure themselves that they are
the "same" as ever, even as they increasingly worry and recognize that they are not.
Dementia is, most definitely, a very hard thing to come to grips with, as denial is
usually the first response of the person experiencing its onset and, as well, for family
members and acquaintances who are initially horrified when contemplating the implications
attendant.
As I mentioned earlier today, in the comment section of the article dealing with lying and
cheating, the graver and more disturbing aspect of what is happening to Joe Biden is the
apparent failure of his family, friends, and those urging him onto the field of political
battle to recognize his condition for what it is.
This failure of honest recognition is rapidly turning into nothing less than an exhibition
of unfeeling cruelty, taking careless and ruthless advantage of a human being whose
faculties, intellectually and emotionally, are likely to become more precariously diminished
the greater the stresses placed upon them.
It is a sorry spectacle.
The longer it continues, the worse and more appalling it will, very likely, become.
As Caitlin points out, it little matters what Biden's political behavior in the past has
been, what we now witness is a human being in decline and disintegration.
Even as we see the Democratic Party honchos opt, not for the systemic changes so very
desperately needed, at this time, in this place, for humanity and by the planet (not that
Sanders would or could actually deliver those things), but rather that the elite and party
"leaders", the selfish few, intend, using whatever means "necessary", to retain their
lucrative control and privilege, despite the massive destruction and great harm that
privilege and control have already wrought.
Biden's public humiliation and the continued betrayal of the many is a small price, easily
"worth it", in the eyes and calculations of oligarchic sycophants.
Marisol Marquez , March 6, 2020 at 23:05
It's not just the stuttering. it's also the memory loss, incoherent sentences and rambling
statements. The man should retire and enjoy the time he has left with his wife. He is not fit
to hold any office, never mind the Presidency.
Robinson and Scahill both pick apart Biden's track record, beginning with his push for a
"tough on crime" stance that targeted people of color, an approach that also in part explains
his friendship with one of the most notorious racist politicians in recent history, Strom
Thurmond. Biden was also an outspoken supporter of the Iraq War and was credited with providing
the legislative inspiration for the Patriot Act by George W. Bush's attorney general.
For those who are in "Anybody but Trump" camp in the current circumstances it does not
matter much who will be on Democratic ticket. Biden as the guy on Democratic ticket is a very
sad joke, but still Trump can lose the elections.
Right now Trump himself is his worst enemy. If comments to the article referenced below
reflect sentiments of moderate and anti-war Republicans, Trump has no chances in November.
Note that some even questioned their choice in 2016 elections
What over the last three years – and specifically in the last three weeks made you
think Trump was going to come out of this on top? That would require him to actually be on
top of things, which he never has been. Ever. And you thinking he's just doing 'poorly'
just highlights your delusion that he is capable of being even mildly competent.
failure • 10 hours ago
"The U.S. has the lowest per capita testing of any country."
Trump spent the first years of his presidency doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and
Saudi Arabia instead of focusing on the America First promises that got him elected. The
trillions he wasted on advancing foreign interests was badly needed to rebuild American
infrastructure, including America's disease testing capacity.
Brasidas • 10 hours ago
This is the problem and it has always been the problem with an uncurious President who
doesn't read and who works off hunches and believes he's a "stable genius". He can't even
be bothered to understand the contours of his own policies. After all, it's just a game
show.
IanDakar John Achterhof • 7 hours ago • edited
A travel ban when the disease is here [makes no sense]. When infected citizens can
travel from and TO infected areas:
Where some countries are exempt so infected foreigners can just go to one of those
countries then come here:
Is not the right direction. It would be a half step forward in January.
Now it's [like] installing a faulty smoke detector in the middle of a roaring fire. We
screwed up. We are still screwing up. Acting like It's OK and we will be fine is not
helping.
I Am Sorry • 10 hours ago
I voted for him. I still don't know whether HRC would have been worse, but this is
really, really bad.
john • 9 hours ago
All the hallmarks of a Trump operation, offensive, ineffective, poorly thought out and
will be retracted in the end. The travel ban against China, did help when China was the
only source of the disease, so kudos to Trump. However now the monster is in the castle so
pulling up the drawbridge won't help anymore.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
The obvious point here is that a man who cannot be trusted to open his mouth in public
certainly cannot be trusted to win any debate, especially against the veritable rhetorical
cannon monster known as Donald Trump, who is every bit as formidable in person as he is over
Twitter.
Of course, the Democrats fully understand this, and this is where it seems absolutely safe
to wade waist-deep into the grass of speculation.
... ... ...
As things now stand with the Democratic Party, Joe Biden's victory on Super Tuesday II does
not translate into a Democratic victory in November. In fact, unless Biden can get a grip on
his tongue before then, it almost guarantees defeat. He will fall the wayside like so many
presidential pretenders before him – the Buttigiegs, Bloombergs and Klobuchars –
while some brand new contender will be unveiled, while inheriting all of those accumulated
voters.
"... The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama Presidential
Transition Team by the General Services Administration. ..."
"... The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered
to the GSA. ..."
"... The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD." ..."
"... "Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc." ..."
"... This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren
Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show
they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA
product. ..."
"... If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? ..."
"... The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in
at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired
by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted
coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress. ..."
"... There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July
26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC: ..."
"... A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood
and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the
FBI failed to do a proper investigation. ..."
"... Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody
registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this
registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url. ..."
"... It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received
by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us. ..."
Why does the name of Joe Biden's former Internet Technology guru, Warren Flood, appear in the meta data of documents posted on
the internet by Guccifer 2.0? In case you do not recall, Guccifer 2.0 was identified as someone tied to Russian intelligence who
played a direct role in stealing emails from John Podesta. The meta data in question indicates the name of the person who actually
copied the original document. We have this irrefutable fact in the documents unveiled by Guccifer 2.0--Warren Flood's name appears
prominently in the meta data of several documents attributed to "Guccifer 2.0." When this transpired, Flood was working as the CEO
of his own company, BRIGHT BLUE DATA. (brightbluedata.com). Was Flood tasked to masquerade as a Russian operative?
Give Flood some props if that is true--he fooled our Intelligence Community and the entire team of Mueller prosecutors into believing
that Guccifer was part of a Russian military intelligence cyber attack. But a careful examination of the documents shows that it
is highly unlikely that this was an official Russian cyber operation. Here's what the U.S. Intelligence Community wrote about Guccifer
2.0 in their very flawed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about
his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0
interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in
June.
The laxity of the Intelligence Community in dealing with empirical evidence was matched by a disturbing lack of curiosity on the
part of the Mueller investigators and prosecutors. Here's the tall tale they spun about Guccifer 2.0:
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were
responsible for the breach. Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer
2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based
server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred
sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its
first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that
the GRU officers had searched for that day.
[Apelbaum note--According to Crowdstrike and Special Counsel Mueller, both were present, APT28 AKA "Fancy Bear" and APT29 AKA
"Cozy Bear".]
The claims by both the Intelligence Community and the Mueller team about Guccifer 2.0 are an astounding, incredible denial of
critical evidence pointing to a U.S. actor, not a Russian or Romanian. No one in this "august" group took the time to examine the
metadata on the documents posted by "Guccifer 2.0" to his website on June 15, 2016.
I wish I could claim credit for the following forensic analysis, but the honors are due to Yaacov Apelbaum. While there are many
documents in the Podesta haul that match the following pattern, this analysis focuses only on a document originally created by the
DNC's Director of Research, Lauren Dillon. This document is the Trump Opposition Report document.
According to Apelbaum , the Trump Opposition
Report document, which was "published" by Guccifer 2.0, shows clear evidence of digital manipulation:
A US based user (hereafter referred to as G2 ) operating initially from the West coast and then, subsequently, from the East
coast, changes the MS Word 2007 and Operating System language settings to Russian.
G2 opens and saves a document with the file name, "12192015 Trump Report - for dist-4.docx". The document bears the title,
"Donald Trump Report" (which was originally composed by Lauren Dillon aka DILLON REPORT) as an RTF file and opens it again.
G2 opens a second document that was attached to an email sent on December 21, 2008 to John Podesta from [email protected].
This WORD document lists prospective nominees for posts in the Department of Agriculture for the upcoming Obama Administration.
It was generated by User--Warren Flood--on a computer registered to the General Services Administration (aka GSA) named "Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20-3.doc",
which was kept by Podesta on his private Gmail account. (I refer to this as the "WARREN DOCUMENT" in this analysis.)
G2 deletes the content of the 2008 Warren Document and saves the empty file as a RTF, and opens it again.
G2 copies the content of the 'Dillon Report' (which is an RTF document) and pastes it into the 2008 Warren Document template,
i.e. the empty RTF document.
G2 user makes several modifications to the content of this document. For example, the Warren Document contained the watermark--"CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT". G2 deleted the word "DRAFT" but kept the "CONFIDENTIAL" watermark.
G2 saves this document into a file called "1.doc". This document now contains the text of the original Lauren Dillon "Donald
Trump Report" document, but also contains Russian language URL links that generate error messages.
G2's 1.DOC (the Word version of the document) shows the following meta data authors:
Created at 6/15/2016 at 1:38pm by "WARREN FLOOD"
Last Modified at 6/15/2016 at 1:45pm by "Феликс Эдмундович" (Felix Edmundovich, the first and middle name of Dzerzhinsky,
the creator of the predecessor of the KGB. It is assumed the Felix Edmundovich refers to Dzerzhinsky.)
G2 also produces a pdf version of this document almost four hours later. It is created at 6/15/201`6 at 5:54:15pm by "WARREN
FLOOD."
G2 first publishes "1.doc" to various media outlets and then uploads a copy to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website (which is
hosted in the United States).
There are several critical facts from the metadata that destroy the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian or a Russian.
The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama
Presidential Transition Team by the General Services Administration.
The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered
to the GSA.
The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD."
The copy of "1.doc" was uploaded to a server hosted in the United States.
"Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc."
This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren
Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show
they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as
a GSA product.
If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? A covert
cyber operation is no different from a conventional human covert operation, which means the first and guiding principle is to not
leave any fingerprints that would point to the origin of the operation. In other words, you do not mistakenly leave flagrant Russian
fingerprints in the document text or metadata. A good cyber spy also will not use computers and servers based in the United States
and then claim it is the work of a hacker ostensibly in Romania.
None of the Russians indicted by Mueller in his case stand accused of doing the Russian hacking while physically in the United
States. No intelligence or evidence has been cited to indicate that the Russians stole a U.S. Government computer or used a GSA supplied
copy of Microsoft Word to produce the G2 documents.
The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in
at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he
hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the
attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress.
If foreign intelligence agencies are attempting to undermine that process, the U.S. government should treat such efforts even
more seriously than standard espionage. These types ofcyberattacks are significant and pernicious crimes. Our government must do
all that it can to stop such attacks and to seek justice for the attacks that have already occurred.
We are writing to request more information on this cyberattack in particular and more information in general on how the Justice
Department, FBI, and NCIJTF attempt to prevent and punish these types ofcyberattacks. Accordingly, please respond to the following
by August 9, 2016:
When did the Department of Justice, FBI, and NCIJTF first learn of the DNC hack? Was the government aware ofthe intrusion
prior to the media reporting it?
Has the FBI deployed its Cyber Action Team to determine who hacked the DNC?
Has the FBI determined whether the Russian government, or any other foreign
government, was involved in the hack?
In general, what actions, if any, do the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF take to prevent cyberattacks on non-governmental
political organizations in the U.S., such as campaigns and political parties? Does the government consult or otherwise communicate
with the organizations to inform them ofpotential threats, relay best practices, or inform them ofdetected cyber intrusions.
Does the Justice Department believe that existing statutes provide an adequate basis for addressing hacking crimes of this
nature, in which foreign governments hack seemingly in order to affect our electoral processes?
So far no document from Comey to Lynch has been made available to the public detailing the FBI's response to Lynch's questions.
Why was the Cyber Action Team not deployed to determine who hacked the DNC? A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should
have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke
the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation.
Of course sleepy Joe was in on the overall RussiaGate operation. And now another reasonable question by sleuth extraordinaire
will fall into the memory hole b/c no one who has the authority and the power in DC is ever going to address, let alone, clean
up and hold accountable any who created this awful mess.
Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody
registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record
of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url.
What's troubling to me is that even the most simplest investigative acts to find answers never seems to happen. Instead, more
than three years later we're playing 'Whodunit.'
It's been over 3 years now and if we had a truly functioning intel/justice apparatus this simple act would have been done long
ago and then made public. Yet, here we are more than three years later trying to unravel, figure out or resolve the trail of clues
via metadata the pranksters left behind.
It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received
by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America. ..."
"... Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again. ..."
"... With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money grubbing ways. ..."
"... Tulsi is inspirational. I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption. ..."
"... The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies, injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive end-point. ..."
"... These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this morass. ..."
"... As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC. ..."
"... He never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. ..."
"... Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden? ..."
"... The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the DNC. ..."
"... "Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank. Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason. ..."
"... Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden. ..."
"... And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in it to win it. ..."
"... Blackmail ? The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election – Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397 ..."
"... Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting worse. ..."
"... Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday. http://tdmsresearch.com/ ..."
The handful of American citizens who have by some miracle escaped the wave of death caused
by the coronavirus will be braving the toilet-paper maddened crowds to vote in the latest round
of Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden.
Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
None of the mainstream media have questioned the validity of results or the fairness of the
electoral process, although given the DNC's history you'd be forgiven for doing so.
After Biden's win, Trump immediately went on the offensive (so to speak), questioning
Biden's
mental acuity . This is likely just a taste of things to come.
Given this, you have to wonder what the point of the exercise is. Biden will likely be
mauled by Trump, so are the Democrats even trying to win? Is the plan for Biden to have "health
problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate? Or is the plan to
have him run, win and then get Ned Starked by his vice-president whoever he or (more likely)
she may be?
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
It seems like Bernie is a serial offender here. Setting up hope only to fold faster than
Superman on laundry day when the pressure is on. You wonder if he's being used as a tool to
engage the youth vote, or just a puppet designed to funnel all real leftist thinkers into a
political cul-de-sac.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise
Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe Biden? why?! Are they
planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each candidate pick as a
running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
NOBTS ,
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi so she can debate Joe Biden on Sunday; then
watch the fur fly. .last chance for the left.
Seriously, the only positive play left for Bernie, (if positive change is his intent )would
be to immediately drop out and throw a "Hail Tulsi Pass" downfield ahead of the Sunday
debate.
michaelk ,
One would imagine that Tulsi Gabbard would tick all the liberal/left boxes and virtues the
Guardian pretends to adore and aspire to. She seems almost too perfect in my eyes another
story perhaps? Anyway, one wonders what all those politically correct and so obvioulsy woke
feminist ladies at the Guardian have against Tulsi? The Guardian seems to have decided that
its future lies overseas, in America, which is very odd for a newspaper/platform based in the
UK? Consequently, they are increasingly obsessed with moving closer and closer to the
Democrat party in the US.
This is like the BBC that keeps talking to Americans about absolutely everything of
importance that happens in the world and seeking their insights and opinions to a truly
remarkably degree, considering how little they know and understand about the rest of the
world and how poor they are at foreign languages and historical knowledge. Christ they know
next to nothing about their own history, let alone the rest of the world! The idea that all
these Americans are authorities on the world is ridiculous.
Harry Stotle ,
The ghosting of Gabbard illustrates how the MSM act in concert, and how they look after their
own, i.e. backing those understand their role as puppets for corporate backers.
It also illustrates how the likes of the Guardian turn identity politics off and on like a
tap, but more importantly how even shibboleths like identity politics are still secondary to
an economic model that has placed us on the road to armegeddon.
Maxine ,
Well, Tulsi is FAR from "too perfect" .She voluntarily took part in the Bush/Cheny invasion
of Iraq .How could anybody with a working mind have believed the lies of these nortorious
criminals? .And what sort of judgement did this show? .Just as bad, she is a big fan of
India's monstrous Right-Wing leader, Modi .Nevertheless, the DNC's throwing her out of the
debate is another hideous sign of its corruption .Like her or not, she should have her
opinions heard by the public.
Maxine ,
Don't get me wrong, I find the Gaurdian as despicable as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT and the
rest of the American MSM .OffG is a god-send.
Admin2 ,
Thanks Maxine!
michaelk ,
One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to
believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those
millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America.
Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the
Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again.
Now it's all about stopping the 'monster' Trump first and foremost. The coming election
won't actually be about anything of real substance, nothing like Bernie's political ideas
about healthcare and education; but it'll be a crass referendum about Trump's personality.
Biden, of course, doesn't really have a personality anymore, that's going fast, along with
his mental capacity.
Trump will smash him to pieces and be re-elected again. Four more years,
at least.
Maxine ,
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary on behalf of
Hillary .But I was overwhelmingly disappointed that he in the end supported her .Sadly, I am
appalled that once again he announced he would support Biden if the latter won the primary
this time. How could he?. Hillary and Biden are diametrically opposed to every one of
Sander's professed principles!
Andy ,
With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the
table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money
grubbing ways.
As for Michelle Obama coming into the fight , I can only laugh and carry on
with my life. I fail to see what she has to offer, other than being Barry's wife. Not really
awe – inspiring stuff. Young Hilary must be turning in her coffin at the thought of
being pipped to the post, as the first female President by another ex presidents wife.
We
truly are living in bizarro times. The men behind the curtain must be laughing their
collective arses off at the results of this circus they have created.
Tulsi is inspirational.
I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption.
harry stotle ,
America dispensed with the idea of democracy some time ago.
The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies,
injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive
end-point.
There may be a full blown international conflict, rather than asymmetrical power used to
intimidate weaker states (led by the USA, and backed to the hilt by Britain, Israel, and
KSA).
These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have
instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on
roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this
morass.
Pity more citizens in America fail to understand what has been done to them, or what this
corrupt regime has inflicted on rest of the world.
Britain is no better – to expose what is happening we need a functioning MSM but what
we have instead is the Guardian and BBC: platforms that are now infamous for churning out low
calibre, or fake news.
Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC
to pick its own candidate?
That's my theory. I think they're going to suddenly 'discover' that Joltin' Joe has
'health problems' and then roll out their real candidate on the second ballot at the
convention this summer–probably Michelle Obama.
Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
I think our only hope now is that the Corona Virus kills all other politicians in the US,
leaving only Tulsi alive. Of course, the DNC would probably still find some way to deny her
the nomination somehow
michaelk ,
The DNC's election tactics were superb. Corrupt, rotten, foul and manipulative as well, but
they worked. The swathe of candidates at the start gave the impression of a democratic and
fair race, whilst deflecting people away from the stark choice of supporting Biden or Sanders
from the beginning.
Whilst Trump succeeded by first capturing the Republican party and then going on to win
the presidential election; Sanders chose not to follow that strategy, apparently believing,
though it's an extraordinary thing to believe, that the leadership of the party was going to
allow him to win the nomination 'fairly.'
Biden against Trump is going to be the worst, most grotesque, election contest, ever seen
in the United States. Two totally unworthy candidates battling it out over the rotting corpse
of a dying democracy. Probably the best result would be if most people just stayed at home on
election day and boycotted the entire ghastly event.
wardropper ,
Yes. People should just stay home. But of course there is a regular percentage of observers
who are incensed by the idea that people will realize how little effect their vote truly
has.
"It's treason not to vote", they rage, quite oblivious to the really treasonous system
which manipulates votes according to something quite different from the interests of
democracy.
wardropper ,
It would be interesting to see, (although it's not going to happen) how the media, faced with
an absolute zero voting turnout, would still manage to yap on about a "neck and neck race",
with the most corrupt party emerging the clear winner after all
Gary Weglarz ,
The Democratic Party candidate selection process continues to roll along providing all the
tension and suspense of an impending colonoscopy – sans anesthetic. It has been clear
since 25 (yes 25) Democratic Party challengers have already "dropped out" of the race –
that divide and conquer would be the order of the day. Spread the electorate out among a
ridiculous number of mainstream centrist candidates and then throw all that support to one
candidate – Joe Biden. Why would the party establishment choose Biden? Perhaps the
following recent quote from Joe might shed some light. In trying to reference the Declaration
of Independence Biden had the following to say to a crowd at a campaign rally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by -- you know, you
know . . . the thing."
Since we all know "the thing" is said to "work in mysterious ways" – one can deduce
that the Democratic Party elites are perhaps depending upon "the thing" to work some sort of
a miracle for them. At any rate it is all rather "mysterious" indeed.
Since Tulsi Gabbard has had the temerity to not join the 25 brain-dead placeholders and to
"drop out" herself, and since she has further shown the very bad form of continuing to speak
to anyone who will listen about America's illegal amoral regime-change wars – she has
sadly had to be simply – "disappeared." Yes, I know, this term is usually associated
with the death-squad democracies my government supports endlessly and shamelessly in Latin
America, but if nothing else our American MSM have shown that you don't need death squads
when they are on the job. They are quite capable of completely and entirely "disappearing"
anyone sharing a message that has not been – "oligarchy approved." Trying to find
reference to Tulsi in MSM is like trying to get through a day without being brutally reminded
of Joe Biden's blinding dementia problem – pretty much impossible.
As the author suggests the Democratic Party establishment surely must have some plan other
than simply sabotaging Sanders and then throwing a demented Biden to the Orange One to act as
a pinata during the presidential debates. We American's do love "reality TV," but this I fear
would be about as crass and horrific a spectacle as watching someone drown puppies on live
television. Surely we must assume that the DNC and party oligarchy plan to use Biden as yet
another "place-holder" to be replaced between now and fall presidential debates. The name
"Hillary 'the rot' Clinton comes to mind – and suddenly one is reminded that there are
worse things in life than a colonoscopy.
Of course the actual credibility of all of this spectacle to date depends upon one
actually believing that both the polling numbers, and the voting processes, are honest and
ethical and accurate, which seems to me to be about as likely as "you know, you know . . .
the thing," performing some sort of a "miracle" on behalf of the Democratic Party so that it
can valiantly vanquish the Orange One – using of all things – a dementia
sufferer.
From my limited vantage point here in southern California it would appear that America is
very much like a runaway train speeding toward a very very thick brick wall while gaining
speed minute by minute. This train of course has no "driver" – save the inexorable laws
of history as they pertain to crumbling "empires."
With that in mind I think I'll go shopping again so I can pretend none of this is
happening – while joining with my neighbors in "hoarding" as much toilet paper as I
possibly can! Actually, truth be told, the local toilet paper supply is now long gone and
people are now hoarding paper towels – (I kid you not) – which of course portends
a lot of very very sore bottoms by the time this is all over.
Seamus Padraig ,
You can have a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as its kosher.
So true! +1000
Charlotte Russe ,
Unfortunately, for all of Bernie's enthusiastic supporter 2020 was a redux of 2016. Amnesia,
initially sets in caused by the initial excitement. Bernie's campaign overwhelms those
yearning for change. Sanders is cognizant of how young voters and the marginalized are
economically suffering. He knows exactly what to say to arouse an audience of thousands.
Devoted crowds eagerly rally around Bernie anticipating the upcoming primaries, believing
he'll win everyone of them. After all, how could anyone be against a message promoting social
justice.
And lo and behold, right out of the box the security state shenanigans begin. A "Shadow
app" surfaces in Iowa, followed by a narrow win in New Hampshire. And although Bernie won the
popular vote in the first two primaries he still comes out the loser to CIA Pete. However,
not to be deterred Bernie won the Nevada caucus in a landslide. That was the moment when
security state needed to make its move. It was now or never. These ghouls could not let
Bernie pick up any more momentum. If they did, it would be too late to stop
him–Milwaukee could turn into a bloodbath. It was time for the intelligence agencies to
take a stand.
Clyburn a sellout bourgeois conservative black was called upon to do his duty. You don't
get to be a "misleader" of the poor and the dejected if you won't convince them to smile
while jumping off a cliff.
Slick Clyburn, gathered all the other crooked black politicians and they united in force
behind brain dead Biden. When misleader Clyburn speaks his downtrodden constituency listens.
South Carolina was a wipeout–Biden overwhelmingly won. And that's all the security
state needed. Using the state-run mainstream media news propaganda machine in 72 hours
Biden's campaign was raised like Lazarus from the dead.
Drooling Joe, received a slew of slick endorsements from all the longtime party hacks. A
narrative was easily generated– Sanders was a loser and only Biden could beat Trump. At
the end of day, don't you dumbasses want to beat Trump. So let's unite behind alzheimer
Joe–he's our best chance.
As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is
weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC.
He
never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be
willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. There were other things
showing Bernie's lack of interest in winning. He stupidly embraced the Russiagate concocted
narrative and then was victimized by it himself. He refused to tear into Biden describing in
detail how every piece of reactionary legislation Joe passed was based on payoffs he'd
received for either his son or his brother. In South Carolina, Bernie never used the millions
donated to play video clips proving Biden is a warmongering racist.
Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if
Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden?
The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to
participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but
Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored
Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the
DNC.
Naturally the DNC didn't want Tulsi near the debate stage–she's the bravest of the
lot. Tulsi would have proved Biden was a crook and a war criminal. Tulsi presence would be a
boom for bernie, but Bernie didn't want that since he was in cahoots with the DNC.
And in the end, that's what it was always all about NOTHING. Bernie is the Tammy and Jim
Baker of politics a prophet of false hope. He gathers up all the guiless and guillibe and
then tosses them into the lion's den.
In Biden's case it's easy to know why the slithering DC establishment gang embraced him
with open arms -- they all wanted to come back home
Here are some of the people Biden is considering for senior positions, per Axios:
"Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank.
Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the
race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an
endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite
the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested
Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as the US ambassador to the
United Nations or the US trade representative. Buttigieg also endorsed Biden shortly after
dropping out.
Some Biden advisers see Sen. Kamala Harris of California as a contender for attorney
general if she's not on the ticket.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane have both
been floated for positions at the Treasury Department.
The Biden campaign is also considering a slew of veterans from the Obama administration
for key positions. Among those being considered:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry may reprise his role or take on a Cabinet position
focused on combating climate change.
The former national security adviser Susan Rice may be nominated for a State Department
role.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a contender for attorney general."
Every loathsome contemptible neoliberal military interventionist is waiting in the wings
to continue where Obama left off ..
Super Tuesday was so obviously rigged. The vote in California deviated from exit polling by
over 15% and don't get me started on that Shadow app used for the Iowa caucus. The only
difference wasn't as blatantly obvious as the last Primary.
Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC
unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play.
Charlotte Ruse ,
Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely
stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and
Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden.
In avid Bernie locations polling centers were closed. And when all else failed voting
machines are hacked. No one should underate the power of state-run mainstream media
propaganda they hammered Sanders and launded the creep Biden.
And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in
it to win it.
The elections are more democratic in Afghanistan. When I previously commented on several
posts the Democratic Party Primaries need to be monitored by a UN Raconteur many found it
amusing.
Maxine ,
Why did Bernie become a candidate if he were not in it to win? .I can't figure that one out.
Eric McCoo ,
Blackmail ?
The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election –
Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good
to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397
RealPeter ,
There is a lot in what Charlotte says. Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona
crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting
worse.
Andy ,
Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday.
http://tdmsresearch.com/
Ken ,
The fix is in for the status quo, and it's quite likely another 4 years of the orange
asshole.
Everybody knows (listen to Leonard Cohen) Tulsi Gabbard does not exist, just like everybody
knows Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, Assad, that Putin Nazi, spread some kind of Bad
Gas in Douma, repeatededly over several years since 2014, which the Intrepid White Helmets
made better–just watch their Hollywood, Oscar winning movie. Of course Joe Biden is
senile, else why would he challenge our carrot-topped Fearless leader, and everybody knows
that Putin-Nazi Boris and Natasha tried to rig the 2016 election but were thwarted by
Moose-Squirel, and other CIA assets.
"... The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe Biden. Since his "miraculous" wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian . ..."
"... Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis. You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance. ..."
The toilet-paper maddened crowds will be braving coronavirus to vote in the latest round of
Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden. Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
... ... ...
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe
Biden? why?! Are they planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each
candidate pick as a running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
Numerous so-called "front groups" operate in the United States. A front group is very simply
an organization that pretends to have a certain program while at the same time using that
identity as cover to promote a hidden agenda that is something quite different, often opposed
to what is being said publicly. The Global Climate Coalition is, for example, an organization
funded by fossil fuel providers that works to deny climate change and other related issues. The
Groundwater Protection Council does not protect water resources at all and instead receives its
money from the fracking industry, which resists any regulation of water pollution it causes.
The Partnership for a New American Economy has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. economy
and instead seeks to replace American workers with H1B immigrant laborers. Even the benign
sounding National Sleep Foundation, is in reality a Big Pharma creation intended to convince
Americans that they need to regularly use sleep inducing drugs.
Front groups in a political context can be particularly dangerous as they deceive the voter
into supporting candidates or promoting policies that have a hidden agenda. The
Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is, for example, uninterested in
preserving democracies unless that democracy is Israel, which many observers would prefer to
describe as an apartheid state. It is funded by Zionists billionaires and its leadership meets
regularly with Israeli officials. The American Enterprise Institute is likewise a neocon
mouthpiece for economic imperialism and regime change disguising itself as a free market
advocate and the Brookings Institution is its liberal interventionist counterpart.
Front groups are sometimes largely fictional, on occasion creations of an intelligence
agency to give the impression that there exists in a country a formidable opposition to
policies pursued by the governing regime. Recent developments in Venezuela and Bolivia rather
suggest the CIA creation of front groups in both countries while the Ukrainian regime change
that took place in 2014 also benefited greatly from a U.S. created and supported opposition to
the legitimate Viktor Yanukovych government.
An ardent proponent of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, an ill-conceived initiative that
has served as an enduring provocation of Russian hostility toward the West, Biden voted
enthusiastically to authorize Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq, was a major proponent of Clinton's
war in Kosovo, and pushed for military intervention in Sudan.
No doubt that JB is having cognitive and memory problems but it seemed to me that his wife
and sister switched placed when he turned to where he thought his sister was and mistook one
for the other without looking!
I have more issues with that crook Biden besides his senility – he's a dyed in the blue
neoliberal. He wants to cut social security and other programs for the people. He's a big
supporter of the financial industry and the MIC to name a few. His son should be behind bars
for graft.
Why just Biden? This is a question that should be asked of all three: Trump, Biden and
Sanders – with or without COVID-19. It's pretty much a given that a lot of illnesses
like flu, pneumonia and other viruses cause significantly more harm to the over 70 crowd.
Plus, as my cardiologist says to me at the end of every visit (since I flew by age 75): DON'T
FALL.
The best objection I've heard to Bernie came from someone who said he feared for his 401K
if a Sanders presidency occurred. I reminded him that the markets managed to crash all by
themselves in 2007-8, but further thought discloses he was mistaken about what constituted
wealth.
"Wealth isn't about having lots of money; it's about having lots of options." –
Chris Rock
So if the hedgies and other plutocrats crash the economy providing the options, even if
lots of dollars, stock certificates, gold bullion, etc. is in their hands, they are
sabotaging their own wealth.
"Saving" Wall Street really amounts to "saving" the tapeworm while discarding the
host.
Apparently, no one really watch the link I provided, a link that demonstrated what
Greenwald eloquently states below:
" when it comes to plainly valid questions concerning Joe Biden's cognitive fitness:
expressing revulsion and scorn at the mere mention of these questions and declaring the
topic off-limits to all decent people even though establishment Democrats were the ones
who first spread insinuations and even explicit accusations about Biden's cognitive
decline when they thought doing so could help them defeat him and/or because it genuinely
concerned them regarding his ability to defeat Trump."
Is anyone on this site willing to address the issued raised about Biden's competence,
when those who now cynically support him actually raised the issue earlier in the
campaign?
Are they all jockeying for the 25th amendment? Or a place in an administration they
know will collapse but leave them high and dry?
Or doing everything they can to keep the big bucks coming to the DNC elite, from
banks, from big pharma while they forget about the working class .the people who actually
have to work for a living?
By nominating a candidate whose place in the Democratic Party establishment was undeniable
and who lacked credibility on issues like money in politics, the Democrats simply let Trump run
as the anti-establishment candidate.
Notable quotes:
"... As the Trump campaign's onetime CEO, Steve Bannon, put it shortly after the election, "Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump's message. From her email server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of." ..."
"... This time around, Trump should have zero credibility running as a "populist." The president has presided over the most corrupt administration in modern history , plagued by investigations and numerous indictments that have led to convictions of some of his closest associates. Trump has nominated Supreme Court justices who defend money in politics , and his major legislative achievement has been to give billionaires and corporate elites major tax cuts . ..."
"... It should be easy for Democrats to expose Trump as the corrupt charlatan that he is. In an age when a majority of voters rate political corruption as America's biggest crisis and nearly 8 in 10 Americans agree that there should be "limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations" can spend on political campaigns, how hard can it be to defeat a hugely unpopular president who makes Richard Nixon look half decent? The surest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again would be to follow the same strategy as 2016 and nominate a candidate who embodies the establishment, carries a ton of political baggage and lacks credibility on issues like corruption. ..."
Donald Trump had the perfect opponent in the 2016 election. Running as a populist
billionaire taking on the Washington elite, he couldn't have asked for a better rival in
Hillary Clinton, who carried heavy political baggage and who, for many, personified the
so-called establishment. While Trump's populist shtick was easy to pick apart, Clinton was the
wrong person to promote the message she was trying to get across to voters.
By nominating a candidate whose place in the Democratic Party establishment was undeniable
and who lacked credibility on issues like money in politics, the Democrats simply let Trump run
as the anti-establishment candidate. Not only that, but the Clinton camp even tried courting
establishment Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for their own party's
candidate.
Here was a man who had openly bragged
about bribing politicians , yet Democrats couldn't go after Trump on the issue because
their own candidate was one of the politicians to whom he'd donated in the past. The Clinton
camp raised (and spent) far
more money than Trump, but whether this actually helped or hurt her is unclear, as it also gave
credence to the perception that she was the candidate favored by big donors Meanwhile, Trump
positioned himself as the self-financing candidate who couldn't be bought.
As the Trump campaign's onetime CEO, Steve Bannon,
put it shortly after the election, "Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump's
message. From her email server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her
FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of."
Under Trump, corporate America has thrived while real-income
growth has declined for most working- and middle-class people. Inequality has continued
to reach historic levels , and billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg have
seen their wealth surge . In 2020, Trump is no longer even
pretending to self-finance his campaign. With his recent predatory budget proposal he has made
it clear that he is getting ready to
gut programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, during his second term.
It should be easy for Democrats to expose Trump as the corrupt charlatan that he is. In an
age when a majority of voters rate political corruption
as America's biggest crisis and nearly 8 in 10 Americans
agree that there should be "limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations"
can spend on political campaigns, how hard can it be to defeat a hugely unpopular president who
makes Richard Nixon look half decent? The surest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again would
be to follow the same strategy as 2016 and nominate a candidate who embodies the establishment,
carries a ton of political baggage and lacks credibility on issues like corruption.
By the looks of it, Democrats might just pull it off. After Super Tuesday, it appears that
Trump will have another perfect foil for his message in 2020. Former Vice President Joe Biden
has regained his place as the Democratic frontrunner after a successful showing on Tuesday,
thanks in large part to party elites, and some of his former rivals, quickly consolidating
around his campaign the day before. Though the race is far from over, Biden is now
well-positioned to win the nomination. By selecting Biden, Democrats will effectively let Trump
and his deeply corrupt administration off the hook yet again.
Biden is a lot like Clinton, but worse in almost every measurable way. On issue after issue,
Biden has consistently been to the right of Clinton throughout his fifty-year political career.
He has a record of advocating cuts to Social
Security and Medicare; he
helped write the 1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration; he played
a critical role in passing the 2005 bankruptcy bill that stripped bankruptcy protection from
some of the most vulnerable people. Biden also supported and championed the
Iraq War .
This list goes on and on. Beyond his extremely problematic record, which will make it hard
for Democrats to go after Trump about, say, cutting Social Security (which Biden himself
supported not too long ago), Biden has his own personal scandals that will make it very
difficult for him to cast Trump as corrupt.
While his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine may not qualify as corruption, it was
doubtless
unethical and sleazy for Biden's son to take a high-paying consultant gig with a foreign
firm while his father was vice president (and Biden's refusal to acknowledge this conflict only
makes it worse). The behavior of Biden's family will haunt him in the general election. As Ryan
Grim wrote in The Intercept
last October, Biden's son and brother have been "trading on their family name for decades,
cashing in on the implication -- and sometimes the explicit argument -- that giving money to a
member of Joe Biden's family wins the favor of Joe Biden." Predictably, a
majority of voters believe it was inappropriate for Biden's son to take a job with the
Ukrainian firm, and Trump will exploit this and use it to defend his own family's nepotism and
corruption.
In the lead-up to the general election, Biden, who has recently struggled to
string coherent sentences together, would provide the slick demagogue Donald Trump with all the
ammunition he needs. We were given a little preview of what to expect in President Trump's
Super Tuesday commentary: "The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders,
AGAIN!" he gloated on Twitter,
once again positioning himself as the anti-establishment populist.
On Monday, the Democratic establishment proved that it still has far more control over the
party than the Republican establishment did over their own party in 2016. No one stands to
benefit more from an establishment triumph than Donald Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has the
credibility to call out Trump on his corruption and neoliberal economic policies, is still in
the race, but his chances are looking much slimmer than they were just a week ago.
Democrats have a choice: They can follow the same strategy that ended up costing them all
three branches of government in recent years, or they can go another way. The stakes couldn't
be higher.
DNC installing a man with obvious cognitive impairment is a staggering display of arrogance.
While Bush and Obama were empty suits this is completly another level.
In way I think Stupor Tuesday was a huge win for Trump.
The oldest organized political party on the planet is advancing a senile globalist meatpuppet
(with a son known to be a philandering crackhead) to handle nuclear launch codes.
Choosing Biden hands the election to Trump and that's a deal that has already been made. The
DNC don't like Sanders because they are adraid he might win, not because they are afraid he
might loose.
I agree with you that it is not going to be a slam dunk for Trump. Just like Trump wasn't
damaged by the Access Hollywood tapes, Biden's not going to be damaged by his senility,
gaffes and his prior plagiarism, Wall St cronyism and corruption. The vote for the "lesser
evil" mindset will consolidate along traditional lines. The Obama machine will run Biden's
campaign and consolidate the Democrat support. The election will hinge on a few states in
particular Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
I suppose the politically correct thing is to pretend that Joe
Biden winning the Black vote isn't like the late Jeffrey Epstein being hailed as a mentor
of teenage girls.
Trump
recently mocked Biden over a mistake when Biden said he was looking forward to Super Thursday
instead of Super Tuesday. any chance of medical intervention here? Hillary got some shots.
Notable quotes:
"... We cannot get reelected, we cannot win this reelection, excuse me, we can only re-elect Donald Trump. ..."
"Joe Biden mistakenly endorsed President Donald Trump during a speech in St. Louis, and
Donald Trump responded with 'I agree with Joe!' on Twitter. In his speech, former vice
president Joe Biden said, ' We cannot get reelected, we cannot win this reelection,
excuse me, we can only re-elect Donald Trump. ' "
Sanders is not a panacea. He is a sheep dog. But neoliberal oligarchs and the Deep State are
afraid of sheep dog too. They need puppets.
Bernie Sanders is actually trying to save the Democratic Party from irrelevance. But
irrelevance does not bother party bureaucracy and Clintons who still rule the party that much:
all they want is money and plush positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. ..."
"... Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy, when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention seats empty. ..."
"... Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. ..."
"... Sanders misread the Democratic Party leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries. They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it. ..."
"... Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest? Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No. ..."
"... Biden represents the old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office. ..."
There is only one choice in this election. The consolidation of oligarchic power under
Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden. The oligarchs, with
Trump or Biden, will win again. We will lose. The oligarchs made it abundantly clear, should
Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party nominee, they would join forces with
the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if Sanders was the nominee, instantly be shorn by
the Democratic Party elites of his demons and his propensity for tyranny. Sanders would be
red-baited -- as he was viciously Friday in The New York Times' " As Bernie
Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity " -- and turned into a
figure of derision and ridicule.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a Hillary
Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They prefer Biden over Trump,
but they can live with either.
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the
consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is
not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power --
which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the
continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. It is impossible working within the
system to shatter the hegemony of oligarchic power or institute meaningful reform. Change, real
change, will only come by sustained acts of civil disobedience and mass mobilization, as with
the yellow vests movement in France and the British-based Extinction Rebellion . The longer we are
fooled by the electoral burlesque, the more disempowered we will become.
I was on the streets with protesters in Philadelphia outside the appropriately named Wells
Fargo Center during the 2016 Democratic Convention when hundreds of
Sanders delegates walked out of the hall. "Show me what democracy looks like!" they
chanted, holding Bernie signs above their heads as they poured out of the exits. "This is what
democracy looks like!"
Sanders' greatest tactical mistake was not joining them. He bowed before the mighty altar of
the corporate state. He had desperately tried to stave off a revolt by his supporters and
delegates on the eve of the convention by sending out repeated messages in his name -- most of
them authored by members of the Clinton campaign -- to be respectful, not disrupt the
nominating process and support Clinton. Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his
disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy,
when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention
seats empty.
After the 2016 convention, Sanders held rallies -- the crowds pitifully small compared to
what he had drawn when he ran as an insurgent -- on Clinton's behalf. He returned to the Senate
to loyally line up behind Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose power comes from his
ability to funnel tens of millions of dollars in corporate and Wall Street money to anointed
Democratic candidates. Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic
National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. He endorsed Democratic candidates who
espoused the neoliberal economic and political positions he claims to oppose. Sanders, who
calls himself an independent, caucused as a Democrat. The Democratic Party determined his
assignments in the Senate. Schumer offered to make Sanders the head of the Senate Budget
Committee if the Democrats won control of the Senate. Sanders became a party apparatchik.
Sanders apparently believed that if he was obsequious enough to the Democratic Party elite,
they would give him
a chance in 2020 , a chance they denied him in 2016. Politics, I suspect he would argue, is
about compromise and the practical. This is true. But playing politics in a system that is not
democratic is about being complicit in the charade. Sanders misread the Democratic Party
leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a
corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at
rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence
on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political
courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him
for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries.
They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it.
Sanders is wounded. The oligarchs will go in for the kill. They will subject him to the same
character assassination, aided by the courtiers in the corporate press, that was directed at
Henry Wallace in 1948 and George McGovern in 1972, the only two progressive presidential
candidates who managed to seriously threaten the ruling elites since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The feckless liberal class, easily frightened, is already abandoning Sanders, castigating his
supporters with their nauseating self-righteousness and championing Biden as a political
savior.
Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no
moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest?
Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No.
Biden represents the
old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men
and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He
is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites
are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most
Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100
million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This
demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in
office.
By voting
for Biden , you endorse the humiliation of courageous women such as Anita Hill who
confronted their abusers. You vote for the architects of the endless wars in the Middle East.
You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. You vote for wholesale surveillance of the public
by government intelligence agencies and the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You
vote for austerity programs, including the destruction of welfare and cuts to Social
Security . You vote for NAFTA, free trade deals, de-industrialization, a decline in wages,
the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and the offshoring of jobs to underpaid
workers who toil in sweatshops in China or Vietnam. You vote for the assault on public
education and the transfer of federal funds to for-profit and Christian charter schools. You
vote for the doubling of our prison population, the tripling and quadrupling of sentences and
huge expansion of crimes meriting the death penalty. You vote for militarized police who gun
down poor people of color with impunity. You vote against the Green New Deal and immigration
reform. You vote for limiting a woman's right to
abortion and reproductive rights. You vote for a segregated public-school system in which
the wealthy receive educational opportunities and poor people of color are denied a chance. You
vote for punitive levels of student debt and the inability to free yourself of debt obligations
through bankruptcy . You
vote for deregulating the banking industry and the abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for
the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and against universal health care. You
vote for bloated defense budgets. You vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate
money to buy our elections. You vote for a politician who during his time in the Senate
abjectly served the interests of
MBNA , the largest independent credit card company headquartered in Delaware, which also
employed Biden's son Hunter.
There are no substantial political differences between the Democrats and Republicans. We
have only the illusion of participatory democracy. The Democrats and their liberal apologists
adopt tolerant positions on issues regarding race, religion, immigration, women's rights and
sexual identity and pretend this is politics. The right wing uses those on the margins of
society as scapegoats. The culture wars mask the reality. Both parties are full partners in the
reconfiguration of American society into a form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you
want it dressed up.
"By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their interests a
priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of an opposition party
in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon Wolin writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing
little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism. What the public wants
and deserves will again be ignored for what the corporate lobbyists demand. If we do not
respond soon to the social and economic catastrophe that has been visited on most of the
population, we will be unable to thwart the rise of corporate tyranny and a
Christian fascism.
We need to reintegrate those who have been pushed aside back into the society, to heal the
ruptured social bonds, to give workers dignity, empowerment and protection. We need a universal
health care system, especially as we barrel toward a global pandemic. We need programs that
provide employment with sustainable wages, job protection and pensions. We need quality public
education for all Americans. We need to rebuild our infrastructure and end the squandering of
our resources on war. We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and
corporations. We need to respond with radical and immediate measures to curb carbon emissions
and save ourselves from ecocide and extinction. We don't need a "Punch and Judy" show between
Trump and Biden. But that, along with corporate tyranny, is what we seem fated to get, unless
we take to the streets and tear the house down.
> Listen to Cornel West for a real understanding of what has happened and what are our options.
There are no options left for neoliberal Dems. This is a typical political Zugzwang. The only hope is Coronavirus (as an act
of God). Otherwise it looks like they already surrendered elections to Trump.
Biden is a dead end into which neoliberal Dems drove themselves.
See, for example
A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct a 'brokered convention'. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg
and Warren had lately put themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there's been nothing
like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality can be denied the nomination on the
first ballot and defeated later by a coalition.
If Biden now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance.
On the other hand, his verbal gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying 'I
was a Democratic caucus') and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South Africa for demonstrating against
the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would be a case, yet again, of the
right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice against the party's own insurgent energy.
The Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as separate nations. Women are
a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African American or white.
So the answer to Trump's divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified categories that self-divide and
surrender.
The only other weapon of note has been an attempted revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with
two anti-Sanders hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian agent
But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure.
A recent leak from a misinterpreted fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency. They have prospered wonderfully
from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. It will be hard to deny
the plausibility of the charge likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that 'the fix is in'; and that, once
more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised propaganda campaign that was fed into
debates as well as news coverage, and at last through public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into
the one acceptable box.
The DNC
basically chose the overwhelmingly weaker nominee (and sometimes they even did it
blatantly ), and so they lost
to Trump instead of to have their billionaire donors lose to Sanders and to the American public
by Sanders becoming the nominee and then the President. Keeping the support from their
billionaire donors was the DNC's top priority, in 2016 . Of course, America's voting public
generally don't know that both the DNC and the RNC are far more committed to keeping the
support from their billionaire donors than they are committed to winning elections. This is why
those voters pay close heed to what their Party's leaders say about which candidates are
'electable' and which ones aren't.
The voters don't understand how politics actually works, in today's America -- they think
that winning the current general election is a Party official's top priority . They think that
Party professionals are professionals at selecting winners, but instead Party professionals are
professionals at pleasing their Party's billionaires. If a voter wants to please him or her
self instead of please a group of billionaires, that voter ought to vote for whomever that
voter thinks would best serve that voter and not serve any group of billionaires
As the Huffington Post
reported on March 4th , the day after Joe Biden's huge Super-Tuesday win, "'Voters liked
both candidates but clearly consolidated around the one they saw as most electable,' said Jared
Leopold, who was the communications director for the Democratic Governors' Association during
the race. 'The intraparty ideological fight pales in comparison to the thirst to beat Donald
Trump and his buddies.'"
Those people's top concern is to please the few individuals who fund their careers. Winning
the current electoral contest isn't actually their #1 concern, though voters think it is. The
Party professionals have a longer-term, personally career-oriented, goal in mind -- pleasing
their bosses' bosses.
"... Faced with Zionism at its most aggressive, most US presidents tend to mellow, discovering long-standing friendships among those who most infuriate them. But Sanders has talked of Palestinian suffering and dignity on numerous occasions – which neither Biden nor Warren have yet chosen to do on the campaign – and his contention that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) promotes "bigotry" aroused perhaps too much fury from the pro-Israeli lobby group ..."
"... Its boss, Howard Kohr, is well aware that neither Sanders nor Warren – nor, apparently, Biden, though we'll see about this -- had any interest in attending this year's AIPAC conference. His latest remarks, clearly directed at the man who could be America's first Jewish president, are worthy of serious examin ..."
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
And many American voters – save for pro-Israeli lobbyists, liberal Jewish groups and
disparate Muslim organisations – don't care a hill of beans about the fears of Israel and the Arabs. But both
Muslims and Jews in the region have been carefully studying what the three remaining Democrat
contenders have said about two-state solutions, Israeli colonies in the West Bank and the US
embassy, currently in Jerusalem courtesy of Donald Trump. It's time we did the same.
First of all, despair all ye who think the Democrats are going to reverse Trump's disastrous
transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Those who believe that a Democrat
president will simply roll back on Trump's disastrous policies – not just over the
embassy but anywhere else in the Middle East – had better shake off their illusions.
History doesn't go backwards. None of the Democratic candidates would commit to reversing
Trump's embassy decision when asked; only Sanders spoke vaguely of returning it to Tel Aviv.
The rest chickened out by suggesting, rather outrageously, that the existence of the embassy in
Jerusalem would become part of future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – something which
was never part of the original Oslo negotiations nor any UN resolution.
Elizabeth Warren announced in the South Carolina debate last month that the decision should
be left up to "Israel and Palestine" – presumably suggesting that the 'capital' of a
two-state solution was up to them, even though Bibi Netanyahu believes it's all wrapped up
– Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, full stop. And "Palestine", Warren should have been
aware, doesn't as a state actually exist.
"But it's not up to us to determine what the terms of a two-state solution are," quoth she.
" The best way to do that is to encourage the parties to get to the negotiating table
themselves." Repeatedly asked if she would move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, Warren equally
repeatedly said that "we should let the parties determine the capital." Later she rather eerily
referred to "capitals" – without explaining if she was thinking of a Palestinian
"capital" in the village of Abu Dis, the grim little solution that Madeleine Albright
half-heartedly supported two decades ago.
Sanders, of course, captured the imagination and fury of Arabs and Israelis (and Israel's
supposed friends in America) by his characterisation of Netanyahu as a "reactionary racist"
– a description he may now choose to soften. Faced with Zionism at its most
aggressive, most US presidents tend to mellow, discovering long-standing friendships among
those who most infuriate them. But Sanders has talked of Palestinian suffering and dignity on
numerous occasions – which neither Biden nor Warren have yet chosen to do on the campaign
– and his contention that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) promotes
"bigotry" aroused perhaps too much fury from the pro-Israeli lobby group .
Its boss, Howard Kohr, is well aware that neither Sanders nor Warren – nor,
apparently, Biden, though we'll see about this -- had any interest in attending this year's
AIPAC conference. His latest remarks, clearly directed at the man who could be America's first
Jewish president, are worthy of serious examin ation. "A growing and highly vocal and
energised part of the electorate fundamentally rejects the value of the US-Israeli alliance,"
he said. " The leaders of this movement say they support Israel's right to defend herself. But
every time Israel exercises that right, they condemn Israel."
Kohr wasn't referring here to BDS, the boycott, divest and sanctions movement which does
frighten Israeli leaders, but the increasingly worried men and women in America – young
Jewish liberals prominent among them – who are disgusted by the suffering faced by the
Palestinians in Gaza. Unafraid of Sanders' unwise use of the word "socialism" – which
used to be quite acceptable in Israel many years ago – they are searching, I suspect, for
a morality in international politics which the US regularly suspends when confronted by
Israel's colonial project in the West Bank.
"Israel cannot afford false friends," Kohr continued in a very clear assault on Sanders'
condemnation of the Israeli government and its now yet-again elected prime minister, an attack
he described as "demonising Israel". Last spring, Kohr spoke of the "intense hatred" of Israel
which, he contended, was moving from the margins to the centre of US politics. " Israel has
been able to count on its friendship with the United States," he now says.
But George W Bush and Obama "each understood that America's commitment to Israel's safety
must be consistent, it must be unequivocal [sic], and it must be dependable." In reality
– a quality often lost in any discussion of US-Israeli relations in Washington –
Obama was angered by Netanyahu's constant interference in US politics, his lone appeals to
Congress over the president's head and his absolute refusal to postpone or close down or
abandon the steady theft of Palestinian Arab land for Jewish colonies between Jerusalem and the
Jordan river. Kohr's reference to the necessity of America's "unequivocal" support is not quite
what he meant.
The correct word – had he dared to say it – would have been "uncritical". And
Sanders is not uncritical. In the strait-jacket, fearful debates which pass for serious
television discussion in the United States, condemnation of Israel and its grotesque occupation
of another people's land – if not splashed with accusations of antisemitism – is
regarded as off-limits, unacceptable, even immoral.
Sanders has broken this silly convention. And thus he must be dismissed as a "socialist'
(this is partly his fault, of course) and a "radical", a word which my elderly Dad would
probably have interpreted as a 'Bolshie'. Sanders is not a Bolshevik – though he
sometimes looks like one when he's on the stump – and his real threat to Israel is that
in the eyes of his supporters, he is honest, and seen to be honest. The fact that Sanders is
Jewish and represents the bravest of America's liberal Jewish community is all the more
frightening to Israel's right-wing supporters.
And so we come to Joe Biden, a man whom Netanyahu used to run rings around when Biden was
Obama's vice president. In 2010, the Netanyahu government blithely announced 1,600 new
settlement houses on occupied Palestinian land shortly after Biden's arrival on an official
visit to Israel. Huffily arriving 90 minutes late for dinner with Netanyahu, Biden condemned
the decision – and said no more. Four years later, addressing the Saban Forum, part of
the right-wing Brookings Institute, Biden spent much time condemning Iran, praising Obama's $17
billion financial support for Israel's military – which he calculated at $8.5 million a
day – and referring obliquely to the grave reservations which the Obama administration
had about Israel as "tactical disagreements", "tactical divides", "normal disagreements" and
"different perspectives".
Only at the very end of his 2014 peroration did Biden mildly condemn "expanding settlement
activity and construction and the demolition of homes of attackers [sic]" as
"counterproductive". He referred to "terrorist" attacks by Palestinians and "vigilante attacks"
by Jewish settlers. And that's pretty much what we can expect of a Biden presidency.
He might, conceivably, try to roll back Trump's destruction of the Iranian nuclear agreement
into which Obama put so much energy – but just as he will not commit himself to reversing
Trump's decision on the US embassy transfer to Jerusalem, he's likely to search for another
nuclear agreement to take the place of the Obama one – which, in his perverse and
hopeless way, is what Trump has been suggesting.
The trouble is that while former Democrat candidates are now ganging up to destroy Sanders'
chances of nomination – along with a significant portion of the US "liberal" press
– Trump, barring a virus-induced economic collapse, is unlikely to spend much time
worrying about a Biden candidacy.
Just as they prefer a "safe pair of hands" to protect the party, so the Democrat elite and
the "old" liberals fear the moral crusade upon which Sanders might embark – about health
and human rights just as much as the Middle East. Better to avoid conflict with Israel, too.
And that was Hilary Clinton's policy, wasn't it? And that's how Sanders went off the rails in
the last presidential election, finally asking his supporters to give their vote to Hillary, as
they shouted: "No! No! No!" Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Robert Fisk
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally
appeared.
"... The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again." ..."
"... Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new article for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this: ..."
"... As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future, and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain. ..."
"... basically, a Biden foreign policy would be "Obama but worse" https://t.co/wIZwch5Bmk ..."
"... Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S. engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization. ..."
"... Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse. ..."
"... Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the world we live in. ..."
"... Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. ..."
"... Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start and legitimize the Iraq war? ..."
"... Bottom line is Biden is fraud and everything he and his handlers say or write must be viewed as such. ..."
oe Biden's candidacy is defined by the idea that he will "restore" things to the way they were four years ago and that he will
preside over a "return to normalcy" after the Trump years. The
phrase "return
to normalcy" has been
linked to the
Biden campaign
for the better part of the last year. TAC 's Curt Mills
commented on this
after Biden's recent primary wins:
Biden then, not Trump, would be the candidate of the centennial. Like Warren Harding, he promises a return to normalcy.
The Harding comparison is quite useful because it shows how Biden's "return to normalcy" will be quite different from the one
Harding proposed a century ago. Harding contrasted
normalcy with "nostrums." This was a shot at the ideological fantasies of the Wilson era and the upheaval that had come with U.S.
entry into WWI. This is the
full quote :
America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation,
but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence
in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.
The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration
would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent
discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again."
Where Harding's "normalcy" represented the repudiation of Wilsonian fantasies, Biden's would be an attempt to revive them at least
in part. Harding contrasted "normalcy" with Wilson's "nostrums," but Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric
about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new
article
for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this:
As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future,
and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that
took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain.
The Cold War ended thirty years ago, and it is telling that Biden does not point to any victories for the U.S. in the decades
that have followed. Proponents of U.S. global "leadership" have to keep reaching farther and farther back in time to recall a time
when U.S. "leadership" was successful, and they have remarkably little to say about the thirty years when they have been running
things. That is what they want to "restore," but it's not clear why Americans should want to go back to a status quo ante that produced
such staggering and costly failures as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Like the early 19th century Bourbon restoration, it would be
a return to power for those who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
John Carl Baker comments on an op-ed co-authored last year by Robert Kagan and Anthony Blinken. Blinken is now Biden's main foreign
policy adviser, and that leads Baker to draw this conclusion:
Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but
more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S.
engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization.
Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare
is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails
U.S. foreign policy.
I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the
wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including
unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold
War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse.
I'm one of those poor saps who was taken in by Trump in 2016, and I want a Democrat I can vote for. I can't see voting for
someone with Biden's appalling foreign policy record. If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose
to Trump.
"If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose to Trump."
I don't know about that. Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really
outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the
world we live in.
Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to
hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. The only recantation I would find somewhat persuasive (I don't think anything would "convince"
me) is if he were to state that he will appoint somebody like Sanders or Rand Paul as secretary of State and someone like Tulsi
Gabbard as secretary of Defense, and staff his national security council by recruiting from the Quincy Institute. (To actually
capture my vote would require additional personnel commitments, such as Elizabeth Warren for secretary of the Treasury--but that's
off topic for this thread.)
Right now, I would vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination and doesn't do something between now and November to alienate
me. If Biden is the nominee, barring something really drastic, I'll do my usual and find a third party candidate to vote for.
Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start
and legitimize the Iraq war? Just accusing Biden of voting for the Iraq war is nothing. About 70 other senators have voted for
it. Biden was the legislative Architect that paved the way for the Iraq War, and in my books (keeping the UN Charter as the legal
standard), he is a War Criminal.
I realize that almost everything Biden has to say about foreign policy is abysmal, and both Sanders and Warren were much better,
but neither were electable (and both were abysmal on domestic policy and trade policy). Biden may be banal, but he is not vicious,
as Trump so clearly is.
Furthermore, I think the otherwise estimable Mr. Larison fails to realize that the general public does
set some vague parameters for what is and what is not acceptable foreign policy, though often without knowing it. I think it quite
likely that Donald Trump will "abandon" Afghanistan, just as Max Boot et al. fear, and no one who can't name the Acela stops between
New York and DC will care. Trump, when he isn't assassinating people, is much less aggressive than the Obama/Clinton administration.
Although he talks about regime change, he doesn't follow through. He can be talked out of withdrawing troops, but so far hasn't
tried sending them in. Early in his administration he was widely praised for firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Why hasn't he
done it again? There is nothing Trump likes so much as praise. Why abandon what seemed like a sure-fire applause line?
The "electability" concept is something mostly constructed by the media. Only a very small percentage of voters come in direct
contact and hear and observe the candidates. The very brief TV debates, much choreographed and controlled are no good. As such,
media starts and keeps repeating this notion of electability.
As a person, presence, message, I think the most charismatic individual to show up for this presidential cycle is Tulsi Gabbard.
Her showing is off the charts compared with everyone else. Beside her anti regime change message (she is not necessarily anti-war),
her charisma is such a threat that she had to be excluded from the consciousness and awareness of people. And what was implanted
in people's mind is that she is an Assad apologist and that she met with the blood thirsty Assad.
How about restoration of the "normalcy" of bipartisan consensus on "comprehensive immigration reform" AKA a general amnesty which
will likely benefit some 25 to 35 million illegal aliens plus their descendants, in practice?
It doesn't seem to make much sense harping about restoring sanity to American foreign policy when America might not even exist
in 20 years.
even some of us without Nobel prizes could see that Ryan was a phony.
But don't expect that to mean much in an election. Biden has lost me out of his own
mouth. Not his gaffes, but his overarching policy philosophy.
But that (policy) is not much different from standard Democrat "appeal to the poor,
appease the rich" policy.
And bad as that is, it is much, much better than R's (Trump) "who gives a damn about the
constitution or human decency or the appearance of fair play?"
Which would mean "if Bernie really can't win, help Biden win and hope for more
influence and better strategy next time." With Trump there will be no next time.
As for Warren, I hope she stays in the fight. Not to win the nomination, but to say
intelligent things about the Crooks controlling financial policies that rob the poor to
the point of no return.
and if EMichael sees no indication of the DNC favoring anyone, that tells me more
about Michael than it does about the DNC.
likbez , March 9, 2020 12:39 am
Biden is a dead end. I think half of Sanders voters probably will never vote for Biden. This
is like a civil war between proponents of the restoration of the New Deal Capitalism vs Clinton
Pro-Wall Street wing of the party. Many Bernie supporters view Biden as the enemy (and
politically he is the enemy as a staunch neoliberal and neocon)
Please note that some of them in 2016 voted for Trump.
"12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic
presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according
to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) -- a massive election
survey of around 50,000 people."
Biden and Sanders are both campaigning actively and meeting voters in many different states.
Plenty of hugs/handshakes. I am wondering what precautions they have taken against the
coronavirus. Note they are both in their late 70's.
AOC and the rest of the gang need to make sure they survive in case Biden does become
president. Otherwise they'll likely be targeted and primaried in a purge of leftists. It may
happen anyway, but she needs to survive to fight beyond a Biden presidency.
What I was thinking. But campaigning hard for Hillary did not shield Bernie from the scorn
of the frenzied neoliberals who lost the presidency to the most horrid candidate that I can
remember.
AOC cannot say it but I can. I have no reason to support the Dems if Bernie is not in the
general election. In fact, I will work to burn the party to the ground since it will just be
in the way of enacting the required policies to fix America.
And for reference, I am a boomer, and a fifty year Dem voter, but enough is enough.
"... How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won. ..."
"... Hillary had tons of endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she didn't win as many. This does not compute. ..."
"... The only difference is Biden is personally more appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did not? ..."
"... The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet now) ..."
How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no
real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won.
Hillary had tons of
endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she
didn't win as many. This does not compute.
The only difference is Biden is personally more
appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how
many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did
not?
The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states
seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet
now)
I'll put the foil bonnet on Flora. DCG, the fishy smell is election fraud courtesy of the
DNC. Unless we have paper ballots hand counted in public, I don't buy the miraculous Biden
resurgence narrative from his supposed silent majority. Give me a family blogging break.
I absolutely fail to understand why anyone would consider this idea tin foil. Who do we
think we're dealing with here? These folks are playing to win and they will do anything and
everything in their power to do so. The system is set up perfectly to support psychopaths
Me neither. That fact that the Democrat party has never even tried to address the problems
with election integrity, even when they've had the presidency stolen from them, speaks
volumes.
They allow a phony riot to stop the count in FL, then hardly make a peep when the Supremes
anoint Bush in 2000 in a decision not meant to set precedent, and their response is
the Help America Vote Act which foisted these easily hackable machines on us as a solution?
The only reason you do that is if you want to be able to rig elections yourself.
After the debacle of the Iowa caucus this year and the unheard of swing to Biden this
week, it sure looks like the fix is in.
Please educate me–no seriously!–as to how hand marked paper ballots are so
very different from machine marked paper ballots. If you assume that machine marked
ballots–marked with the candidate's name (written in human readable English) and
securely stored for a potential hand recount–are crooked then aren't you assuming that
the entire election machinery is crooked and not just a vote tabulating machine? After all
long before computers were invented there was that thing called ballot box
stuffing.
Machine marked ballots have a middleman. Said machines 'phone home' to a central server,
which may well be running a program that fractionally 'shifts' votes as needed to edge out a
win for the estab preferred candidate (of either party). The 'red shift' in vote results
after electronic voting has been noted by statisticians.
One interesting coincidence here is that I was going to link to some statisticians' work I
know of, work that was easily available online as late as early January this year. When I
search for the links now they are either gone or the links are warned off as 'suspect'.
Info easily found online. Here's one very recent story's take away:
"Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election
Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the
human eye cannot decipher. That's a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with
printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of
a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what's
tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate.
"Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or
programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only
7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their
printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for."
In the just past election are there any reports of ballots being printed out that had a
different name than the one the voter selected to be printed? And if that did happen would it
be anything other than accidentally pressing the wrong button? Surely if this "voters didn't
look at the ballot" (which personally I greatly doubt) idea was really the cheating scheme
then it would be highly likely to be exposed.
Re-read the part about the 'computer reads and tabulates the barcode information, not the
english text printout'. A hack or middleman could fiddle the barcode printout/information
(unrecognized by the human eye) , not the text printout.
Also consider that the fiddle works best if it's only a few percentage points different
than expected, one way or the other. People then say of unexpected results, 'oh, it was
really close, but that's how it goes, elections can be unpredictable', and accept the
election results as 'the will of the people.' It's called "electronic fractional vote
shifting". Really. It's called that. Fractional vote shifting.
Right–without a doubt. But the reason it prints that piece of paper is for a later
human audit by eye should a recount be demanded. In that case the barcode would become
irrelevant. There is a paper trail.
That said, I would agree there could be secret ballot concerns about the way I voted. You
feed the ballot into the counter right side up and unfolded with an election "helper"
standing nearby.
One reason both parties prefer 'close elections'. A few points either way won't raise
eyebrows. Won't raise a demand for a recount. (And, like compound interest, a 'few points'
one way or the other in various elections, over time, can add up to large effects in
political direction. imo.)
The problem is getting to the recount. My state does not allow recounts unless the machine
tally is extremely close. So if you want to rig an election, just make sure your candidate
wins by enough and there will never be a recount of those machine counted paper ballots.
I asked city officials for a few years to do recounts just to audit the machines, and was
told it was not allowed under state law unless there was a close enough race – I
believe the threshhold is in the low single digits. My wife later ran for office and lost by
about 1% and I was finally able to get a recount. We counted all the ballots by hand and
while the final outcome didn't change, what we found was that the hand recount tallied about
1-2% more votes than the machines had.
flora is right about the close elections. I find it very odd that in my younger days we
had landslides fairly often and now every presidential election goes right down to the
wire.
OK. This is my experience as a counter in a UK General Election, where hand-marked
ballot-papers are counted in public.
Each voting station has a sealed tin box. Arriving to vote your name is checked against
the electoral role and you are handed a ballot paper. You go into a curtained booth with a
stand-up desk and a pencil in a string and put a X in a box opposite the candidate you vote
for. Outside the booth you fold your ballot paper and post it into the box through a narrow
slot. When the election closes the box is delivered to – in our case – the
town-hall – where the counters sit at tables three to a side with a team-leader at the
head. One of the boxes is brought to each table, unsealed and the contents dumped into the
middle of it. Each counter then snags a pile of marked votes and sorts them into piles as
voted. Any uncertainties – where the vote isn't obvious – is passed up to the
team leader for assessment. When all the votes are tallied – including the
uncertainties – the total is compared with the note from the polling station stating
the number of votes cast there, and if they don't agree the count for that box is done
again.
All this is done under the eyes of representatives of the candidates who are free to move
around the tables at will, and who in particular can watch over the team-leaders dealing with
the uncertain ballot papers, but who are free to challenge any counter's tally.
Ballot boxes could be 'switched' between the voting station and the count, but that would
only work if you knew how many papers were in the box per the count or could also substitute
the tally signed off by the polling-station superintendent. Ballot-box stuffing wouldn't work
as again the votes cast and counted for that box/station would not align.
Could it be gamed? I suppose, but it would take a massive effort and conspiracy –
mostly at the polling-station/transit stage, tho' again the candidates can have observers
there. The whole system is run by the local authority and most of those involved in the
polling-station/count are local authority workers with their own political preferences so
finding enough to suborn to fix the count would be a difficult, and politically dangerous
operation. Even if one polling-station's box was corrupted in some way it would have little
effect on the overall result, and if it stood out as atypical could invite investigation.
So no, it's not perfect, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Ps. Each voting paper is numbered and taken from a book leaving a stub with the same
number. So to 'stuff' or otherwise tamper with the voting papers in the box you'd also need
to swap the actual voting paper book with a substitute bearing the same number system and I
think, tho' don't quote me on this, books of ballot papers for the various polling stations
are only issued on election day and at random.
IIRC, in a nut-shell, some of the systems used have a bar code printed on the ballot at
the time they are scanned into the system.
That bar code ' marks ', the ballot, and supposedly communicates the voter's
intentions to the tabulating software that counts the votes.
The rest of the ballot looks proper to the voter, but the voter has no way of telling what
the bar code means.
And from any IT professional's point of view, who cares what the ballot looks like, if the
mark on your ballot, (the one that is counted) was not made by your hand (say, a bar code
printed by a scanner), and/or, if there is a computer used to count the votes, that system is
intended to allow falsification of election results.
Due to the lack of legal action on the part of either of our political parties, to refute
the results of elections stolen by wholesale electronic election fraud, I can only conclude
that election fraud is a wholly acceptable tool in their bi-partisan toolbox?
And yes, you're right, they've always stuffed the ballot box, think of electronic vote
tabulation as the newest twist on an old trick.
The invention of electronic voting was intended to insure that voters can never vote their
way to freedom.
So your argument is that we must have hand counted ballots because the machine marked
version won't work because the recounters would have to hand count the ballots. Just to
repeat, yet again, when I voted a ballot shaped piece of plain paper was printed with my
candidate choice clearly printed along with a bar code, not qr. This then becomes the vote
itself and it can be read by a scanner or by a human. If done by a human then it is utterly
no different than if I had checked a box on a pre printed ballot.
And for all the objections cited by those above there are valid reasons for states to want
such a system. Obviously an all manual system is very labor intensive and also subject to
human error unless double checked by still more labor. You'd also have to print lots of
ballots before every election while not knowing exactly how many will be needed.
If there are suspicions of vote machine companies–and there should be–a more
logical approach might be to insist that all software is open source and that no machines are
connected directly to the internet or have usb ports. Signs in the precincts should advise
voters to check their paper ballot to make sure the correct choice is printed.
"Then we have this crazy thing that happened on Tuesday, which [Biden] thought was Thursday,
but he also said 150 million people were killed with guns and that he was running for the
United States Senate. There's something going on there," Trump said.
Biden – who
did say those things – has a track record of gaffes and has turned in bumbling debate
performances, but Trump's line of attack raised the unedifying spectacle of an election focused
on two men in their 70s attacking each other's alleged cognitive decline.
> he needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted
responses
The Biden campaign now has money, so they can for the first time really prepare Biden for
the debates. However, remember how Biden messed up the number for supporters to text him? I'm
not sure Biden is especially coachable. Challenge Biden to deploy multiple scripts in a short
time, and he might implode.
Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as
outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate
workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
We can view "Creepy Joe" and Trump as representatives of "neoliberal plague" The slogan
should be " No Pasaran "
( Dolores Ibárruri's famous battlecry appeal for the defense of the Second Spanish
Republic)
Notable quotes:
"... For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague , disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city. ..."
"... Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick people will 'buy' health care they can't afford. ..."
"... If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. ..."
"... While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust, there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock prices. ..."
"... If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger. ..."
"... But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at twice the price of comparable systems. ..."
"... Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that explains why it is, and always will be, a farce. ..."
For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague ,
disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city.
Today, by way of the emergence of a lethal and highly communicable virus (Coronavirus), we --
the people of the West, have an opportunity to reconsider what we mean to one another. The
existential lesson is that through dread and angst we can choose to live, with the
responsibilities that the choice entails, or just fade away.
Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal
reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and
a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic
choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to
dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick
people will 'buy' health care they can't afford.
Market provision of virus test kits, vaccines and basic sanitary aids will, in the absence
of government coercion, follow the monopolist's model of under-provision at prices that are
unaffordable for most people. The most fiscally responsible route, in the sense of assuring
that the rich don't pay taxes, is to let those who can't afford health care die. If this means
that tens of millions of people die unnecessarily, markets are a harsh taskmaster. (
3.4% mortality rate @
2X – 3X the contagion rate of the Spanish Flu @ 4 X 1918 population).
If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding
sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal
ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. According to
Ryan Grim of The Intercept, Bill Clinton eliminated the ' reasonable
pricing ' requirement for drugs made by companies that receive government funding. This has
bearing on both commercially developed Coronavirus test kits and vaccines.
Leaving aside technical difficulties that either will or won't be resolved, how would any
substantial portion of the 80% of the population that lives hand-to-mouth be effectively
quarantined when losing an income creates a cascade effect of evictions, foreclosures,
starvation, repossessions, shut-off utilities, etc.? The current system conceived and organized
to make desperate and near desperate workers labor with the minimum of pay and benefits is a
public health disaster by design.
While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust,
there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock
prices. The same Federal Reserve that has been engineering a non-stop rise in stock prices
since Wall Street was bailed out in 2009 knows perfectly well how narrowly stock ownership is
concentrated amongst the rich -- it publishes the data. It quickly lowered the cost of
financial speculation as the cost of Coronavirus tests and a vaccine -- and the question of who
will bear them, remain indeterminate.
If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on
suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of
employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's
round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal
reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it
that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
The brutality of the logic used by the Obama administration in constructing the ACA,
Obamacare, is worthy of exploration. The premise behind the 'skin in the game' idea is
neoliberalism 101, developed by a founder of neoliberalism, economist Milton Friedman, to
ration health care. The basic idea is that without a price attached to it, people will 'demand'
more health care than they need. That from a public health perspective, oversupplying health
care is better than undersupplying it, is ignored under the premise that public health concerns
are communistic. (Read Friedman).
But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting
position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at
twice the price of comparable systems. Through the 'market' pricing mechanism that
existed, the incentive was for people to avoid purchasing healthcare because it was / is wildly
overpriced. Not considered was that through geographical and specialist 'natural monopolies,'
health care providers had an incentive to undersupply health care by providing high-margin
services to the rich.
Furthermore, why would a healthcare system be considered from the perspective of
individual users? In contrast to the temporal sleight-of-hand where Obamacare 'customers' are
expected to anticipate their illnesses and buy insurance plans that cover them, the entire
premise of health insurance is that illnesses are unpredictable. Isn't the Coronavirus evidence
of this unpredictable nature? And through the nature of pandemics, it is known that some people
will get sick and other people won't. Not known is precisely who will get sick and who
won't.
While there are public health emergency provisions in Obamacare that may or may not be
invoked, why does it make sense in any case to require that people anticipate future illnesses?
Such a program isn't health care and it isn't even health insurance. It is gambling. Guess
right and you live. Guess wrong and you die. Why should we be guessing at all? Prior to
Obamacare, health insurance companies gamed the system with life and death decisions. In true
neoliberal fashion, Obamacare randomized the process as health insurers continue to game the
system.
As I understand it, the public health emergency provision in Obamacare might cover virus
testing and the cost of a vaccine if one is ever found. Great. What about care? How many
readers chose a plan that covers Coronavirus? How many days can you go without a paycheck if
you get sick or are quarantined? Who will take care of your children and for how long? How will
you pay your rent or mortgage? Who will deliver groceries to your house and how will you pay
for them? How will you make the car payment before they repossess it and how will you get to
work without it if you recover?
The rank idiocy -- and the political content, of the frame of individual 'consumers'
overusing health care quickly devolves to the fact that some large portion of the American
people can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to. Even if they can afford the direct
costs, they can't afford the indirect costs. When Obamacare was passed, the U.S. had the worst
health care outcomes among rich countries. Ten years later, the U.S. has the
worst healthcare outcomes among rich countries . And medical bankruptcies are virtually
unchanged since Obamacare was passed.
The reason for focusing on Obamacare is it is the system through which we encounter the
Coronavirus. In the narrow political sense of getting a health care bill passed, Obamacare may
or may not have been 'pragmatic.' In a public health care sense, it is a disaster decades in
the making. The problem wasn't / isn't Mr. Obama per se. It is the radical ideology behind it
that was posed as pragmatism. Mr. Obama's success was to get a bill passed -- a political
accomplishment. It wasn't to create a functioning healthcare system.
The otherworldly nature of neoliberal theory has led to a most brutal of social
philosophies. Mr. Obama later put his energy into lengthening drug company
patents to give drug companies an economic advantage provided by the government. Economist
Dean Baker has made a career out of hammering this general point home. Michael Bloomberg
benefited from government support for both technology and finance. His fortune of $16 billion
in 2009 followed stock prices higher to land him at $64.2 billion in 2020.
Donald Trump inherited a large fortune that likewise followed stock and Manhattan real
estate prices higher. Both he and Mr. Bloomberg could have put their early fortunes into
passive portfolios and received the returns that they claim to be the product of superior
intelligence and hard work. Analytically, if the variability of these fortunes tracks systemic,
rather than personal, factors, then systemic factors explain them. The same is true of most of
the great fortunes of the epoch of finance capitalism that began around 1978.
The point of merging these issues is that they represent flip sides of the neoliberal coin.
In a broad sense, neoliberalism is premised on economic Darwinism, the quasi-religious (it
isn't Darwin) idea that people land where they deserve to land in the social order. This same
idea, that systemic differences in economic outcomes are evidence of systemic causes, applies
here. However, differences in intelligence, initiative and talent don't map to systemic outcomes , meaning that
concentrated wealth isn't a reward for these.
The ignorant brutality of this system appears to be on its way to getting a reality check
through a tiny virus. Unless the Federal government figures this out really fast, most of the
bodies will be carried out of poor and working class neighborhoods like mine. Few here have
health insurance and most health care providers in the area don't take the insurance they do
have. More than a day away from work and many of my neighbors will no longer have jobs.
Evictions are a regular state of affairs in good times. There are no resources to facilitate a
larger-picture response.
Liberalism, of which neoliberalism is a cranky cousin, lives through a patina of pragmatism
until the nukes start flying or a virus hits. Getting healthcare 'consumers' to consider their
market choices follows a narrow logic up to the point where none of the choices are relevant to
a public health emergency. One I plus another I plus another I doesn't equal us. The
fundamental premise of neoliberalism, the Robinsonade I, has
always been a cynical dodge to let rich people keep their loot.
The mortality rate and contagion factor recently reported for Coronavirus (links at top)
place it above the modern benchmark of the Spanish Flu of 1918 in terms of potential lethality.
What should make people angry is how the reconfiguration of political economy intended to make
a few people really rich has put the rest of us at increased risk. These are real people's
lives and they matter.
Finally, for students of neoliberalism: there is no conflation of neoliberalism with
neoclassical economics here. Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through
the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On
the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in
flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC
predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that
explains why it is, and always will be, a farce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... Nowhere, though, is the rusty, rickety nature of America's civic society more recently evident than in the hilariously, harrowingly inept response to the advent of the COVID-19 virus as a global contagion. Whether it is more or less dangerous and deadly than the media portrays is quite beside the point. The abject incapacity of any government, least of all the feds, to offer even simple, sensible guidance, much less mobilize national resources to examine, investigate and ameliorate the potential threat to human health and well-being is astonishing, even to a tired old cynic like me. At present, the most proactive step has been to pressure the Federal Reserve into goosing the stock market -- the sort of pagan expiation of dark spirits that you'd expect in a more primitive world, when a volcano blew or an earthquake hit. ..."
As much as I like Bernie Sanders and hope he prevails in the Democratic primary, I confess
that there's something gray and depressing about a crusty, seventy-something, New-Deal liberal representing the great electoral hope
of the American left. There are, of course, a number of engaging young progressives in office now, but the fame and near-celebrity
profiles of newcomers like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez belie the still fundamentally local power bases
of these congresswomen, none of whom has yet been tested even in a statewide election. Victories at the state and local levels have
been far outpaced by gains by so-called moderates and centrists, and even these barely dent the thousands of seats and offices lost
to radical conservatives during the desultory administration of Barack Obama.
In the campaign for the presidential nomination, and in the aftermath of the multiple "Super Tuesday" primary contests, the Democratic
race has become a two-man contest, pitting the insurrectionary Sanders against the increasingly incoherent Joe Biden. In Biden, Democrats
are presented with a former senator for America's onshore but off-shore-style tax haven, Delaware, and a man who was selected as
the most demographically inoffensive running mate for the then-seemingly-radical campaign of Barack Obama.
Until an eleventh-hour victory in South Carolina, the predominant narrative in the media was that Biden was cooked -- a spent
force whose residually strong national poll numbers reflected name recognition and reserves of nostalgia for the Obama years. Biden's
revival was buoyed by the support of the state's relatively conservative, older African American population, and then by his Super-Tuesday
success just a few days later. (It didn't hurt that the vagaries of election season allowed him to avoid another crackpot debate
performance or other testament to his rambling incomprehensibility in the interim.)
But that single victory and the synchronized withdrawals and endorsements by Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar created a new narrative.
Seemingly overnight, Biden had become a scrappy fighter with a never-say-die attitude, a Clintonian Comeback Kid.
This drove many older Democratic voters -- an inherently timorous group conditioned by decades of "The West Wing" and MSNBC to
believe they're consultants and strategists rather than citizens and constituents -- toward the more familiar, pedigreed candidate.
They simply did not care that Biden has been wrong, often aggressively and outspokenly so, on every significant issue for the last
forty years.
After blowing half a billion dollars on a vanity campaign that won him American Samoa, Michael Bloomberg promptly bowed out and
endorsed Biden as well, promising to dedicate his vast resources toward electing Joe.
Beyond the quixotic and indefatigable Tulsi Gabbard, the only candidate left standing was Elizabeth Warren -- also in her
70s and running on fumes since an ill-conceived and ill-fated pivot away from "Medicare for All." This ruined her relationship with
the socialist left and any chance of serving as a bridge between the activist wing of the party and its constituency of urban professionals,
if one could have existed to begin with. ( Editor's note: Warren has since dropped out. )
Looming is yet another septuagenarian, Donald Trump, whose ongoing mental decompensation remains the great unspeakable truth in
corporate media. Although frequently hostile to him, with the obvious exception of Fox News, mainstream outlets continue to edit
his transcripts "for clarity and concision," as the publishing saying goes, laundering the self-evident lunacy of his almost every
public utterance like a gaggle of Soviets turning the somnolent ravings of an agèd commissar into readable prose for the next day's
news.
I use the Soviet metaphor consciously. Long before I started dating and then married a scholar of Russian, I had a certain soft
spot for the country, alternately maligned as an eternal basket case and an implacably cunning enemy that had sacrificed something
like fifty times the number of Americans killed in every American war combined to defeat the Nazis. And now that I am shacked
up with a Russianist and have visited the place a couple of times, I've come to see it not as a shadow or opposite of our own vast,
weird nation but as a sibling of sorts.
The crass red-scare fantasies that characterize so many of the present narratives around election interference and the criminal
Trump-Russia demimonde are as infuriating as they are baroquely silly. And yet there is a certain late-Soviet pallor hanging over
America, even if on a material level our empire really does seem more robust than theirs ever was. (Once again, it bears mentioning
that we never lost fifty million people in a war.)
There is a sense, despite the apparent ideological contestations of our ongoing presidential elections, of a group of gerontocrats
battling to run what looks less and less like a traditional state than the palace apparatus of an ancient empire that has acquired
its imperium almost by accident. As the press critic and NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen
observed in the fall of last year, "There
is no White House. Not in the sense that journalists have always used that term. It's just Trump -- and people who work in the building.
That they are reading from the same page cannot be assumed. The words, 'the White House' are still in use, but they have no clear
referent."
The hollowed-out nature of the American state has been evident for some time and certainly predates Donald Trump, even if his
simultaneously feckless and malicious administration exacerbates the sense of social and economic precariousness. Our biggest city
can't build and maintain its transit system. Our bridges collapse. We can't marshal our resources to even pretend to do something
about climate change.
The few actual achievements of the Obama administration -- its rapprochements with Cuba and Iran -- collapsed almost immediately
on the whims of his successor while his cruelest policies -- the drone assassinations; the militarized border; the detentions --
metastasized and grew crueler.
Our municipal jails have become debtors' prisons as strapped municipalities turn to shaking down poor people and people of color
to manage shrinking tax bases. Meanwhile, our health care system is the worst in the developed world -- an impenetrable skein of
rent-seeking local monopolies that cost society trillions and bankrupt hundreds of thousands of individuals each year.
Nowhere, though, is the rusty, rickety nature of America's civic society more recently evident than in the hilariously, harrowingly
inept response to the advent of the COVID-19 virus as a global contagion. Whether it is more or less dangerous and deadly than the
media portrays is quite beside the point. The abject incapacity of any government, least of all the feds, to offer even simple, sensible
guidance, much less mobilize national resources to examine, investigate and ameliorate the potential threat to human health and well-being
is astonishing, even to a tired old cynic like me. At present, the most proactive step has been to pressure the Federal Reserve into
goosing the stock market -- the sort of pagan expiation of dark spirits that you'd expect in a more primitive world, when a volcano
blew or an earthquake hit.
Even elections seem beyond our capabilities at this point. In Texas, people waited for up to seven hours to cast votes on decrepit
machines, and we still do not have official final results from the Iowa caucuses -- a fact little mentioned now that the primary
season has moved on.
On the eve of the French Revolution, the Swiss-born theorist, journalist, and politician Jean-Paul Marat wrote, "No, liberty is
not made for us: we are too ignorant, too vain, too presumptuous, too cowardly, too vile, too corrupt, too attached to rest and to
pleasure, too much slaves to fortune to ever know the true price of liberty. We boast of being free! To show how much we have become
slaves, it is enough just to cast a glance on the capital and examine the morals of its inhabitants."
Donald Trump is in the White House, and his allies in Congress, smarting from his impeachment and failed Senate trial, will now
come out with allegations about the sketchy business dealings of one of his likely opponent's adult sons. Well. Here we are.
Jacob Bacharach is the author of the novels "The Doorposts of Your House and on Your Gates" and "The Bend of the World."
His most recent book is "A Cool Customer: Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking."
A week ago, the candidacy of Joe Biden was at death's door.
On a taping of "The McLaughlin Group," this writer suggested it might be time to "call the
rectory" and have the monsignor come render last rites.
Today, Biden's candidacy is not only alive. He is first in votes, victories and delegates,
and is favored to win the nomination and, by most polls, to defeat Donald Trump in
November.
"The World Turned Upside Down" was a song the British army band is said to have played at
the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. That title applies to what happened in the U.S.
political world in the five days from Feb. 29 to March 4.
Going into South Carolina on Feb. 29, Joe Biden had run a miserable and losing campaign.
Starting as the odds-on favorite for the nomination, he finished fourth in the Iowa
caucuses, fifth in New Hampshire and then was routed by Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucuses.
His fundraising was anemic. His debate performances ranged from tolerable to terrible.
On the eve of South Carolina, his proclaimed "firewall," the media conceded he might win but
wrote him off as a probable fatality on Super Tuesday when 14 states went to the polls.
Then came South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn's endorsement of Biden, which solidified and
energized the African American vote in the Palmetto State and led to a Biden blowout in
Saturday's primary.
The nonstop free and favorable publicity Biden gained from the victory created a momentum
that Mike Bloomberg's billions could not buy. Over that weekend came the withdrawal of Mayor
Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and endorsements by both of Biden as the party's best hope
against Donald Trump.
Came then Biden's sweep of 10 of the 14 states holding primaries on Super Tuesday. Wednesday
saw the withdrawal of Bloomberg, who endorsed Biden and pledged his vast fortune to help Joe
and the party defeat Trump in November.
Moreover, for Trump, as Claudius observed in "Hamlet," "When sorrows come, they come not
single spies but in battalions." For 10 days, the Dow Jones average has gyrated wildly, wiping
out trillions of dollars in wealth, while the coronavirus slowly claimed victims and dominated
the world's media. Predictions of a pandemic, a global economic downturn and a national
recession were everywhere.
All in all, a triumphal week for Biden, who racked up 11 state primary victories. Before
last Saturday, he had not won a single primary in three presidential campaigns.
But if earlier reports of the demise of Joe Biden were premature, so, too, are today's
confident predictions of a Biden sweep this November, marching over the political corpse of
Trump and bringing in a Democratic Senate and Democratic House. As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't
over till it's over."
Bernie Sanders' "Revolution" remains unreconciled to a Beltway-Biden restoration, against
which many of the Democratic candidates railed before dropping out, including Elizabeth Warren.
Sanders, for whom this is the last hurrah, must decide whether he wants to go down fighting for
his cause or stack arms and march into Biden's camp. If Sanders chooses to fight, he can, even
in near-certain defeat, be victorious in history if his "movement" one day captures the
national party as it has captured a plurality of the party's young.
If Sanders goes into the coming debates and forces Biden to defend his votes -- for George
Bush's war in Iraq and for NAFTA and WTO trade concessions to Communist China -- he may still
be crushed.
But Sanders is a true believer. And, for such as these, it is better to die on the hill you
have lived and fought on than to march into camp to be patted on the head by an establishment
that secretly detests you.
Then there is Biden's vulnerability. He may be hailed by a fickle media as a conquering hero
today. But after the cheering stops, Biden is going to be, for the next eight months, the same
candidate he has been for the last eight months. Here is a description of that candidate by
The New York Times the day after his Super Tuesday triumph:
"Any suggestion that Mr. Biden is now a risk-free option would appear to contradict the
available evidence. He is no safer with a microphone, no likelier to complete a thought
without exaggeration or bewildering detour.
"He has not, as a 77-year-old man proudly set in his ways, acquired new powers of
persuasion or management in the 72 hours since the first primary state victory of his three
presidential campaigns.
"Mr. Biden has blundered this chance before -- the establishment front-runner; the last,
best hope for moderates -- fumbling his initial 2020 advantages in a hail of disappointing
fund-raising, feeble campaign organization and staggering underperformance."
It ain't over till it's over.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
"... Nothing changed about Biden's sketchy past, e.g. war enabler, bigot and bank henchman, and his questionable competency to serve as president, but these politicians of great self-esteem are now instructing us to vote for a most flawed candidate. ..."
"... If Biden gets the nomination, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Trump will eat him alive. ..."
"... Biden is Obama 2.0 lite, and no one likes Obama anymore except for the Dem party faithful. We saw the Dems do this over and over again in Massachusetts with Martha Coakley. Hey, how about Coakley as Biden's running mate? ..."
The gang of would-be presidential candidates ran because each perceived that Biden was not the
best person to run for the office or to govern. Having all dropped out, including Bloomberg,
excepting Warren, as of today, they all have endorsed Biden, completely verifying our
essayist's hypothesis that meritocracy is dead in politics. Nothing changed about Biden's
sketchy past, e.g. war enabler, bigot and bank henchman, and his questionable competency to
serve as president, but these politicians of great self-esteem are now instructing us to vote
for a most flawed candidate.
If Biden gets the nomination, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Trump will eat him alive. Any of
us could write the script to defeat Biden. Biden is Obama 2.0 lite, and no one likes Obama
anymore except for the Dem party faithful. We saw the Dems do this over and over again in
Massachusetts with Martha Coakley. Hey, how about Coakley as Biden's running mate?
"... "We are just wondering why we should vote for someone who voted for a war, who enabled a war that killed thousands of our brothers and sisters, countless Iraqi citizens," the veteran said to a surprised-looking Biden. ..."
"... He continued, arguing that Biden had "enabled" the invasion of Iraq, noting that the former vice president had even awarded ex-president George W. Bush, who launched the war, a 'Liberty Medal' in 2018. Biden, the veteran insisted, must be held responsible for throwing his support behind the deadly foreign policy quagmire. ..."
"... Biden's support for the 2003 invasion has been repeatedly pointed out by his main rival, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has argued that the former vice president will preserve the foreign policy status quo in Washington. ..."
In a video posted by Veterans Against the War, a man who identified himself as a former
member of the Air Force approached the former vice president and quizzed him about his dicey
foreign policy record.
"We are just wondering why we should vote for someone who voted for a war, who enabled a
war that killed thousands of our brothers and sisters, countless Iraqi citizens," the
veteran said to a surprised-looking Biden.
-- About Face: Veterans Against
the War (@VetsAboutFace) March 4,
2020
He continued, arguing that Biden had "enabled" the invasion of Iraq, noting that the
former vice president had even awarded ex-president George W. Bush, who launched the war, a
'Liberty Medal' in 2018. Biden, the veteran insisted, must be held responsible for throwing his
support behind the deadly foreign policy quagmire.
Their blood is on your hands as well. You are disqualified, sir. My friends are dead
because of your policies
Biden retorted by stating that his son, who served for one year in Iraq, was also dead -- an
odd argument to make, since Beau Biden died of brain cancer years after leaving the Middle
East.
"I'm not going after your son," the veteran responded. As Biden walked away, the
ex-Air Force member got in the last word.
[There is] no way he can be president Millions are dead in Iraq Trump is more anti-war
than Joe Biden
The crowd then began to chant "Joe, Joe, Joe!" to which one veteran filming the
altercation shouted back: "We actually fought in your damn wars you sent us to hurt
civilians."
Biden's support for the 2003 invasion has been repeatedly pointed out by his main rival,
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has argued that the former vice president will preserve the
foreign policy status quo in Washington.
"... If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement. ..."
"... In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly "lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real" independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy. ..."
As people march off to the polls today to pick their
favorite political actor of the year, I hear precious few voices openly asking what seem to me
to be obvious questions, like WHO produced the movie that is their candidacy? Who directed it?
Who wrote the script? Who are the investors that will be expecting to see returns on their
investment, if their movie and their best actor should somehow win? And how far do the networks
of wealth, influence and control extend beyond those public faces inside the campaign? None of
these questions strike me as tangential; rather they are all essential.
Let's imagine for a moment that one of these actors can somehow out-thespian Trump once on
stage which is HIGHLY unlikely – even for folksy Bernie – UNLESS he can somehow win
himself 100% DNC buy-in and 24/7 mainstream "BLUE" media support. But assuming that he (or some
"brokered" candidate) wins, it will still be their production teams (along with their extended
networks) who will be making their presence felt on Day One of any new presidency. These are
the people who will be calling in the favors and calling the shots.
I recall how moved I was by Obama's 2008 election. I was buoyed with hope, because I did not
understand then what I understand now – that NO candidate can exist as an independent
entity, disconnected from the apparatus and networks that support and produce the narratives
that advance them and their agendas. I also recall the day that Obama entered the White House
and instantly handed the keys to the economy (and the recovery) back to Geithner, Summers and
Rubin – the same trio that had helped destroy it just a year earlier. And he did this at
the same moment he was filling his cabinet with the very people "suggested" in that famous
leaked letter from the CEO of Citibank. My hope departed in genie smoke at that moment, to be
followed by eight years of spineless smooth talk and wobbly action, except where the agendas of
Wall Street and pompous Empire were concerned.
Do you see how this works? The game is essentially rigged from the start by virtue of who is
allowed to enter the race, what can and what can't be said by them and by who the media is told
to shine their light on, and who to avoid. Candidates can, of course, say pretty much anything
they want (short of "Building 7, WTF!!" of course) in hopes it will spark a reaction that the
media can seize upon.
But just based on words, we know that NONE of these happy belief clowns will forcefully
oppose existing "Regime Change" plans for Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria. We know that NONE of
them will stand up to Israel – or to a Congress that is, almost to a person, in the
pocket of Israel. We know too that NONE of them will bring more than an angry flyswatter to the
battle with Wall Street or the corporations. We further know that NONE of them will do more
than make modest cuts to military spending or god forbid, call out the secret state's fiscally
unaccountable black budget operations, which by now reach into at least the 30 trillions.
Personally, I'm not FOR any candidate simply because I cannot UNSEE what it has taken me 12
years to get into focus; namely, how everyone of them are compromised by a SYSTEM that talks a
lot about FIXING what's broken, but which is simply INCAPABLE of delivering anything other than
what has been pre-ordained and decreed by the global order of oligarchs, which exists as the
"ghost in the machine" that ultimately controls every part of the political "STATE" – at
high, middle, low and especially at DEEP levels.
I will say in defense of Bernie that his production team early-on made the very unique
decision to crowd-source the campaign's costs. That was a PROFOUND decision, which has paid off
for him and which may well buy him a certain level of lubricated control over what is to come,
even though the significance of that decision is not well appreciated because the DNC and the
MSM simply refuse to discuss it in any depth.
Warren was TRYING to play the populist "people's campaign" game too, until last week when
she must have been startled awake by the "Ghost of Reagan's Past" and decided to take the money
and run as a Hillary proxy which (big surprise) was what she was all along anyway.
Let me just say this about Joe Biden. From his initial announcement, I never felt he was in
his right mind. He seems rather to be teetering on the edge of senility and fast on his way
into dementia. Also, the man has openly sold his soul so many times in his career that we
shouldn't at this point expect any unbought (or even lucid) thought to ever again escape his
remarkably loose lips. Joe might have run with the old skool Dems when he was a big deal on the
Delaware streets, but now, like Bloomberg and Romney, he's just another Republican in a pricey
blue suit.
I understand how people are feeling stressed, obsessed and desperate to get rid of Donald
Trump. It's just that until we take a collective step back and see things at the level from
which they actually operate and NOT at the level from which we are TOLD they operate, then we
will never be successful in turning our public discourse around or in beginning to identify and
eliminate the fascist and anti-human agendas that we associate with Trump, but which actually
lie behind the subservient to power policies and preferences of BOTH parties.
If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at
its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth
Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic
candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie
deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just
MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow
him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement.
In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods
to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly
"lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of
these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make
our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real"
independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist
or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy.
– Yet Another Useful Idiot.
Mark Petrakis is a long-time theater, event and media producer based in San Francisco. He first
broke molds with his Cobra Lounge vaudeville shows of the 90's, hosted by his alter-ego,
Spoonman. Concurrently, he took to tech when the scent was still utopian, building the first
official websites for Burning Man, the Residents and multiple other local arts groups of the
era. He worked as a consultant to a variety of corps and orgs, including 10 years with the
Institute for the Future. He is co-founder of both long-running Anon Salon monthly gatherings
and Sea of Dream NYE spectacles. Read other articles by Mark .
Former DNC chairman who gave Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance during the 2016
election, exclaimed on Fox News that Biden's victory was "the most impressive 72 hours
I've ever seen in U.S. politics," and told another analyst to "
go to hell " for suggesting that the Democratic establishment was once again working to
manipulate a nominee into frontrunner status.
The Democrats are in chaos and melting down on live TV.
Donna Brazile just told the @GOPChairwoman to "go to hell"
when asked about the chaos.
... Although it cannot be assumed that all her voters would have gravitated to Sanders,
certainly some would have, and with an extra ten points Bernie would have won some states he
lost. If she departs after coming in third in her home state, that will help Sanders going
forward.
Sanders performed well below the polling. Polls had him competitive in Virginia, where he
was crushed by Biden. Polls showed him winning Texas, whereas that turned into a close
race.
The ruling oligarchy of the US (which is an Oligarchical republic, let's say, like Venice in
the good old days) is always picking a fight only against socialist, or socialist lite
regimes - if there is a nationalistic hue, that is also bad: see the history of poor old
Latin America, Iran ('1953), Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, etc,
whether they are secular or religious... The only thing that is sacrosanct is private
property in the hands of the few (remember eminent domain law: likely would never disposes an
oligarch).
We'll likely have a redux of the 30 years war in Europe (which was proportionally much
more devastating that the WWII) and which culminated with the Westphalian peace, which
insured that internal affairs of a state are its own. But this is what the UN Charter
reinforced after WWII, but that is not good for the US Oligarchy, and this is why they are
talking about a "rule based order" (their rule), instead of Internationally and legally
codified order as in the UN Charter. You see only Mr. Lavrov of Russia talking about this.
Even the legalistic Mr. Larison here at TAC doesn't go that far to bring the UN Charter to
the fore and hammer with it like Khrushchev hammered the desk at UN with his shoe.
Deep down, even the most righteous of the writers here at TAC are imbued with the American
exceptionalism and when talking about it are like cats vomiting their hair...
Two legs good (sovereignty for me is good), four legs bad (sovereignty for you is
bad)...
Every country and individual in each country must be able to borrow money from the American
oligarchy, and be forced, under threat of military or economic violence, to repay that money
in US dollars. Every country and individual must also be willing to sell their most precious
assets to the US oligarchy for those dollars.
Anything else is pure communism and the US military must be willing to expend American
lives to rid this planet of the scourge of communism.
"... Shokin alleges he was fired on March 29, 2016 specifically because his office refused to shut down a long-running corruption investigation into Burisma, one of Ukraine's larger natural gas companies. The firm hired Hunter Biden as a board member in spring 2014, shortly after Joe Biden was named by President Obama to oversee Ukraine-U.S. relations. Records gathered by the FBI show Hunter Biden's American firm was paid more than $3 million between 2014 and 2016. ..."
"... But evidence has emerged in recent weeks that the probe into Burisma, in fact, was heating up when Shokin was fired in spring 2016. The prosecutor's office had secured a ruling re-seizing assets of Burisma's owner in early February 2016, and the Latvian government acknowledges it sent a warning to Ukraine officials that same month flagging several Burisma transactions, including payments to Hunter Biden, as "suspicious." ..."
"... Documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act also show Burisma's lawyers were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations against the firm, even invoking Hunter Biden's name as the reason. ..."
A Ukrainian court has ordered
an investigation into whether Joe Biden violated any laws when he forced the March 2016 firing of
the country's chief prosecutor.
The ruling could revive scrutiny of Hunter Biden's lucrative relationship with an energy
firm in that corruption-plagued country just as the former vice president's campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination is surging after a lackluster start.
Former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who has long alleged he was fired because he would not
stop investigating the Burisma Holdings firm that employed Hunter Biden, secured the ruling last
month. Ukrainian officials confirmed the State Bureau of Investigation has since complied and
initiated the probe.
The Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ruled last month that Shokin's lawyers had
provided sufficient evidence to warrant a probe and "obliged the authorized officials of the State
Bureau of Investigation" to accept the ex-prosecutor's complaint and "start pre-trial investigation
of the reported data,"
according to an official English translation of the ruling provided
by Shokin's attorney.
The ruling does not mention Biden by name, but court filings by Shokin's lawyers that led to the
decision show that the former prosecutor had
alleged "the commission of a criminal offense
against him by Joseph Biden, a citizen of the United States of America, in Ukraine and abroad:
interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer."
Ukraine officials say the court-ordered investigation could include a review of
non-public documents and possibly even interviews.
The court order revives allegations that were at the center of President Trump's recent
impeachment and acquittal, and which have dogged
Joe
Biden since he boasted in a 2018 video interview
that he threatened to withhold $1 billion in
U.S.-backed loan guarantees if Ukraine's then-President Petro Poroshenko did not fire Shokin as the
country's chief prosecutor.
Shokin alleges he was fired on March 29, 2016 specifically because his office refused to shut
down a long-running corruption investigation into Burisma, one of Ukraine's larger natural gas
companies. The firm hired Hunter Biden as a board member in spring 2014, shortly after Joe Biden
was named by President Obama to oversee Ukraine-U.S. relations. Records gathered by the FBI show
Hunter Biden's American firm was paid more than $3 million between 2014 and 2016.
President Trump's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, asked the State Department and Ukraine
officials back in 2019 to investigate the Bidens, an act which gave rise to the impeachment
proceedings,
During impeachment testimony, multiple State Department officials said they believed the Bidens'
arrangement created the appearance of a conflict of interest and that the
department
even blocked a business deal
with Burisma at one point over concerns the company was corrupt.
Joe Biden and his defenders have denied any wrongdoing, saying the vice president sought
Shokin's firing because the prosecutor was ineffective in fighting corruption. His supporters have
also claimed that the Burisma investigation was dormant at the time Shokin was fired and therefore
not a high priority.
But evidence has emerged in recent weeks that the probe into Burisma, in fact, was heating up
when Shokin was fired in spring 2016. The prosecutor's office had secured a ruling re-seizing
assets of Burisma's owner in early February 2016, and the Latvian government acknowledges it sent a
warning to Ukraine officials that same month flagging several Burisma transactions, including
payments to Hunter Biden, as "suspicious."
Documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act also
show Burisma's
lawyers were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations
against the firm, even invoking Hunter Biden's name as the reason.
And Shokin himself says he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden, an act that likely would
have garnered major attention in the United States as Democrats were trying to defeat Donald Trump
in the 2016 presidential election.
Hunter Biden recently left Burisma's board and said he believes in retrospect it was bad
judgment to join the Ukraine company while his father oversaw U.S.-Ukraine relations. He also
acknowledged he likely got the job because of his last name.
Whatever Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation does, the emergence of an investigation in
Ukraine focusing attention on the Biden's ethics comes at an unwelcome time for Joe Biden, whose
presidential campaign lagged for months but got a jolt over the weekend when he won convincingly in
South Carolina's primary.
Biden's momentum continued Monday on the eve of the critical Super Tuesday elections when rivals
Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg dropped from the 2020 Democratic presidential race and announced
plans to endorse the former vice president.
While the Ukraine probe just gets started, a separate investigation launched by
Republicans in the U.S. Senate has been growing for weeks as investigators seek documents on Hunter
Biden's finances, his overseas travels with the vice president and possible interviews with Ukraine
officials.
As a coincidence theorist, when I heard yesterday that Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and
Tom Steyer were dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary -- all before today's big
primary election -- the message was brazen and open: the operators in and around the
establishment Democratic Party had made their move and the primary is now a charade.
Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer spent a lot of time and effort in the campaign, and then
(coincidentally) dropped out before the very important Super Tuesday primary election!
Normally, you would continue pushing until the end of this big day and then make an
announcement, if you chose to do so.
To some extent, this is deja vu all over again from the 2008 Democratic primary between
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. After Obama was doing well, she refused to drop out. I read
that there was a meeting or conference call with Democratic Party people, and Hillary was told
how the cow ate the cabbage. She pulled back some with her campaign and at the convention any
delegates she had did not get in the way of Obama. A political deal was obviously involved and
revealed itself when she was appointed by Obama to be Secretary of State.
The disdain the political and economic oligarchy in this country has for the people outside
of it has crawled out from under a rock. In the 2016 Republican primary campaign, Donald Trump
kicked over the milk bucket, and when his campaign started to make headway, the political party
structure started to show its real face. Trump's loud accusation that the primary system was
rigged forced the Republican party operators into the open who then admitted on television that
the political parties were private organizations with their own rules. At a major Republican
Party meeting it was decided that they would not change their rules or bylaws before the
convention, and the decision was publicly announced. Paul Manafort, who had extensive
experience with the machinations involving delegates, successfully guided Trump through that
potentially treacherous process and got him the nomination. For his skill at the nominating
process (but not as a brilliant computer scientist allied with Russia), Manafort became the
target of retaliation by the federal government's prosecuting apparatus, through a "special
counsel" appointed to give cover to the old Soviet saying, "Show me the man, and I will show
you the crime". This time around the mask has slipped off of the Democratic Party and its
national committee (DNC). The debate rules were changed to allow Michael Bloomberg to
participate in the "debate" of last week Tuesday (25 February) when he did not qualify to be in
it. This favoritism was not given to Tulsi Gabbard or others. But at the debate Bloomberg
helpfully told us what is really happening [1]--
"Bloomberg: Let's just go on the record. They talk about 40 Democrats; 21 of those were
people that I spent $100 million dollars to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in
and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this
president...
(Cheering and Applause) Bloomberg: ... I bough [clearly starting to say "bought"], I, I got
them."
The CBS television network pathetically falsified their transcript of the debate by editing
out the word "bought" Bloomberg tried to pull back into his mouth, writing, "Bloomberg: ... I
-- I got them" [2].
I am ashamed to admit that this had not occurred to me. I just assumed that the Democratic
Inner Party members were going to anoint Senator Dead Vegetable Walking. Of course a
President Little Big-Money Man would serve the plutons and the kleptons much better and more
effectively.
Maybe they will decide that nominating Bloombooger is just too brazen and raw. Maybe they
will re-nominate Hillary Clinton to keep peace in the family, and let Bloombooger be her
running mate.
Either way, I suspect a lot of self-propelled supporters of various people will work very
hard to get their desired figures placed on ballots as no-party independents.
Bloomberg clearly is a cheerleader for the totalitarian Chinese communists. He's got a lot of
his wealth tied up in that relationship.
His billion dollar expenditure didn't buy the nomination. He's dropped out.
Wall St is thrilled. A Biden win in the general election means a return to the neoliberal
policies of Bush/Clinton/Obama. John Brennan and James Comey were cheering last night.
for us northerners that never heard the line "how the cow ate the cabbage.
"How the cow ate the cabbage" is a folk saying of the southern US, most often heard in
Texas and Arkansas, and probably dates back to at least the 1940s. It comes from the
punchline to a joke that would, in that period, have been considered at least slightly
"off-color." Here goes:
A circus had arrived in a small town, and one morning one of the elephants managed to
escape. The fugitive pachyderm made its way to the backyard garden of an elderly (and very
near-sighted) woman, where it began hungrily uprooting her cabbages with its trunk and eating
them. Alarmed by the apparition in her garden, the woman called the police, saying, "Sheriff,
there's a big cow in my garden pulling up my cabbages with its tail!" "What's the cow doing
with them?" he asked, to which the woman replied, "You wouldn't believe me if I told
you!"
For me, who experienced "geriatric" Politburo first hand, to see some 78 year old (by
November) senile and corrupt idiot to be praised as a future POTUS is down right surreal.
Brezhnev died at the age of 76 after experiences in his life (including severe concussion in
WW II) of which Joe Biden couldn't even conceive.
Yet, he was called many things but as many testify today who knew him personally, he died
being still in good mind, despite many age-related problems.
Same can be stated about gravely ill but young (only 70) Andropov who died from kidneys
but having sharp mind till the very end. I cannot say much about Chernenko, at his 74 when he
passed away he was simply very ill, stop gap, measure.
Joe Biden is a complete imbecile, pardon my French, and I am not sure he is competent to
be a post-master in some backwater town, let alone be nominated as a candidate, not to speak
of being POTUS.
It is absolutely bizarre what is going on. Yeah, I am sure young feisty 79 y.o. boy
Bernie, fresh from heart-attack, will show this damn Biden. As I say all the time, for all my
disdain for GOP, Democratic Party is clear and present danger to what's left of Republic.
This is what Democratic "nomination" process looks like.
I am surprised that Bloomberg announced right away today (Wednesday, the day after the
vote) that he is also suspending his campaign and not staying in the primary race, as his
goal surely was to get to a brokered convention. If he thought that he was going to win the
primary outright he was either getting bad advice, or he was not looking at data closely as
he says he likes to do. The Democratic National Convention is four months away, and it will
be interesting to see what happens with the new mix driven by the "establishment" Democratic
Party.
It is a very bad idea to elect somebody as President in a democracy who owns a significant
part of the media. Bloomberg News has had a long-standing editorial policy of not
investigating any of Michael Bloomberg's business dealings, or anything else he does.
"With Mike Bloomberg officially entering the 2020 Democratic presidential race, Bloomberg
News will refrain from investigating him and his Democratic rivals, according to a memo sent
to editorial and research staff obtained by CNBC.
'We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family and foundation )
and we will extend the same policy to his rivals in the Democratic primaries. We cannot treat
Mike's democratic competitors differently from him,' Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait said
in the memo, which was confirmed by a spokesperson.
Mike Bloomberg is founder and 89% shareholder in Bloomberg LP, a financial software
company that owns Bloomberg News"
I believe that what happened is the voters decided they did not want 4 more years of Trump
and picked the person they thought could beat him. Buttigieg, whom I really liked, was too
gay for the average American, Warren was too female, Bernie was too much of a
socialist/communist. Amy, was just too Amy and Bloomberg was another New York billionaire,
didn't we already have one of those.
That left Biden, who reminds us of a kinder and gentler time and that is why I voted for
him.
As for the comments he is senile and an idiot, have any of you listened to Trump speak? He
is unable to put together a coherent sentence.
yeah no . . . I think Trump will win very very bigly.
My deepest hope at this point is that 50 separate bunches of Bitter Berners will get
Sanders's name on 50 separate State Ballots in time for the Election. That should allow us to
see just how much the Establishment Catfood Democrats will lose from having cast Sanders into
the outer darkness.
And as to the Catfood Convention itself, I hope they pick Clinton to be Candidate Dead
Vegetable Walking's running mate. She can run as being " the brains behind the empty
skull."
A Biden-Clinton ticket would sweep New York and California. It might also narrowly win
some of little bedroom-community states which are part of the Greater New York City
Metropolitan Area. Trump would get most of the rest of it. Including every last one of the
Brexit States.
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
Bloomberg notes that Biden's upset victory spans multiple demographics - from blacks
in the Deep South, to whites in the Rust Belt, to rich suburbanites in Virginia and North
Carolina. Biden's biggest delegate win was in Texas, which handed him a whopping 228 delegates.
Still, Sanders won California and its 415 delegates
Notable quotes:
"... The outcome of the entire Democratic nomination process is that Biden will probably win the most the delegates outright and there will be no need for super delegates to steal the nomination from Bernie. ..."
Biden crushed it and will be the Democratic Party nominee. That's a done deal. He even won
Massachusetts. Bernie underperformed relative to his performance in 2016 in most states.
While Bernie supporters are crying foul, the bottom line is primary voters chose Biden
despite him not campaigning in any Super Tuesday states. Clearly a huge plurality of Blacks
and older voters decided they didn't want Bernie's policies of radical change and much
preferred the status quo. Team Obama won big. Obama is now the kingmaker of the Democratic
Party. Setting the stage for Michelle 2024.
Team Obama now don't have to steal the nomination as Biden will have won more delegates
and more states than Bernie. The Trump vs Biden general election will be closer than many
think and decided by close contests in a handful of mid-western states. Michigan and
Pennsylvania being critical battleground states.
Unless you know something we don't know, only about 55% of precincts are in from Texas and
it's less than 1.5% difference. Sanders will win California handily. Combined with Colorado,
Maine, Nevada and the delegates he will get from Iowa (even without the latter) he still has
the most delegates.
Your post is meaningless at this juncture, but thanks anyway.
P.S. Never seen you around the bar before. You new to town?
This is proof positive that the yankee system is beyond redemption. The propaganda coup of
other failed candidates coming out for the "winner" was enough to convince the ignorant plebs
that they should give him another chance. The documented corruption and incompetency which
had apparently eliminated him in the early going was not enough to counter the propaganda
wave and the fact he had been Obama's VP. Now that he is front-runner, the corruption stories
and mental incompetency will again come to the fore, and I think the real winner will end up
being Trump.
Posted by: exiled off mainstree | Mar 4 2020 6:41 utc |
131
The great shocker of Super Tuesday is that it looks likely that there will be no need to
cheat Sanders of the nomination. At this stage (the results of Super Tuesday results are not
all in) it appears to me that Biden has done much better than even the most favourable
prediction.
The outcome of the entire Democratic nomination process is that Biden will
probably win the most the delegates outright and there will be no need for super delegates to
steal the nomination from Bernie.
As a non-American my immediate take-away is:
Americans don't want Medicare4All - they want to continue to be health poor and
bankrupted if they get ill.
Americans don't want Socialism - they want to be financialised and fleeced.
Americans are okay with Peadophile-lite Presidential candidates.
After 4 change elections on the trot, American is moving back to status-quo
elections.
America want wars.
Trillions of dollars will continue to be printed for the benefit of the billionaires
(and trillionaires) and Banks while ordinary Americans will continue to be loaded up with
debt and that's just the way Americans want it.
Trump will have the biggest and bestest win ever.
Only a catastrophic financial collapse or major war defeat for the US may result in
change.
"People who casually tell you that Bernie is for the Empire--and not for the repair of
society-- are people trafficking in lies."
You seem rather confused. "The repair of society" means nothing but to repair and
strengthen the ecocidal-imperial system.
US society including all its institutions and ideas is based completely on
imperialism and ecocide. Within the visible framework of this society there is literally zero
constituency even for ideas let alone any political movement which goes against the
ecocidal-imperial grain in any meaningful way. Not Gabbard, let alone Sanders, proposes any
meaningful change.
Therefore "the repair of society" means trying to repair and thus strengthen the
ecocidal-imperial system, trying to extend its lifespan. The original New Dealers were quite
open that they were trying to save capitalism from itself, just as today Sanders represents
those who want to save the empire and economic society from themselves.
In the exact same way, those who call themselves Green New Dealers are always quite
explicit that they're not trying to save the Earth and end ecocide but to save the commercial
economy.
As for the 2020 fake election, we see how the imperatives of ecocide and empire are so
berserk by now that even your faction which wants to repair and therefore prolong these is
beyond their pale.
Meanwhile, if there are any real anti-imperialists who incongruously remain religious
adherents of electoralism, the 2020 circus surely must force them to choose - are you real or
fake.
I know what my money's on - no one who's real on any level would still have the slightest
truck with US electoralism. Electoralism as such is the real fundamentalist religion which
reigns supreme over literally every value which could possibly define one as truly political
in the first place.
Yep, pretty much a Biden clean sweep. The RCP polls were actually conservative regarding
Biden's performance.
Of the 14 states caucusing on Super Tuesday, Biden wins Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia - and is leading in Maine.
That's 10.
Bernie wins his home state Vermont plus Colorado and Utah and is leading in
California.
Biden beat his RCP number in 4 of 5 states; Sanders underperforms vs RCP polls in 4 of 5
states.
Biden RCP vs. actual California: 23 vs. 22.82 (76.44% reporting) Texas: 28 vs. 32.03 (84.70% reporting) North Carolina: 36.7 vs. 43.70 actual Virginia: 42 vs. 53.25 actual Maine: 24.5 vs. 34.04 (82.88% reporting)
Bernie RCP vs. actual California: 35 vs. 32.17 (76.44% reporting) Texas: 29.5 vs. 29.43 (84.70% reporting) North Carolina: 23.3 vs. 24.52 actual Virginia: 24.5 vs. 23.09 actual Maine: 38.5 vs. 32.96 (82.88% reporting)
It seems clear Warren is the big loser of the night: underperformed in all 5 RCP poll
states with that support apparently going to Biden.
Bernie won't end Super Tuesday with the most delegates - even with winning California.
Between PLEOs and the brokered convention - he's done.
Oh, and 538 (fivethirtyeight)/Nate Silver - loses again. He had Sanders leading in 9 of the
14. Oops.
Sanders winds up winning the smallest state (Vermont) with 16 delegates; the 3rd smallest
(Utah) with 29 delegates; Colorado with (67 total) and the largest - California (415) but
loses Arkansas (34), Alabama (52), Maine (24), Massachusetts (92), Minnesota (75), North
Carolina (110), Virginia (99), Oklahoma (37), Tennessee (64), Texas (228).
527 delegates in Bernie states vs. 815 in Biden states - and Biden did proportionately
better in those states that he won.
If the oligarchical Establishment that controls the DNC do manage to fairly or unfairly
install "Creepy/Sleepy Joe Biden" as presidential candidate, then their minions in Twitter,
Facebook, Google etc will be toiling overtime deleting, banning and shadow banning posts,
memes and videos of Biden's disturbing fondling of children and early dementia moments.
That's not to mention the increasing exposes of his corrupt dealings in Ukraine and China
that netted $Millions in kick backs to son Harper.
Gifting Trump another 4 years if the DNC and the Establishment Media don't let Bernie
campaign on level playing field.
A John
Pilger comment on the presidential clown show and a possible President Sanders:
Kennedys, Clintons, Obama and now Sanders. The American liberal show is back on the road.
Fine if you're a homegrown fan, but not fine for the rest of us to whom America's
liberalism means more war, more bullying. Will this change under Pres. Bernie? Beware
holding your breath.
For those who think Sanders might be any different, I wouldn't give up hope just yet.
Remember that Biden is a senile psychopath. There's a fair probability that Biden will say
something unpardonable, get caught groping someone, or outright die between now and the
convention.
"... US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that, outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak stomach fall in behind him. ..."
"... But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump. ..."
"... So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that? ..."
"... Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and gambling (overseas adventurism) ..."
The setup: US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal
enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences
of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that,
outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak
stomach fall in behind him.
The Crips are bloated and in decline. A bunch of naïve, starry eyed nobodies mount a
campaign to take the Crips legit. The old Crips are irritated that they have to take time out
from grifting so as to squash the upstart pests.
That is where I see us today. But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as
pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was
supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to
hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing
organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump.
So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and
succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that?
Yes, exactly – all the Trump die-hards, and 'tribal' gang bangers would object. It
could get really nasty.
And so far, I have not seen any evidence that any of the characters that would be willing
to play such a gambit have any inclination to give a shit for the consequences for us little
people.
Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection
racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and
gambling (overseas adventurism)...
The Tammany Society emerged as the center for Democratic-Republican Party politics in
the city in the early 19th century. After 1854, the Society expanded its political control
even further by earning the loyalty of the city's rapidly expanding immigrant community,
which functioned as its base of political capital. The business community appreciated its
readiness, at moderate cost, to cut through red tape and legislative mazes to facilitate
rapid economic growth... Tammany Hall also served as an engine for graft and political
corruption, perhaps most infamously under William M. "Boss" Tweed in the mid-19th
century....
[Tweed's biographer wrote:]
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its
height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key
power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds
had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing
and organization.
trailertrash @6 --- Americans have been railroaded into endless squabbling about voting and
democracy instead of demanding good governance. How does choosing between two similarly
corrupt parties deliver good governance?
Voting in the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
What does it profit a nation to have voting every 4 years when excrement covers her
sidewalks? and vets suicide themselves daily? and soldiers get raped daily by fellow
soldiers?
No matter who comes away with the nomination, it has to be asked "was any of this process
legitimate?". We know from a plethora of examples that US elections are not fair. They border
on meaningless most of the time. The DNC's doubly so, having argued in court they have no duty
to be fair.
Any result, then, you could safely assume was contrived, for one reason or another.
If the Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Biden gambit works, we end up with Trump vs. Biden. And,
realistically, that means a second Trump term.
Biden is possibly senile and definitely creepy . Watching him shuffle and stutter
through a Presidential campaign would be almost cruel.
Politically, he has all of Hillary's weaknesses, being a big-time establishment type with a
pro-war record, without even the "I have a vagina" card to play.
He'll get massacred.
Is that the plan?
There's more than enough signs that Trump has abandoned all the policies that made him any
kind of threat to the political establishment. Four years on: no wars ended, no walls built, no
swamp drained. Just more of the same. He's an idiot who talked big and got co-opted. It
happens.
The Senate and other institutions might talk about Trump being a criminal or an idiot or a
"Nazi", but the reality is he's barely perceptibly different from any other POTUS this side of
JFK.
#TheResistance was a puppet show. A weak game played for toy money. When it really counts,
they're all in it together. Biden getting on the ticket would be a public admittance of that.
It would mean the DNC is effectively throwing the fight. Trump is a son of a bitch, but he's
their son of a bitch. And that's much better than even the idea of President
Bernie.
Does it really matter?
Empire of kaos will never move one inch to change the status quo.
The quaisi fascist state that most western /antlantacist nations have become it will make no
difference
Gianbattista Vico"Their will always be an elite class" Punto e basta.
Name me one politico that made any difference to we the sheeple in the modern era.
If someone were to mention FDR I will scream.
Aldo Moro got murdered by the deep state for only suggesting to make a pact with Berlinguer
the head of Il Partito Communista Italiano.
And Joe just got the kiss of death endorsement from none other than Debbie Wasserman
Schultz. That's 2 for 2, COMEY and Wasserman-Schultz ending in a predictable strikeout.
@30 goldhoarder
I sympathize but I don't think this is very useful. Really what has happened is power has
been consolidated in the hands of the few for a very long time. They killed JFK, RFK,
MLK, Malcolm X, probably just tried to kill Shokin as mentioned above... and many others
like Solemani, Arafat, Hussein, Gadaffi, etc. Politics is just a sideshow they put on to
justify their rule and give themselves legitimacy.
Progressive Jargon
Aphasia[ citation needed ] is a
fluent or receptive aphasia in which the person's speech is incomprehensible, but appears
to make sense to them. Speech is fluent and effortless with intact syntax and grammar , but the person has problems with the
selection of nouns . Either they
will replace the desired word with another that sounds or looks like the original one or has some
other connection or they will replace it with sounds . As such, people with jargon aphasia often use
neologisms , and may
perseverate if they try
to replace the words they cannot find with sounds. Substitutions commonly involve picking another
(actual) word starting with the same sound (e.g., clocktower - colander), picking another
semantically related to the first (e.g., letter - scroll), or picking one phonetically similar to
the intended one (e.g., lane - late).
I took a walk to my local precinct in Texas, this morning, and voted for Bernie Sanders. The
support thrown in for Biden by candidates Buttigieg and Klobuchar, as they withdrew from
their presidential race over the weekend, makes their runs for president look very
superficial and weak.
Today, Ryan Grim, D.C. bureau chief for The Intercept (interviewed on Democracy Now)
correctly observes that the more educated voters that supported those two dropout candidates,
were originally drawn to them after careful consideration that Biden was absolutely not up to
the task of beating Trump in the General Election. And when Buttigieg and Klobuchar now tell
them how wonderful Joe is, they are not so likely to be convinced.
I do feel more hopeful and am willing to believe as the reporter does, that the timing of
these Biden endorsements is politically inept and feeds into Bernie's momentum. We will
see.
"... Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children . ..."
"... What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working Americans are not the points of contention in this race. ..."
"... Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in poll after poll . The only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't enough. ..."
"... Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000 children had been killed. ..."
"... Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite. ..."
"... How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children. ..."
"... The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents a hopeful future for the next generation. ..."
"... The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. ..."
"... But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee, Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates. ..."
"... I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump. He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years. ..."
"... Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything" ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then. ..."
"... We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy. ..."
"... 'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. ..."
"... Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns ..."
"... Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken. ..."
"... Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
"... Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago, with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. ..."
In 2016, Hillary Clinton deserved to lose, and she did. Her deception, her
cheating in
the primary elections , was well-documented, despicable, dishonest, untrustworthy. Her
money-laundering scheme
at DNC should have been prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
Her record of warmongering and gleefully gloating over death and destruction was also well established. On national TV she
bragged about the mutilation of Moammar Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died!"
Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of
500,000 innocent Iraqi children .
This person was undeserving of anyone's support.
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common
Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working
Americans are not the points of contention in this race.
His opponents have instead opted for every nonsensical conspiracy theory and McCarthyite smear they can concoct, including the
most ridiculous of all: the
Putin theory , without a single shred of evidence to support it.
Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in
poll after
poll . The
only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't
enough.
Bernie wins, and he has the best overall shot of changing the course of history, steering America away from plutocracy and fascism.
That crucial race is happening right now in the primaries . If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders
have already signaled that they will steal the nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election
for the future of America is on Super Tuesday.
It's either Trump or Bernie. That's your choice. Your only choice.
Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those
sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000
children had been killed.
Bernie also voted for Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign on Kosovo.
All that said, yes, Bernie is the best option.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty
to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite.
When they spout bullshit that 20% of UK workers could miss work 'due to coronavirus', when we have had precisely 36 deaths
in a population of 65 million plus, you know that like climate change, they spout the 1% probability as the mainstream narrative
.
It just shows what folks are up against when media is so cravenly serving those who do not pay them.
Charlotte Russe ,
"If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders have already signaled that they will steal the
nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
While Bernie spent more than three decades advocating for economic social justice Biden spent those same three decades
promoting social repression."
"The 1990s saw Biden take aim at civil liberties, authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal
writ of habeas corpus," as one legal scholar later reflected. It was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone
listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era PATRIOT ACT, which, in his view, didn't go far enough. He inserted
a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military
within US borders."
How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle
the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday
morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children.
The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote
a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents
a hopeful future for the next generation.
The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. In fact, they're
saying more than that–if uninvited workers and the marginalized dare to enter they'll be tossed out on their arse
In plain sight the mainstream media news is telling millions that NO one can stop the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state from their stranglehold over the corrupt political duopoly.
I say fight and don't give-up! Be prepared–organize a million people march and head to Milwaukee– the future of the next generation
is on the line.
But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's
some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee,
Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates.
But if Biden, makes it to the Oval Office he'll be "less" than a figurehead. Biden, will be as mentally acute as the early
bird diner in a Florida assisted living facility after a recent stroke. The national security state will seize control– handing
the "taxidermied Biden" a pen to idiotically sign off on their highly insidious agenda ..
Ken Kenn ,
Pretty straightforward for me ( I don't know about Bernie? ) but if the Super delegates and the DNC hierarchy decide to hand the
nomination over to Biden then Bernie should stand as an independent.
At least even in defeat a left marker would be placed on the US political table away from the Corporate owners and the shills
that hack for them in the media and elsewhere. At least ordinary US people would know that someone is on their side.
Corbyn in the UK was described as a ' Marxist' by the Tories and the unquestioning media. Despite all that ' Marxist ' Labour got 33% of the vote. People will vote for a ' socialist '
Charlotte Ruse ,
Unfortunately, Bernie won't abandon the Democratic Party. However, there's a ton of Bernie supporters who will vote Third Party
if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
paul ,
I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and
put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump.
He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years.
That's when he hasn't been shilling for regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere against "communist
dictators."
Bernie will get shafted again shortly and fall into line behind Epstein's and Weinstein's best mate Bloomberg or Creepy Joe,
or Pocahontas, or whoever.
If by some miracle they can't quite rig it this time and Bernie gets the nomination, the DNC will just fail to support him,
and allow Trump to win. They would rather see Trump than Bernie in the White House.
Just like Starmer, Thornberry, Phillips and all the Blairite Backstabber Friends of Israel were more terrified of seeing Jezza
in Number Ten than any Tory.
Dr. Johnson said that getting remarried represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The same applies to people expecting any positive change from people like Bernie, Tulsi, or Jezza.
The system just doesn't allow it.
pete ,
Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything"
ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then.
We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during
Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy.
clickkid ,
"The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
Sorry Joe, but where have you been for the last 50 years" Elections are irrelevant. Events change the world – not elections. The only important aspect of an election is the turnout. If you vote in an election, then at some level you still believe in
the system.
Willem ,
Sometimes Chomsky can be useful
'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public
mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient
that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that
independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root.
Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing
character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds,
thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom
reigns.'
If true, the question is, what are we not allowed to say? Or is Chomsky wrong, and are we allowed to say anything we like since TPTB know that words cannot, ever, change political action
as for that you need power and brutal force, which we do not have and which, btw Chomsky advocates to its readers not to try to
use against the nation state?
So maybe Chomsky is not so useful after all, or only useful for the status quo.
Chomsky's latest book, sold in book stores and at airports, where, apparantly, opinions of dissident writers whose opinions
go beyond the bounds of the consensus of elites, are sold in large amounts to marginalize those opinions out of society, is called
'Optimism over despair', a title stolen from Gramsci who said: 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'
But every time I follow Chomsky's reasoning, I end in dead end roads of which it is quite hard to find your way out. So perhaps
I should change that title into 'nihilism over despair'. If you follow Chomsky's reasoning
clickkid ,
Your Chomsky Quote:
"'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. .. " Tell that to the Yellow Vests.
ajbsm ,
Despite the deep state stranglehold .on the whole world there seems to be a 'wind' blowing (ref Lenin) of more and more people
turning backs on the secret service candidates – not just in America. Power, money and bullying will carry on succeeding eventually
the edifice is blown away – this will probably happen, it will be ugly and what emerges might not even be better(!) But the current
controllers seem to have a sell by date.
Ken Kenn ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
A revolution can only come about when the Bourgeoisie can no longer continue to govern in the old way. In other words it becomes more than a want – more of a necessity of change to the ordinary person.
We have to remember that in general ( it's a bit of a guess but just to illustrate a point ) that a small majority of people
in any western nation are reasonably content – to an extent. They are not going to rock the boat that Kennedy tried to make the tide rise for or that Thatcher and her mates copied with
home owner ship and the right to get into serious debt. This depends on whether you had/have a boat in the first place. If not you've always been drowning in the slowly rising tide.
Sanders as I've said before is not Castro. He has many faults but in a highly parameterised p Neo liberal economic loving political and media world he is the best hope. Not great stuff on offer but a significant move away from the 1% and the 3% who work for them ( including Presidents and Prime
Misister ) so even that slight shift is plus for the most powerful country on planet earth.
I have in the past worked alongside various religious groups as an atheist as long as they were on the right( or should that
be left?) side on an issue.
Now is not the time for the American left to play the Prolier than though card.
Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken.
wardropper ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
But didn't the Storming of the Bastille happen for that very reason?
I think people are waiting for just one spark to ignite their simmering fury – just one more straw to break the patient camel's
back. Understandably, the "elite" (which used to mean exalted above the general level) are in some trepidation about this, but,
like all bullies their addiction to the rush of power goes all the way to the bitter end – the bitter end being the point at which
their target stands up and gives them a black eye. It's almost comical how the bully then becomes the wailing victim himself,
and we have all seen often enough the successfully-resisted dictatorial figure of authority resorting to the claim that he is
now being bullied himself. But this is a situation of his own making, and our sympathy for him is limited by our memory of that
fact.
Ken Kenn ,
Where's the simmering fury in the West.
U.S. turnout is pathetically low. Even in the UK the turnout in the most important election since the First World War was 67%. I see the result of the " simmering fury " giving rise to the right not the left. Just that one phrase or paragraph of provocative words will spark the revolution?
... ... ...
wardropper ,
My point, which I thought I made clearly enough, was that the fury is simmering , and waiting for a catalyst. I also think
an important reason for turnout being low is simply that people don't respond well to being treated like idiots by an utterly
corrupt establishment. They just don't want to participate in the farce.
Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and, like you, I am quite happy to back Sanders as by far the best of a pretty rotten bunch.
Perhaps China is indeed leading in many respects right now, but becoming Chinese doesn't seem like a real option for most of us
at the moment . . . Incidentally I have been to China and I found the people there as interesting as people anywhere else, although
I particularly enjoyed the many things which are completely different from our western cultural roots.
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
Speaking of the Clintons' death toll, didn't Sanders too back all USAmerica's mass-murdering, armed-robbery aggressions against
helpless small countries in recent times? And anyway, why are we wasting time discussing the minutiae of the shadow-boxing in
this ridiculous circus of a pretend-democratic 'election'? Watching a coffin warp would be a more useful occupation.
I go with Dmitry Orlov's reckoning of the matter: It doesn't matter who becomes president of the US, since the rule of the
deep state continues unbroken, enacting its own policies, which ignore the wishes of the common citizens, and only follow the
requirements of the mostly hyper-rich gics (gangsters-in-charge) in the controlling positions of this spavined, failing empire.
(My paraphrase of Dmitry.)
USPresidents do what their deep-state handlers want; or they get impeached, or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers. And
they all know this. Bill Hick's famous joke about men in a smoke-filled room showing the newly-'elected' POTUS that piece of film
of Kennedy driving by the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, is almost literally true. All POTUSes understand that perfectly
well before they even take office.
Voting for the policies you prefer, in a genuinely democratic republic, and actually getting them realised, will only happen
for USAmericans when they've risen up and taken genuine popular control of their state-machine; at last!
Meanwhile, of what interest is this ridiculous charade to us in Britain (on another continent entirely; we never see this degree
of attention given to Russian politics, though it has a much greater bearing on our future)? Our business here is to get Britain
out of it's current shameful status, as one of the most grovelling of all the Anglozionist empire's provinces. We have a traitorous-comprador
class of our own to turn out of power. Waste no time on the continuous three-ring distraction-circus in the US – where we in Britain
don't even have a vote.
wardropper ,
The upvotes here would seem to show what thinking people appreciate most.
Seeing through the advertising bezazz, the cheerleaders and the ownership of the media is obviously a top priority, and I suspect
a large percentage of people who don't even know about the OffG would agree.
John Ervin ,
Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago,
with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. And that
much still holds true. Game. Set. Match. Any questions?
Antonym ,
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous.
US deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016: they would love him to become string puppet POTUS in 2020. Trump is more difficult to control so they hate him.
John Ervin ,
Just one more Conspiracy Realist, eh! When will we ever learn?
"The deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016 ." That gives some sense of the ease with which they pull strings, nicely put.
One variation on the theme of your metaphor: "They savored him as one might consume a cocktail olive at an exclusive or entitled
soirée."
It is painfully clear by any real connection of dots that he is simply one of their stalking horses for other game. And that Homeland game (still) doesn't know whether a horse has four, or six, legs.
*****
"Puppet Masters, or master puppets?"
Antonym ,
It is painfully clear that US Deep state hates Trump simply by looking at the Russiagate they cooked him up.
Fair dinkum ,
The US voters have surrounded themselves with a sewer, now they have to swim in it.
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
"... The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of lower
strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which is based
on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger is directed against
the neoliberal establishment. ..."
"... The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80% of the
population. ..."
"... The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment" the key
figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016). ..."
"... That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade. ..."
"... In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns into quality,"
or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses." ..."
I am old enough to remember when many very serious people ascribed the rise of Donald Trump to economic anxiety. The hypthesis
never fit the facts (his supporters had higher incomes on average than Clinton's) but it has become absurd. The level of self reported
economic anxiety is extraordinarily low
Yet now the Democratic party has an insurgent candidate candidate in the lead. I hasten to stress that I am not saying Sanders
supporters have much in common with Trump supporters (young vs old, strong hispanic support vs they hate Trump etc etc etc). But
both appeal to anger and advocate a radical break with business as usual. Both reject party establishments. Also Warren if a little
bit less so.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry. He remains unpopular in spite of an economy performing
very well (and perceived to be performing very well).
Whatever is going on in 2020, it sure isn't economic anxiety.
Yet there is clearly anger and desire for radical change.
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality. I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump,
but, then I don't watch Fox News.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry.
Many Trump "angry supporters" in 2016 used to belong to "anybody but Hillary" class (and they included a noticeable percentage
of Bernie supporters, who felt betrayed by DNC) .
They are lost for Trump as he now in many aspects represents the "new Hillary" and the slogan "anybody but Trump" is growing
in popularity. Even among Republicans: Trump definitely already lost a large part of anti-war Republicans and independents. As
well as. most probably, a part of working class as he did very little for them outside of effects of military Keynesianism.
I suspect he also lost a part of military voters, those who supported Tulsi. They will never vote for Trump.
He also lost a part of "technocratic" voters resentful of the rule of financial oligarchy (anti-swampers), as his incompetence
is now an undisputable fact.
He also lost Ron Paul's libertarians, who voted for him in 2016.
How "Coronavirus recession", if any, might affect 2020 elections is difficult to say, but in any case this is an unfavorable
for Trump event.
EMichael , February 25, 2020 10:39 am
"I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump, but, then
I don't watch Fox News."
Coming to you since 1965. It's just that immigrants are now added to blacks. Trump took 50 years of the Southern Strategy,
took the dogwhistles completely out of the closet and wore his racism right on his chest. Helped that he had over 50 years of
experience as a racist, it came naturally to him.
And he attracted a new rw base, those who were not satisfied with dog whistles and/or did not hear them.
likbez , February 25, 2020 12:19 pm
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality.
It is actually very easy to understand: the middle class fared very poorly since 1991. See
https://www.cnbc.com/id/44962589 . Now "the chickens come home
to roost," so to speak.
The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of
lower strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which
is based on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger
is directed against the neoliberal establishment.
The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80%
of the population.
The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment"
the key figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016).
Resentment against spending huge amounts of money for wars for sustaining and enlarging the global USA-centered neoliberal
empire is another factor. In this sense, impoverishment and shrinking of the middle class in the USA is similar to the same impoverishment
during the last days of the British colonial empire.
That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade.
In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns
into quality," or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses."
In 2016 that resulted in the election of Trump.
Add to this the fact that the neoliberal establishment (represented by both parties) now is clearly anti-social (the fact
that a private equity shark Romney was a presidential candidate and then was elected as senator tells a lot about the level of
degradation) and is unwilling to solve burning problems with medical insurance, minimal wage and other "the New Deal" elements
of social infrastructure.
Democratic Party platform now is to the right of Eisenhower republicans.
That dooms the party candidates like CIA-democrat Major Pete, or "the senator from the credit card companies" Biden,
and create an opening for political figures like Sanders (which are passionately hated by DNC)
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
How ironic! "Billionaire" Bloomberg and his identical twin: "Tons of Money Tom Steyer" are
now the favorites of the so called "Party of the People" to win the White House in 2016!
Moveover, Bloomberg supported Iraq was and covered-up 9/11
From the day he entered the race, Joe Biden was the great hope of the Democratic
establishment to spare them from the horrifying prospect of a 2020 race between The Donald and
Bernie Sanders.
Today, that same establishment wants Joe out of the race.
"... Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada, rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the real story. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Versions of this article first appeared on ..."
The impeachment hearings and trial of Donald Trump were filled with talk of Russian
aggression against Ukraine and threats to the United States. But what would it be like if we
switched the roles of Russia and the U.S.?
Imagine if we substitute the U.S. for Russia and the country "invaded" was Canada,
rather than Ukraine, the government overthrown was in Ottawa and not Kiev, and the provinces
embroiled in a foreign-backed civil war have been Nova Scotia and New Brunswick rather the
provinces of Eastern Ukraine? This report, written in 2016, may make it easier to understand
what has been really going on in Ukraine. Clicking on the links is key to understanding the
real story.
T he United States has "invaded" Canada to support the breakaway Maritime provinces that are
resisting a Moscow-engineered violent coup d'etat against the democratically elected
government in Ottawa.
The U.S. move is to protect separatists in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia after Washington
annexed Prince Edwards Island in a quickly arranged referendum .
The Islanders voted over 90 percent in favor of joining
the United States following the Russian-backed coup. Moscow has condemned the referendum as
illega l.
Hard-liners in the U.S. want
Washington to annex all three Maritime provinces, whose fighters are defying the coup in Ottawa
after Moscow installed an unelected prime minister.
Russian-backed Canadian federal troops have
launched so-called "anti-terrorist" operations in the breakaway region to crush the
rebellion, shelling residential areas and killing hundreds of civilians.
The violent coup.
The Canadian army are joined by Russian-supported neofascist battalions that played a crucial role in the
overthrow of the Canadian government. In Halifax, the extremists have burned alive at least 40
pro-U.S. civilians who had taken refugee in a trade union building.
Proof that Russia was behind the overthrow of the elected Canadian prime minister is
contained in a
leaked conversation between Georgiy Yevgenevich Borisenko, foreign ministry chief of
Moscow's North America department, and Alexander Darchiev, the Russian ambassador to
Canada.
According to a transcript of the leaked conversation,
Borisenko discussed who the new Canadian leaders should be six weeks before the coup took
place.
Russia moved to launch the coup when Canada decided
to take a loan package from the IMF that had fewer strings attached than a loan from
Russia.
Russia's Beijing ally was reluctant to back the coup. But this seemed of little concern to
Borisenko who is heard on the tape saying, "Fuck China."
Minister handing out cookies in the square.
Weeks before the coup Borisenko was filmed visiting protestors who had camped out in
Parliament Square in Ottawa demanding the ouster of the prime minister. Borisenko is seen
giving out cakes to
the demonstrators.
The foreign ministers of Russian-allied Belarus and Cuba also marched with the protestors
through the streets of Ottawa against the government. Russian media has portrayed the
unconstitutional change of government an act of "democracy." Russian senators have met in
public with extreme right-wing Canadian coup leaders,
praising their rebellion.
Borisenko said in a speech that Russia had spent $5 billion
over the past decade to "bring democracy" to Canada.
Senator meeting far-right coup leaders.
The money was spent on training "civil society." The use of non-governmental organizations
to overthrow foreign governments that stand in the way of Russia's economic and geo-strategic
interests is well documented, especially in a 1991 Washington Post column,
"Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups ."
The United States has thus moved to ban
Russian NGOs from operating in the country.
The coup took place as protestors violently clashed with police, breaking through barricades
and killing a number of officers. Snipers fired on the police and the crowd from a nearby
building in Parliament Square in which the Russian embassy had set up offices
just a few floors above, according to Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Son Gets Job After Coup
Russian lawmakers
compared President Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler for allegedly sending U.S. troops into the
breakaway provinces and for annexing Prince Edward Island in an act of "American aggression."
The Maritimes have had long ties to the U.S. dating back to the American Revolution.
Russia says it has intelligence proving that U.S. tanks have crossed the Maine border into
New Brunswick, but have failed to make the evidence public. They have revealed no satellite
imagery. Russian news media only reports American-backed rebels fighting in the Maritimes, not
American troops.
Washington denies it has invaded but says some American volunteers have entered the Canadian
province to join the fight.
Russia's puppet prime minister now in charge in Ottawa has only offered as proof six American passports of
U.S. soldiers found in New Brunswick.
Son gets job on energy company board after his father's government backs violent coup.
The Maritime Canadian rebels have secured anti-aircraft weapons enabling them to shoot down
a number of Royal Canadian Air Force transport planes.
A Malaysian airlines passenger jet was also shot down over Nova Scotia killing all on board.
Russia has accused President Obama of being behind the incident, charging that the U.S.
provided the anti-aircraft weapon.
Moscow has refused to release any intelligence to support its claim, other than
statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Canada's economy is near collapse and is dependent on infusions of Russian aid. This comes
despite a former Russian foreign ministry official being installed as
Canada's finance minister, only receiving Canadian citizenship on her first day on the job.
Despite installing a Russian to run Canada's economy, President Putin told the U.N. General
Assembly that Russia had
"few economic interests" in the country. But Russian agribusiness companies have already
taken stakes in Albertan wheat fields. And Ilya Medvedev, son of Russian Prime Minister
Dmitri Medvedev, as well as a Lavrov family friend
joined the board of Canada's largest oil company just weeks after the coup.
Russia's ultimate aim, beginning with the imposition of sanctions on the U.S., appears to be
a color revolution in Washington to overthrow Obama and install a Russian-friendly American
president.
This is clear from numerous statements by Russian officials and academics. A former Russian
national security advisor whom Putin consults on foreign policy said the United States should be
broken into three countries.
He has also
written that Canada is the stepping stone to the United States and that if the U.S. loses
Canada it will fail to control North America.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
mary floyd , February 15, 2020 at 13:20
The most important takeaway in this article for me was that the US should be broken into
three separate entities!
That would work well for most Americans. All in all, this is a great piece, Mr. Lauria!
Dao Gen , February 15, 2020 at 02:28
Joe, you are The Truth. The only thing you left out, no doubt for reasons of space and
time, was the immortal statement made by a leading member of the Russian Duma, who said
during a stirring and well-received speech that, “Canada is our crucial first line of
defense against the US. If Canada weren’t there to stop the Americans, we’d have
to fight them right here on our own doorstep.”
A very creative way of making the point. Still do not understand the depth of what often
appears to be heart felt hate for Russia by very powerful and smart people. Remember reading
a comment by Phil Girardi early in the Trump tour when he remarked at the depth of dislike of
Russia within the spook community. He wrote he was surprised and had, I think, been part of
that community.
Eddie S , February 15, 2020 at 14:51
RE: “…depth of dislike of Russia within the spook community”.
While I have no ‘special knowledge’ of the so-called ‘intelligence
community’, there’s a few reasons for this that come to-mind:
— Job preservation. The most obvious. The US wouldn’t need ~80% of those spooks
if there
weren’t big scary Russians/Chinese/Iranians/N.Koreans constantly plotting against
the
peaceful, benevolent US.
— Spooks believe in what is mainly a distractionary ploy by US oligarchs/plutocrats.
These
wealthy interests don’t want to lose some of their wealth to social reforms, so they
constantly
financially support scare-mongering, which some spooks unquestioningly accept.
— The profession tends to attract some of the more paranoid elements in our society,
so
they’re inclined that way by nature/personality.
robert e williamson jr , February 14, 2020 at 17:51
Well one thing for sure we would not be seeing a female anchor on CNN bemoaning the fact
the because of the coronavirus many popular kids toys might not be available here in the U.S.
for the up coming holidays (?).
Yes it did happen, hell I couldn’t make that up.
DARYL , February 14, 2020 at 15:45
…or better yet, substitute Central America for Ukraine, and Panama(canal) for
Crimea, then you have the makings of an even more salient parallel.
Realist , February 14, 2020 at 15:42
The difference is that under your scenario the world would be a smoking heap of
radioactive ashes already as the exceptional nation, unlike the ever cautious Russians, would
have immediately made bombastic threats and then launched military attacks to protect its
“security interests.” (Warring to “protect” security interests has
replaced invasion and occupation to save souls.) Things would have escalated from there to
its predestined thermonuclear climax, as they will in the real world if Uncle Sam
doesn’t get a grip on his uncontrolled aggression, demanding whatever he wants whenever
he wants it at the point of a gun. The world seems to be circling the drain whether or not
Washington is allowed to micromanage the affairs of Russia, China, Iran and every last duchy,
principality and people’s republic in addition to its own monumental mess it calls
domestic affairs. We’ve only got two political parties in this madhouse and they are
both equally bent on destroying civilisation if they can’t rule it all, which seems to
be the only point they agree on. Each party thinks it preferable to allow an obscenely rich
oligarch (what else should we call Trump or Bloomberg?) from the other side to rule rather
than a “communist” like Bernie Sanders or a “naive peacenik” like
Tulsi Gabbard to be elected president. If the space aliens land tomorrow and start recruiting
colonists to populate newly terraformed planets in other solar systems, sign me up. Yeah,
it’s become that absurd down here.
Simply imperial rot and corruption of power on all sides.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an exclusive on those qualities.
Mark Thomason , February 14, 2020 at 12:37
This is a useful approach. It needs added to it the language and culture element: as if
the part that wants out of the Moscow coup shares our own language and culture, while the
rest of Canada does not, and the rest of Canada had gone on a spree to suppress that language
and culture. It is hard to find a parallel in Canada to those facts, but it is what happened
in Ukraine.
It is important to understanding to put oneself in the shoes of the other guys. It was
once called walking a mile in the other guy’s moccasins, and given a Native wisdom
attribution.
At the end of this essay, you may find a song which reasonably applies to Donald Trump
directed to Democrats.
How does one say Adam Schiff without laughing? It's hard to continue typing while
contemplating the Burbank Buffoon. Yet AS is making obscene flatus-like noises about
impeachment 2.0. He and Nervous Nancy will conspire with chief strategist Gerald Nadler about
extending the charges of 1.0 to 2.0.
Second verse
Same as the first
Obstructing leaking by firing leakers. That's one of the pending charges. Leutnant Oberst
Vindman will be help up as the innocent victim of political retaliation. As I understand the
military code of conduct, it says that the underling, Herr Oberst Vindman, went outside the
chain of command and released classified information. In the military this is called
insubordination, perhaps gross insubordination in view of the classified nature of the
information.
Another charge to be filed on behalf of former Ambassador Yovanovich, is that her God-given
Female rights were brutally violated as retaliation of advising Ukrainian officials to
disregard Commander Cheeto.
There is no telling what additional non-crimes may be thrown at the feet at El Trumpo. All
too horrible to contemplate--like someone throwing feces-contaminated dope needles onto Nervous
Nancy's front lawn in Pacific Heights.
If this Shampeachment 2.0 (S2) occurs before November's election, Democrats will become as
rare as dodo birds. If such proponents of S2 persist after the general election, they better
have secure transportation to an extradition-free country.
If it gets bad enough, considering the Clinton Mafia's body count, would it be unreasonable
to expect some untimely heart attacks and suicides with red scarves? On Clintonites? Soros et
al.?
When the first shot and you don't kill the king, flee. But the DNC is going to attempt shot
number 2. Trump WILL NEVER ALLOW A SECOND IMPEACHMENT TO OCCUR, no matter how patently
worthless? Will the most powerful narcissist in the world allow the DNC / coup perpetrators to
escaping Trumpian retribution?
Those doubting the Wrath of Q be prepared to be disabused of the impression that Q is pure
fantasy. Fantasy--like GPS targeting a single small sniper drone to shoot someone from 3000
feet.
Sorry folks. I live in a swamp. I've stepped in shit with my eyes open. Many of you have
too. Some of the excrement was of my own making.
Think about the singularly most effective and complex plot the world has ever seen, called
9/11. Think of the thousands of lives purposefully snuffed in then name of power and money.
Call yourselves serfs--that's a euphemism. You--including me-- are nothing but ants. Goddam
little ants that only Janes respect. There are no ascetic Janes in the penthouses of the
elites.
But I digressed to the mysterious existence of morality in politics as a whole. Today's
topic is more confined to the Democratic nomination.
Statement of Bias: Go Tulsi. Bravo Andy. The rest of you to the elsewhere--yeah, BS too.
The Dems are determined to grasp Defeat from the jaws of Defeat. Quite a trick. Like trying
to borrow money from the Judge during a Bankruptcy trial.
I talked today with a freshman college student majoring in political science about her
thought about the Shampeachment. She hadn't been paying attention. Not that I blame her. Her
college freshman friend watched C-Span; wasn't impressed. We political aficionados know all
about this political debauchery. If AS and NN attempt S2, expect many defections from the
supporting vote.
Democrat respect has dwindled in the Independent sector. This is not to say the Repugnants
are thereby more popular. They aren't. Trump is. Trump need that NH clown to challenge him in
the Repugnant primary to prove exactly how powerful he is. Anybody notice who were in the
audience, sitting nearby during Trump's post acquittal speech. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham.
The lamb and the lion laying together. They are both on the Trump Train. Even Richard Burr
voted Trump in the impeachment. Mittens feared both his cojones would be excised if he voted
against Trump on both counts. What a chickenheart.
But where are the Dems? Why, they are Here. Yes. Yes. And they are There. Yes. Yes. And they
are Near. Yes. Yes. But....they are Far. Whither thou goest?
I refrain from pointed comments about AOC in further comments. The Squad is the iceberg
floating away from the glacier which spawned it. Unsuitable to warm weather produced by
political combat, the Squad faction will woke themselves up to dubious futures.
Establishment versus Bernie:
Not a contest. Spineless Bernie pretzelizes during first heated combat (which the Dem Debate
Debacles were not). Won't take a second punch--the first during night 3 of the '16 DNC
convention. Fist-shy now. Open Borders? WTF? Are you so nuts? If one offered a person the
choice personal safety in their own homes and streets and free medical care for all--including
the criminal aliens that A New Path Forward proposes--what do you think 85% of the public would
choose?
Pandering.
The Left is also pushing strenuous avoidance of discussing issues in a platitude-depleted
fashion. Yeah, Bernie's giving the same speech, with suitable modification, over 40 years.
Consistency is a good thing, yeh? How about persistently beating your head with a hammer (while
you still can)? Sounds like something Sun Tzu might not recommend.
Now, speaking of Las Vegas and the Nevada Primary. The culinary workers union will not
endorse Bernie due to well-deserved or ill-deserved claims that M4A will abolish hard won union
health benefits. And don't worry, the Shadow will be there, although Buttjiggle has now
disavowed any further connection, along with David Plouffe.
Keeping the Bern off the campaign trail is going to infuriate the Woke Generation / Antifa.
When--not if--the DNC cheats Bernie out of the nomination, if such proves necessary* will
literally result in blood on the streets along with broken windows and flaming tires. Associate
with that lot, eh? Given the choice of going into a biker bar, where brawls are always on the
menu, or a discreet wine bar, which would one rather choose? Sorry, those are your only
choices.
Nancy Pelosi, impressed by Arnold Schwarzenegger's former physical prowess, tears up her
copy of the state of the union address. How decorous. How courteous. How polite. Seen around
the world. Nigel Farage must be laughing his butt off, thinking about the shallow anti-Brexit
campaigns against his were compared to our Coup. Nigel won. Trump . is. winning. Getting tired
of winning yet?
I could go on for pages more of Dem stupidity, but why bother? Stupidity surrounds us.
Betting odds: DNC 1,999,999 to Bernie 1.
Place your bets.
For all the good it will do and I am sincere about this, I will vote Tulsi in the Dem
primary.
Here is the song Dems need to heed. This is Donald Trump telling' y'all I'M NOT YOUR MAN
"... Lead paragraph: "Former Vice President Joe Biden outpolled six challengers in yesterday's New Hampshire Democrat presidential primary election. All seven candidates are tied for count of delegates won in the state." ..."
Lead paragraph: "Former Vice President Joe Biden outpolled six challengers in yesterday's
New Hampshire Democrat presidential primary election. All seven candidates are tied for count
of delegates won in the state."
Biden performed surprisingly well all year in polls, but he headed into Iowa like a
passenger jet trying to land with one burning engine, hitting trees, cows, cars, sides of
mountains, everything. The poking incidents were bad, but then one of his chief surrogates,
John Kerry, was overheard by NBC talking about the possibility of jumping in to keep Bernie
from "taking down" the party.
"Maybe I'm fucking deluding myself here," Kerry reportedly said -- mainstream Democrats may
not have changed their policies or strategies much since Trump, but they sure are swearing more
-- then noted he would have to raise a "couple of million" from people like venture capitalist
Doug Hickey.
BTW Vindman quit his job so why was it bad for Trump to remove him early? Games
lol, Joe demands a standing ovation for Lt. Col. Vindman, a security state apparatchik
who was offended that Trump didn't read from the talking points he prepared. Beyond
parody
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
On Wednesday, Jan 22 Donald Trump wrote his name in the Guinness records books setting Presidential record in Twits.
According @FactbaseFeed, an account which tracks Trump's Twitter habits, Trump sent 142 tweets and retweets on Wednesday --
eclipsing his previous single-day presidential record of 123.
According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will
be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".
And American interests are defined very flexibly, sometimes in conflicting tweets.
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
"... they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris? ..."
"... "Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal prosecution. ..."
"... At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks – the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers. ..."
Is it any wonder that the nation's "liberal" cable news stations CNN and MSNBC can barely
contain their disdain for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and even (to a lesser degree)
for that of Elizabeth Warren while they promote the nauseating center-right candidacies of the
bewildered racist and corporatist Joe Biden, the sinister neoliberal corporate-militarist Pete Butiggieg and even the marginal Wall Street "moderates" Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris?
Next
time you click on these stations, keep a pen and paper handy to write down the names of the
corporations that pay for their broadcast content with big money commercial purchases.
I did that at various times of day on three separate occasions last week. Here are the
companies I found buying ads at CNN and MSDNC:
American Advisors Group (AAG), the top lender the American reverse mortgage industry (with
Tom Selleck telling seniors to trust him that reverse mortgages are not a rip off)
United Health Care, for-profit "managed health care company" with 300,000 employers and an
annual revenue of $226 billion, ranked sixth on the 2019 Fortune 500.
Menards, the nation's third largest home improvement chain, with revenue over $10 billion in
2017.
CHANITX, a drug to get off cigarettes ("slow Turkey") sold by the pharmaceutical firm
Pfizer, 65th on the Fortune 500.
Tom Steyer (billionaire for president)
Lincoln Financial, 187 th on the Fortune 500, an American holding company that
controls multiple insurance and investment management businesses.
Liberty Mutual, an insurance company with more than 50,000 employees in more than 900
locations and ranked 68 th on the Fortune 500 two years ago.
Allstate Insurance: 79 th on the Fortune 500, with more than 45,000
employees.
INFINITI Suburban Utility Vehicle (new price ranging from 37K to 60K), produced by Nissan,
the sixth largest auto-making corporation in the world.
RCN (annual revenue of $636 million) WiFi for business
Jaguar Elite luxury autos.
Porsche luxury autos, selling new models priced at $115,000, $145,000, and $163,00, and
$294,000.
Mercedes Benz luxury auto, including an SRL-Class model that starts at $498,000
Capital Group, one of the world's oldest and biggest investment management firms, with $1.87
trillion in assets under its control.
Otezla, a plaque psoriasis drug, developed by the New Jersey drug company Celgene and owned
by Amgene, a leading California-based biotechnology firm with total assets of $78 billion.
Trelegy, a CPD drug produced by the British company GSK, the world's seventh leading
pharmaceutical corporation, with the fourth largest capitalization of any company on the London
Stock Exchange.
HunterDouglass – elite windows made by a Dutch multinational corporation with more
than 23,000 employees and locations in more than 70 countries.
Humira – drug for Crohn's disease and other ailments, manufactured by Abbvie, with
28,000 global employees and total assets of $59 billion.
Primateme Mist – for breathing, produced by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals.
Glucerna – drug for diabetes, produced by Abbot Laboratories, an American medical
company with more than 100,00 employees and total assets of $67 billion.
Prevagen – a controversial drug for brain health produced by Quincy Bioscience
DISCOVER Credit Card, the third largest credit card brand in the U.S., with total assets of
$92 billion.
Fidelity Investments, an American multinational financial services corporation with more
than 50,000 employees and an operating income of $5.3 billion.
Cadillac XT-6 high-end SUV, starting at $53K, made by General Motors (no. 10 on the Fortune
500 for total revenue), which makes automobiles in 37 countries, employees 173,000 persons, and
has total assets $227 billion.
Comfort Inn, owned by Choice Hotels, one of the largest hotel chains in the world,
franchising 7,005 properties in 41 countries and territories.
Audible/Amazon – books on tape from the world's biggest mega-corporation Amazon,
ranked fifth on the Fortune 500, with 647,000 employees and total assets of $163 billion.
Ring Home Security, owned by Amazon
Coventry Health Insurance, no. 168 on the Fortune 500
SANDALS Resorts International, with 16 elite resort properties in the Caribbean.
Cigna Medicare Advantage, owned by the national health insurer Cigna, no. 229 on the Fortune
500
SoFi Finance, an online personal finance company that provides student loan refinancing,
mortgages and personal loans.
Ameriprise Finance, an investment services firm, no. 240 on F500.
It's not for nothing that bit Fortune 500 firms are represented in my anecdotal sponsor list
above. Last summer, SQAD MediaCosts reported that a 30-second commercial during CNN's
prime-time lineup (Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, and Don Lemon), cost between $7,000 and
$12,000. The price has certainly gone up significantly now that Trumpeachment is bringing in
new eyeballs.
The three most prominent and recurrent advertising streams appear (anecdotally) to come from
Big Pharma (the leading drug companies), insurance (health insurance above all), and finance
(investment services/wealth management). These giant concentrated corporate and industry
sectors are naturally opposed to the financial regulation and anti-trust policy that Senator
Warren says she wants to advance. Amazon can hardly be expected to back the big-tech break-up
that Warren advocates.
Big corporate lenders certainly have no interest in making college tuition free, a Sanders
promise that would slash a major profit source for finance capital.
The big health insurance firms are naturally opposed both to the Single Payer national
health insurance plan that Sanders puts at the top of his platform and to the milder version of
Medicare for All that Warren says she backs. Warren and especially Sanders pledge to remove the
parasitic, highly expensive profit motive from health insurance and to make publicly funded
quality and affordable health care a human right in the U.S. The corporate insurance mafia is
existentially opposed to such human decency.
Both of the "progressive Democratic candidates" (a description that fits Sanders far better
than it does Warren) loudly promise to slash drug costs, something Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgene,
Amphastar, and Abbot Labs can hardly be expected to relish.
None of the big companies buying advertising time on CNN and MSNBC have any interest in the
progressive taxation and restored union organizing and collective bargaining rights that
Sanders advocates.
The big financial services firms paying for media content on "liberal" cable news stations
primarily serve affluent clients, many if not most of whom are likely to oppose increased taxes
on the well off.
The resort, tourism, luxury car, and business travel firms that buy commercials on these
networks are hardly about to back policies leading to the real or potential reduction of
discretionary income enjoyed by upper middle class and rich people.
So, gosh, who do these corporate and financial interests favor in the 2020 presidential
election? Neoliberal Corporatists like Joe Biden, Pete Butiggieg, Kamala Harris, and Amy
Klobuchar, of course. Dutifully obedient to the preferences and commands of the nation's
unelected dictatorship of money, these insipid corporate Democrats loyally claim that Sanders
and Warren want to viciously "tax the middle class" to pay for supposedly unaffordable excesses
like Medicare for All and the existentially necessary Green New Deal.
In reality, Single Payer and giant green jobs programs and more that We the People need and
want are eminently affordable if the United States follows Sanders' counsel by adequately and
progressively taxing its absurdly wealthy over-class (the top tenth of the upper 1% than owns
more than 90% of U.S. wealth) and its giant, surplus-saturated corporations and financial
institutions. At the same time, as Warren keeps trying to explain, the cost savings for
ordinary Americans will be enormous with the profits system taken out of health insurance.
Sanders reminds voters that there's no way to calculate the cost savings of keeping livable
ecology alive for future generations. The climate catastrophe is a grave existential threat to
the whole species.
These are basic arguments of elementary social, environmental, and democratic decency that
the investors and managers behind and atop big corporations buying commercials on CNN and MSNBC
don't want heard. As a result, CNN and MSDNC "debate" moderators and talking heads persist in
purveying the, well, fake news, that Sanders doesn't know how to pay Single Payer, free public
college, and a Green New Deal.
It's not for nothing that CNN and MSNBC have promoted the hapless Biden over and above
Sanders and Warren – this notwithstanding the former Vice President's ever more obvious
and embarrassing inadequacy as a candidate.
It's not for nothing that MSNBC and CNN have habitually warned against the supposed
"socialist" menace posed by the highly popular Sanders (a New Deal progressive at leftmost)
while refusing to properly describe Trump's White House and his dedicated base as pro-fascists.
MSDNC has even get a weekly segment to the silver-spooned multi-millionaire advertising
executive Donny Deutsch after he said the following on the network last winter:
"I find Donald Trump reprehensible as a human being, but a socialist candidate is more
dangerous to this company, country, as far as the strength and well-being of the country,
than Donald Trump. I would vote for Donald Trump, a despicable human being I will be so
distraught to the point that that could even come out of my mouth, if we have a socialist
[Democratic presidential candidate or president] because that will take our country so down,
and we are not Denmark. I love Denmark, but that's not who we are. And if you love who we are
and all the great things that still have to have binders put on the side. Please step away
from the socialism."
It's not for nothing that the liberal cable networks go out of their way to deny Sanders
remotely appropriate broadcast time. Or that they habitually and absurdly frame Single Payer
health insurance not as the great civilizing social and human rights victory it would be (the
long-overdue cost-slashing de-commodification of health care coverage combined with the
provision of health care for all regardless of social status and class) but rather as a
dangerous and authoritarian assault on Americans' existing (and unmentionably inadequate and
over-expensive) health insurance.
Dare we mention that the lords of capital who pay for cable news salaries and content are
heavily invested in the fossil fuels and in the relentless economic growth that are pushing the
planet rapidly towards environmental tipping points that gravely endanger prospects for a
decent and organized human existence in coming decades?
It's not for nothing that the progressive measures advanced by Sanders and supported by most
Americans are regularly treated as "unrealistic," "irresponsible," "too radical," "too
idealistic," "impractical," and "too expensive."
It's for nothing that Sanders is commonly left out of the liberal cable networks' campaign
coverage and "horse race" discussions even as he enjoys the highest approval rating among all
the candidates in the running.
With their preferred centrist candidate Joe Biden having performed in a predictably poor and
buffoonish fashion (Biden was a terrible, gaffe-prone politician well before his brains started
coming out of his ears) falling back into something like a three-way tie with the liberal
Warren and the populist progressive Sanders, the liberal cable talking heads and debate
moderators have naturally tried to boost "moderate" neoliberal-corporatist "second" and "third
tier" Democratic presidential candidates like Butiggieg, Klobuchar and the surprisingly weak
Kamala Harris. It's not for nothing that these and other marginal corporate candidates (e.g.
Beto O'Rourke) get outsized attention on "liberal" cable stations regardless of their tiny
support bases. Even if they can't win, these small-time contenders take constant neoliberal
jabs at Sanders and even at the more clearly corporate-co-optable Warren (who proudly describes
herself as "capitalist in my bones").
Thanks to Harris's curiously weak showing, Biden's dotard-like absurdity, and the likely
non-viability of Butiggieg (the U.S. is not yet primed for two men and a baby in the White
House), the not-so liberal cable channels are now joining the New Yok Times and
Washington Post in gently floating the possibility of a dark-horse neoliberal Democratic
Party newcomer (Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry, Michelle Obama, Sherrod Brown, and maybe even
Hillary Clinton herself) to fill Joke Biden's Goldman-and Citigroup-approved shoes in the
coming primary and Caucus battles with "radical socialist" Bernie and (not-so) "left"
Warren.
So what if running an establishment Obama-Clinton-Citigroup-Council on Foreign Relations
Democrat in 2020 will de-mobilize much of the nation's progressive electoral base, helping the
malignant white nationalist monster Donald Trump get a second term?
As the old working-class slogan says, "money talks and bullshit walks."
"Follow the money" is the longstanding mantra in campaign finance research and criminal
prosecution. It should also apply to our understanding of the dominant media's political news
content. U.S. media managers are employed by giant corporations (MSNBC is a division of Comcast
NBC Universal, no. 71 on the Fortune 500 and CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting, no, 68 on the
Fortune 500) that are naturally reluctant to publish or broadcast material that might offend
the wealthy capitalist interests that pay for broadcasting by purchasing advertisements. As
Noam Chomsky has noted, large corporations are not only the major producers of the United
States' mass commercial media. They are also that media's top market, something that deepens
the captivity of nation's supposedly democratic and independent media to big capital:
"The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines
what is presented to the public the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the
concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they
are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case,
almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses –
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these
are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that
significantly shapes the nature of the institution."
At the same time, both U.S. corporate media managers and the advertisers who supply revenue
for their salaries are hesitant to produce content that might alienate affluent folks –
the people who hire pricey investment advisors, go to Caribbean resorts and buy Jaguars and
Mercedes Benzes and count for an ever-rising share of U.S. consumer purchases. It is those with
the most purchasing power who are naturally most targeted by advertisers.
Money talks, bullshit talks on "liberal" cable news, as in the legal and party and elections
systems and indeed across all of society.
Watch the wannabe fascist strongman Trump walk to a second term with no small help from a
"liberal" corporate media whose primary goal is serving corporate sponsors and its own bottom
line, not serving social justice, environmental sanity, and democracy – or even helping
Democrats win elections.
"... Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else -- even distant family -- about their business interests. Period." ..."
"... James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer. ..."
"... According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of minority partners . ..."
"... David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a partner." ..."
Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer is out with a new book, "
Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America's Progressive Elite," in which he reveals
that five members of the Biden family, including Hunter, got rich using former Vice President
Joe Biden's "largesse, favorable access and powerful position."
While we know of Hunter's profitable exploits in Ukraine and China - largely in part thanks
to Schweizer, Joe's brothers James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and his son-in-law Howard all
used the former VP's status to enrich themselves.
Of course, Biden in 2019 said "I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else --
even distant family -- about their business interests. Period."
As Schweizer puts writes in the
New York Post ; "we shall see."
James Biden : Joe's younger brother James has been deeply involved in the lawmaker's rise since the early days - serving
as the finance chair of his 1972 Senate campaign. And when
Joe became VP, James was a frequent guest at the White House - scoring invites to important
state functions which often "dovetailed with his overseas business dealings," writes Schweizer.
Consider the case of
HillStone International , a subsidiary of the huge construction management firm, Hill
International. The president of HillStone International was Kevin Justice, who grew up in
Delaware and was a longtime Biden family friend. On November 4, 2010, according to White
House visitors' logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele
Smith in the Office of the Vice President .
Less than three weeks later, HillStone announced that James Biden would be joining the
firm as an executive vice president . James appeared to have little or no background in
housing construction, but that did not seem to matter to HillStone. His bio on the company's
website noted his "40 years of experience dealing with principals in business, political,
legal and financial circles across the nation and internationally "
James Biden was joining HillStone just as the firm was starting negotiations to win a
massive contract in war-torn Iraq. Six months later, the firm announced a contract to build
100,000 homes. It was part of a $35 billion, 500,000-unit project deal won by TRAC
Development , a South Korean company. HillStone also received a $22 million U.S. federal
government contract to manage a construction project for the State Department. -
Peter Schweizer, via NY Post
According to Fox Business 's Charlie Gasparino in 2012, HillStone's Iraq project was
expected to "generate $1.5 billion in revenues over the next three years," more than tripling
their revenue. According to the report, James Biden split roughly $735 million with a group of
minority partners .
David Richter - the son of HillStone's parent company's founder - allegedly told investors
at a private meeting; it really helps to have "the brother of the vice president as a
partner."
Unfortunately for James, HillStone had to back out of the major contract in 2013 over a
series of problems, including a lack of experience - but the company maintained "significant
contract work in the embattled country" of Iraq, including a six-year contract with the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
In the ensuing years, James Biden profited off of Hill's lucrative contracts for dozens of
projects in the US, Puerto Rico, Mozambique and elsewhere.
Frank Biden , another one of Joe's brothers (who said the Pennsylvania Bidens
voted for Trump over Hillary), profited handsomely on real estate, casinos, and solar power
projects after Joe was picked as Obma's point man in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Months after Joe visited Costa Rica, Frank partnered with developer Craig Williamson and the
Guanacaste Country Club on a deal which appears to be ongoing.
In real terms, Frank's dream was to build in the jungles of Costa Rica thousands of homes,
a world-class golf course, casinos, and an anti-aging center. The Costa Rican government was
eager to cooperate with the vice president's brother.
As it happened, Joe Biden had been asked by President Obama to act as the Administration's
point man in Latin America and the Caribbean .
Frank's vision for a country club in Costa Rica received support from the highest levels
of the Costa Rican government -- despite his lack of experience in building such
developments. He met with the Costa Rican ministers of education and energy and environment,
as well as the president of the country. -
NY Post
And in 2016, the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Education inked a deal with Frank's Company,
Sun Fund Americas to install solar power facilities across the country - a project the Obama
administration's OPIC authorized $6.5 million in taxpayer funds to support.
This went hand-in-hand with a solar initiative Joe Biden announced two years earlier, in
which "American taxpayer dollars were dedicated to facilitating deals that matched U.S.
government financing with local energy projects in Caribbean countries, including Jamaica,"
known as the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI).
Frank Biden's Sun Fund Americas announced later that it had signed a power purchase
agreement (PPA) to build a 20-megawatt solar facility in Jamaica.
Valerie Biden-Owens , Joe's sister, has run all of her brother's Senate campaigns - as well
as his 1988 and 2008 presidential runs.
She was also a senior partner in political messaging firm Joe Slade White & Company ,
where she and Slade White were listed as the only two executives at the time.
According to Schweizer, " The firm received large fees from the Biden campaigns that Valerie
was running . Two and a half million dollars in consulting fees flowed to her firm from
Citizens for Biden and Biden For President Inc. during the 2008 presidential bid alone."
Dr. Howard Krein - Joe Biden's son-in-law, is the chief medical officer of StartUp Health -
a medical investment consultancy that was barely up and running when, in June 2011, two of the
company's execs met with Joe Biden and former President Obama in the Oval Office .
The next day, the company was included in a prestigious health care tech conference run by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - while StartUp Health executives became
regular White House visitors between 2011 and 2015 .
StartUp Health offers to provide new companies technical and relationship advice in
exchange for a stake in the business. Demonstrating and highlighting the fact that you can
score a meeting with the president of the United States certainly helps prove a strategic
company asset: high-level contacts. -
NY Post
Speaking of his homie hookup, Krein described how his company gained access to the highest
levels of power in D.C.:
"I happened to be talking to my father-in-law that day and I mentioned Steve and Unity were
down there [in Washington, D.C.]," recalled Howard Krein. "He knew about StartUp Health and was
a big fan of it. He asked for Steve's number and said, 'I have to get them up here to talk with
Barack.' The Secret Service came and got Steve and Unity and brought them to the Oval
Office."
And then, of course, there's Hunter Biden - who was paid millions of dollars to sit on the
board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma while his father was Obama's point man in the
country.
But it goes far beyond that for the young crack enthusiast.
With the election of his father as vice president, Hunter Biden launched businesses fused
to his father's power that led him to lucrative deals with a rogue's gallery of governments
and oligarchs around the world . Sometimes he would hitch a prominent ride with his father
aboard Air Force Two to visit a country where he was courting business. Other times, the
deals would be done more discreetly. Always they involved foreign entities that appeared to
be seeking something from his father.
There was, for example, Hunter's involvement with an entity called Burnham Financial Group
, where his business partner Devon Archer -- who'd been at Yale with Hunter -- sat on the
board of directors. Burnham became the vehicle for a number of murky deals abroad, involving
connected oligarchs in Kazakhstan and state-owned businesses in China.
But one of the most troubling Burnham ventures was here in the United States, in which
Burnham became the center of a federal investigation involving a $60 million fraud scheme
against one of the poorest Indian tribes in America , the Oglala Sioux.
Devon Archer was arrested in New York in May 2016 and
charged with "orchestrating a scheme to defraud investors and a Native American tribal
entity of tens of millions of dollars." Other victims of the fraud included several public
and union pension plans. Although Hunter Biden was not charged in the case, his fingerprints
were all over Burnham . The "legitimacy" that his name and political status as the vice
president's son lent to the plan was brought up repeatedly in the trial. -
NY Post
"... Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor? ..."
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against
Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the
articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
"... The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted (which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair. ..."
"... But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed before 2014. I would say there is less unity now. ..."
"... Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate, but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) ..."
"... The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling you something. ..."
"... The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down. De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky is trying to do) ? ..."
I feel like robber barons in Kyiv have harmed you more through their looting of the country than impoverished Eastern Ukrainians,
who were the biggest losers in the post-Soviet deindustrilization, have harmed you by existing and dying of diseases of poverty
and despair.
It reminds me of how coastal shit-libs in America talk about "fly-over" country and want all the poor whites in Appalachia
to die. I'm living in a country whose soul is totally poisoned. A country that is dying. While all this is happening, whites have
split themselves into little factions focused on political point scoring.
I doubt people like Zelensky, Kolomoisky, Poroshenko and all the rest are going to turn Ukraine into an earthly paradise. They're
more likely to be Neros playing harps, while Ukraine burns.
Looks like your understanding of Ukraine is mostly based of a short trip to Lvov and reading neoliberal MSM and forums. That's
not enough, unless you want to be the next Max Boot.
Ukraine is a deeply sick patient, which surprisingly still stands despite all hardships (Ukrainians demonstrated amazing, superhuman
resilience in the crisis that hit them, which greatly surprised all experts).
The infrastructure they inherited from the USSR mostly is now fully amortized. For example railway park in in complete ruin. Central
heating pipeline communications in cities like Kiev are in ruins too. In the USSR they tried to reuse the heat from electric stations
and have elaborate hot water delivery networks from each, which provided heat to a large city blocks. Now pipes are completely rusted
(which in 30 years is no surprise) and are in the state of constant repair.
And, what is really tragic Ukraine now it is a debt state. Usually the latter is the capital sentence for the county. Few managed
to escape even in more favorable conditions (South Korea is one.) So chances of economic recovery are slim: with such level of parasitic
rent to the West the natural path is down and down. Don't cry for me Argentina.
And there is no money to replace already destroyed due to bad maintenance infrastructure, but surprisingly large parts of Soviets
era infrastructure still somehow hold. For example, electrical networks, subway cars. But other part are already crumbling.
For example, in Kiev that means in some buildings you have winter without central heating, you have elevators in 16-storey buildings
that work one or two weeks in month, you have no hot water, sometimes you have no water at all for a week or more, etc). Pensioners
have problem with paying heating bills, so some of them are forced to live in non-heated apartments.
And that's in Kiev/Kyiv (Western Ukrainians love to change established names, much like communists) . In provincial cities it
is a real horror show when even electricity supply became a problem. The countryside dwellers at least has its own food, but the
situation for them is also very very difficult.
Other big problem -- few jobs and almost no well paid job, unless you are young, know English and have a university education
(and are lucky). Before 2014 approximately 70% of Ukrainian labor migrants (in total a couple of million) came from the western part
of the country, in which migration had become a widespread method of coping with poverty, the absence of jobs and low salaries.
Now this practice spread to the whole county. That destroyed many families.
The USA plays its usual games selling vassals crap at inflated prices (arms, uranium rods, coal, locomotives, cars, etc) , which
Ukrainians can't refuse. Trump is simply a typical gangster in this respect, running a protection racket.
The rate of emigration and shrinking population is another fundamental problem. Mass emigration (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
) is continuing even after Zelensky election. Looting by the West also continues unabated. This is disaster capitalism in action.
Add to those problems inflated military expenses to fight the civil war in Donbass which deprives other sectors of necessary funds
(with the main affect of completely alienating Russia) and "Huston, we have a problem."
May be this is a natural path for xUSSR countries after the dissolution of the USSR, I don't know.
But the destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic: they wanted better life and got a really harsh one. Especially pensioners
(typical pension is something like $60-$70) a month in Kiev, much less outside of Kiev. How they physically survive I do not fully
understand.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbass means Ukraine can no longer be characterized as "split."
I agree that there is a substantial growth of anti-Russian sentiments. It is really noticeable. As well as growth of the usage
of the Ukrainian language (previously Kiev, unlike Lvov was completely Russian-language city).
And in Western Ukraine Russiphobia was actually always a part of "national identity". The negative definition of national identity,
if you wish. See popular slogan "Hto ne skache toi moskal" ("those who do not jump are Moskal" -- where Moskal is the derogatory
name for a Russian). Here is this slogan in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rfqr9afMc
;-)
But when the standard of living dropped to such extent as it dropped after 2014 sentiments toward even slightly different
ethnic groups turn hostile too. This is the case in Ukraine. In this sense you are wrong. There is no more unity now then existed
before 2014. I would say there is less unity now.
Sentiments turned against both Donbass dwellers and Ukrainians from Western Ukraine. In Kiev the derogatory term for both
categories is "ponaekhali" ("come to overcrowd the place and displace us", or something along those lines; it's difficult to translate,
but the term carries strong derogatory meaning) .
"Donetskie" (former Donbass dwellers, often displaced by the war) are generally strongly resented and luxury cars, villas, etc
and other excesses of neoliberal elite are attributed mostly to them (Donbass neoliberal elite did moved to Kiev, not Moscow)
, while "zapadentsi" are also, albeit less strongly, resented because they often use clan politics within institutions, and often
do not put enough effort (or are outright incompetent), as they rely on its own clan ties for survival.
This sentiment is stronger to the south of Kiev where the resentment is directed mainly against Western Ukrainians, not against
"Donetskie" like in Kiev. And I am talking not only about Odessa. Western Ukrainians are now strongly associated with corrupt ways
of getting lucrative positions (via family, clan or political connections), being incompetent and doing nothing useful.
What surprise me is that this resentment against "zapadentsi" and "Poloshenko clan" is shared by many people from Western Ukraine.
The target is often slightly more narrow, for example Hutsuls in Lviv (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsuls )
The nationalistic hysteria of 2014-2017 now mostly changed into deep depression: how a tiny group of far right nationalist
and football hooligan gangs managed to get to power against the will of the majority of the country and destroy its economy. That's
why Zelensky was elected and most far right parliamentarians lost their seats. Most of Western Ukraine voted for him, which is telling
you something.
The problem for Ukraine is that with the cut of economic ties with Russia the natural path for economics is probably down.
De-industrialization, Baltic style, is raining supreme. Many enterprises survived the period from 1991 to 2014 only due to orders
from Russia. Especially remnants of military industrial complex and manufacturing industry. Now what? Selling land (like Zelensky
is trying to do) ?
Ukraine will probably eventually lose a large part of its chemical industry because without subsidies for gas it just can't complete
even taking into account low labor costs. And manufacturing because without Russian market it is difficult to find a place for their
production in already established markets, competing only in price and suffering in quality (I remember something about Iraq returning
Ukrainians all ordered armored carriers due to defect is the the armor
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705221053859853-armored-vehicles-defects-extent
/). Although at least for the Ukrainian arm industry there is place on the market in countries which are used to old Soviet armaments,
because those are rehashed Soviet products.
Add to this corrupt and greedy diaspora (all those Jaresko, Chalupas, Freelands, Vindmans, etc ) from the USA and Canada (and
not only diaspora -- look at Biden, Kerry, etc) who want their piece of the pie after 2014 "Revolution of dignity" (what a sad joke)
and you will see the problems more clearly. Not that much changed from the period 1991-2014 where Ukraine was also royally fleeced
by own oligarchs allied with Western banksers, simply now this leads to quicker deterioration of the standard of living.
None of Eastern European countries benefited from a color revolution staged by the USA. This is about opening the country not
only to multinationals (while they loot the county they at least behave within a certain legal bounds, demonstrating at least decency
of gangsters like in Godfather), but to petty foreign criminals from diaspora and outside of it who allies with the local oligarchs
and smallernouveau riche and are siphoning all the county wealth to western banks as soon as possible. Greed of the disapora is simply unbounded.
https://neweasterneurope.eu/2016/08/26/the-ukrainian-diaspora-as-a-recipient-of-oligarchic-cash/
Of course, Ukrainian diaspora is not uniform. Still, outside well-know types from the tiny Mid-Eastern country, the most dangerous
people for Ukraine are probably Ukrainians from diaspora with dual citizenship
The
Open Society and Anti-Defamation League have gone ballistic last week demanding for the
unprecedented eternal banning of Joe diGenova from Fox News or else.
DiGenova (former Federal Attorney for the District of Columbia) committed a grievous crime
indeed, calling out the unspeakable "philanthropist" George Soros on Fox News' Lou Dobbs Show
on Nov. 14 as a force controlling a major portion of the American State Department and FBI. To
be specific, DiGenova stated: "no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the
career foreign service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities
of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs -- work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine.
And Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros." DiGenova was here referencing
State Department head George Kent who's testimony is being used to advance President Trump's
impeachment.
Open Society Foundation President Patrick Gaspard denounced Fox ironically calling them
"McCarthyite" before demanding the network impose total censorship on all condemnation of
Soros. Writing to Fox News' CEO, Gaspard stated: "I have written to you in the past about the
pattern of false information regarding George Soros that is routinely blasted over your
network. But even by Fox's standards, last night's episode of Lou Dobbs tonight hit a new low
This is beyond rhetorical ugliness, beyond fiction, beyond ludicrous."
Of course, the ADL and Gaspard won't let anyone forget that any attack on George Soros is an
attack on Jews the world over, and so it goes that the ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt jumped
into the mud saying "Invoking Soros as controlling the State Dept, FBI, and Ukraine is
trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes." He followed that up by demanding Fox ban
DiGenova saying: "If Mr. DiGenova insists on spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, there
is absolutely no reason for Fox News to give him an open mic to do so. Mainstream news networks
should never give a platform to those who spread hate."
Even though the MSM including the Washington Post, NY Times and other rags, not to mention
countless Soros-affiliated groups have come out on the attack, DiGenova's statements cannot be
put back in the bottle, and their attacks just provoke more people to dig more deeply into the
dark dealings of Soros and the geopolitical masterclass that use this a-moral, former Nazi
speculator as their anti-nation state mercenary.
A Little Background on Soros
As has been extensively documented in many locations , ever since young Soros' talents were
identified as a young boy working for the Nazis during WWII (a time he describes as the best
and most formative of his life), this young sociopath was recruited to the managerial class of
the empire becoming a disciple of the "Open Society" post-nation state theories of Karl Popper
while a student in London. He latter became one of the first hedge fund managers with startup
capital provided by Evelyn Rothschild in 1968 and rose in prominence as a pirate of
globalization, assigned at various times to unleash speculative attacks on nations resisting
the world government agenda pushed by his masters (in some cases even attacking the center of
power- London itself in 1992 which provided an excuse for the London oligarchs to stay out of
the very euro trap that they orchestrated for other European nations to walk into).
After the Y2K bubble, Soros began devoting larger parts of his resources to international
drug legalization, euthanasia lobbying, color revolutions and other regime change programs
under the guise of "Human Rights" organizations which have done a remarkable job destroying the
sovereignty of Sudan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria to name a few. Since the economic crisis of
2008-09 (which his speculation helped create through unbounded currency and derivatives
speculation), Soros has begun to advocate a new world governance system centred on what has
recently been called the
"Green New Deal" which has less to do with saving nature, and everything to do with
depopulation.
So when the ADL, and Open Society attacks someone for being anti-semitic, you know that
whomever they are attacking are probably doing something useful.
Barbara Boyd correctly called Kent testimony "obsine" becase it was one grad neocon
gallisination, which has nothing to do with real facts on the ground.
She attributed those dirty games not only to the USA but also to London.
If you want to stop the coup against the President, you must understand how Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton's State Department carried out a coup against the democratically elected
government of Ukraine in 2014.
In a November 16 webcast, LaRouche PAC's Barbara Boyd presented the real story behind the
present impeachment farce: how the very forces running the attack on President Trump, used
thugs as their enforcers, in order to turn Ukraine into a pawn in the British geopolitical war
drive against Russia.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must have been the same idiots in the DNC
who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich /
Crowdstrike, Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has
instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
Notable quotes:
"... At least this mess made it patently clear the Dem obsession with Russia has been all about preserving their Ukraine pickpocketing operation. ..."
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine Joe Biden under cross examination as
he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't recall."
I can see a Trump marketing consultant designing a campaign centered on the impeachment hearings called "The Swamp Strikes
Back". It might be most effective as a comic strip.
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he
himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations
with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable
offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani
by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the
mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was
in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial
flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in
Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit
the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside
the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases
where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this
will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to
decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories
of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would
be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President
Pence. Might have to get use to that.
Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of
Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.
There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.
Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13
1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late
1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions
annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion
control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control
Act.<<
2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a
bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?
Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed.
Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good
argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop
digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.
"... ...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
This is like the debate about the fundamental question "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin?"
Notable quotes:
"... has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted? ..."
Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of
impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:
has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization
or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are
transmitted? This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my
former Harvard Law School colleagues -- Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman -- both
liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.
Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to
leave it at that : by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a
win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and
acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings
about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without
having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe
scenario, the House Democrats get to "obstruct" the Senate and "abuse" their power (to borrow
terms from the articles of impeachment).
Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing -- quite correctly -- that impeachment and a removal
trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view,
is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process.
He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate
for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.
In May 2016, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, famously proclaimed that, "If
we [Republicans] nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it." Since then,
Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders, making Graham the
target of critics who paint him as a hypocrite for repeatedly contradicting his previously
expressed stances.
In 2015, for example, Graham called Donald Trump a
"race-baiting xenophobic bigot," but by 2018 he was claiming that he had "never heard [Trump]
make a single racist statement." And in 1999, during impeachment proceedings against
President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), Graham asserted that an
impeachable offense "doesn't even have to be a crime," but then in 2019 Graham
challenged those calling for the impeachment of Trump to "show me something that is a
crime"
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin there are going to be three things in life that are certain.
Death, taxes and the impeachment of a US President when the House is held by a different
party. American politics is going to get a whole lot nastier now than what it has been.
This Punch and Judy show has achieved nothing. The House impeached him and the Senate
won't convict him. Trump now will be playing the victim card. Come November the key thing
that will matter is the economy. If it as successful as it is now then he will get a second
term. If it is in a recession then advantage Democratic candidate.
And Ms. Pelosi believes that Mr. Trump is so eager for the public vindication of a Senate
acquittal that he will put pressure on the majority leader to make it happen even if it means
offering some concessions to Mr. Schumer.
For now, however, Mr. McConnell -- and many other Senate Republicans -- seem unmoved by the
House posture. He spent much of Thursday gleefully ridiculing Democrats' negotiating
tactics.
"Do you think this is leverage, to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he asked
reporters this week as he cracked a broad smile outside the Senate chamber, in a departure from
his usual dour expression.
"... "growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically." ..."
"... "open war on American Democracy." ..."
"... the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record." ..."
"... It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media. ..."
"... So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think. ..."
...If the plan was to sabotage Trump's second-term campaign, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. With every
hearing before the Intelligence or Judiciary Committee, the public support for impeachment actually decreased. Even
CNN
was forced to admit the existence of
"growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House
against Trump may actually be helping him politically."
Indeed, what better way for Trump to solidify his bona
fides as the populist outsider than to be impeached by the coastal elites and the Washington Swamp, in what amounted to
a nakedly partisan process?
Definition of Impeachment (modern): A process by which the party out of power shows the
world how they got that way. Happens most commonly right before a landslide reelection.
...Trump never gets tired of pointing out the accomplishments of his administration: jobs, stock market growth, trade
deals, etc. He did so again, in a scathing letter to Pelosi on Impeachment Eve, contrasting that to her party's
"open war on American Democracy."
However,
the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the
Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the
purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record."
It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by
the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major
political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US
intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media.
So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
So, if the President wanted to, he could be impeached by the house over and over again
without that helping the Senate to find any illegal, and therefore convictable behavior for the
President?
May be if the house impeach him three times and never send the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the dear President would faint. May be then the doctors would finally decide that he is
incapable of fulling his duties in the White House and declare him officially so sicko that he
gets forced to stay in bed. /sad snark attempt.
"... You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power. ..."
"... You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did. ..."
"... This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution. ..."
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats
in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers,
unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional
theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened
the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution,
and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification
scheme -- yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy
that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans
of faith by continually saying "I pray for the President," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative
sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
Your first claim, "Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know
that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted,
mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from
the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: "I
would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." I said do
us a favor, not me , and our country , not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.
Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate
than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.
You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing
the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it
on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe
Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing
me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.
President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that
it was a "good phone call," that "I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that "nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign
Minister stated very clearly: "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance." He also said there
was "No Pressure." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said:
"At no time during this meeting was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything
in return for the military aid." Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did
Ukraine complain about pressure being applied -- not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: "No quid pro quo. I want
nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on."
The second claim, so-called "Obstruction of Congress," is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the
duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan
basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president
would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats:
"I can't emphasize this enough if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it
is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College
landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what
many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the
verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn
the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!
Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for "two
and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office,
the Washington Post published a story headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Less than three months
after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, "I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached." House Democrats
introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our
country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) -- who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest
cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office,
"We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, "I'm concerned that if we
don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before
you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to
do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo
the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!
Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out
of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said
by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.
You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market,
soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever
unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice
and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation
cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch
of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a
defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous
NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade
deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate
Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release,
and the building of the Southern Border Wall -- and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme
policies -- open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term
taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan
obstruction of both common sense and common good.
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know
that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire
force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high
position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon
wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United
States, and you are doing it yet again.
There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the
success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.
You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along,
the phone call with Ukraine -- even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many
people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing
Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies
claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced
our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton
and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into
dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.
Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade -- you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.
All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged
and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger -- this is
what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with
your party.
If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing
the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election -- including the use of
spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order
to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would
personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment
effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that "all roads lead to Putin," when you know that is
an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment -- against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle
-- is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the
tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until
the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence,
to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who
started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.
Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be
presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud,
and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew
up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.
More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan -- it is not. You said it was very divisive --
it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible -- and it will only get worse!
This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.
You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party
is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy
will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.
Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People
that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person
believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There
is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred
of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through
this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will
not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.
There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats
in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation
that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it
can never happen to another President again.
Sincerely yours,
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
cc: United States Senate
United States House of Representatives
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats antithetical to the very principles
that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the Dems claim to support. Someone please
tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of history itself. Our Founding Fathers
would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you
sir.
ext-content expanded"> I've never heard a more brilliant or eloquent summary and analysis of the Impeachment case. Sloppy,
hurried, careless without regard for due process, the Democrats in 12 weeks have committed an abuse of their constitutional authority
and to the spirit of historical precedent regarding impeachment as a weapon to use just because you don't like the President.
This group of democrats have done serious damage to our government.
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"As part of your rehabilitation, it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are
hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up
intelligence agency abuses ." -Devin Nunes to Adam Schiff
So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were
subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a
Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very
lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau is a U.S. creation. It is therefore not astonishing to
find that it is corrupt.
@kooleksiy 16:29 UTC
· Dec 13, 2019
Director of Ukraine's National Anti-corruption Bureau Sytnyk will pay a ~$140 fine for
"violation of restrictions on accepting gifts" [valued at ~$1 thousand in his case] - his
lawyer stated today after Appellate Court ruling @dw_ukrainian reports
www.dw.com/uk/
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32 years.
I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark. Selective
Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small facet
of the impeachment inquiry.
If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I believe that it would certainly constitute
an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with an investigation into such an offense is a
political decision. I happen to agree that Trump is a turd and that he should be
investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing charges
without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where Professor
Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for
this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to
be thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate
(or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with
the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of
"leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf
of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may
be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official.
These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is
crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't
evidence.
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
Well, spending 5% of GDP on military and lowering further the standard of living of population will definitely increase the
security of the US MIC. Not so much the security of Ukraine.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor Karlan may affirm: "Never argue with
stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
What coup? There have been loads of offenses, mostly to the liberal sense of decorum and
mildly to the republican notion of fair play. Orange is the new black.
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
Thanks to Pamela Karlan for so aptly capturing Democratic elites' delusional, Reaganite,
jingoistic Cold Warrior mindset in your claim that we need to arm Ukraine "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here" & we remain "that shining city on
the hill."
'Senator Harris has the capacity to appear to be anything she wants to appear to be.'
There is a word for that. It is a chameleon so yeah, Kamala Chameleon works. But Biden
picking her as a running mate would be the same as back in 2008 when John McCain picked Sarah
Palin as a running mate which went down like a lead balloon.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
"... Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom. ..."
"... The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years. ..."
"... And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president. ..."
"... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. ..."
"... The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target. ..."
"... Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones. ..."
The conspiracy theory that exposes the Democrats' desperation and panic.
Fri Nov 29, 2019
Oleg Atbashian
133 In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word "CrowdStrike" a
lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris
Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in
a crazy idea that the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named
CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that
meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.
A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the
Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.
Let's look at the facts:
Fact 1. In 2016 the DNC hired the Ukrainian-owned firm CrowdStrike to analyze their server
and investigate a data breach.
Fact 2. CrowdStrike experts determined that the culprit was Russia.
Fact 3. The FBI never received access to the DNC server, so the Russian connection was never
officially confirmed and continues to be an allegation coming from the DNC and its
Ukrainian-owned contractor.
Fact 4. Absent the official verdict, other theories continue to circulate, including the
possibility that the theft was an inside job by a DNC employee, who simply copied the files to
a USB drive and sent it to WikiLeaks.
None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for
the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy
theory that Trump was a Russian agent.
Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into
CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that
"CrowdStrike" is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in
it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.
But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the
first to call him on it and the impeachment would've been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back
Trump every step of the way.
So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled
now ?
Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:
Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story
with the same names and details as the real one.
Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the
real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.
Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory.
Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for
you.
Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let
up.
This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda
machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The
Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this
sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and
worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story
for another day.
For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by
convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are
Haters
Racists
Fascists
Deniers of science
Destroyers of the environment
Heartless sellouts to corporate interests
And so on - the list is endless.
The Soviet communists had aptly named it "disinformation," which a cut above the English
word "misinformation." It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing
down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this
sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history,
supplanting it with a bogus "progressive" narrative. The Soviet term for such art was
"socialist realism."
Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the
world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they're acting as if they'd spent the last three years
in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any
continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells
is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.
The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that
outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.
The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking
Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise
why bother?). What's not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the
phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has
nothing to do with impeachment. We're told it's just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump's head,
that it's a nonissue.
But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media
outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps
because it's more important than the story suggests.
Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC
server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can
be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist
in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and
other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by
whom.
The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to
understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch
hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds
during the last three years.
And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and
finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this
happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all
the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president.
This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump's call a lot more
gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your
wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went
on, the whole situation.
If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn't understand what
Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage,
complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could
possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the
Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.
The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats'
strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is
squarely over the target.
It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain't
Chris Wallace.
Fine dissection of the CrowdStrike story. Of course if the DNC was serious about
finding out who breached their security they would have allowed the FBI to investigate.
They didn't - which means they're covering something up.
And who doesn't have at least one backup system running constantly, I have two and am
just a home user and the DNC would not have been dumb enough not to have one on the
premises and one off site for safety and preservation and the FBI could have gotten to
either one if they wanted to. DWS was involved in something very similar and the FBI
backed off again. I thought the DNC and the FBI were on the same page and would have
liked to find out how the "transfer" happened?
Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had
hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece
against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones.
Seth Rich - paper trail to Wikilinks needs to come out in any Senate impeachment trail
since Democrats claim the Ukraine phone call was Trump's alleged downfall. CROWDSTRIKE
was the only favor Trumps asked for.
There are two important facts to glean from this article:
1) Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor, is Ukrainian
2) that the famous server may have been backed up in Ukraine and not tampered with.
From the MSM we were given the 'interpretation' that Trump is an idiot who believes
that the DNC shipped the server with no changes to the Ukraine. No folks. He 'gets'
technology and security. He actual ran a business! (imagine).
I'd love to hear that in Hillary's own voice. :) You know, cleaned with a cloth?
That pretty much sums it up. MSM in total cahoots on this too since they put the
entire topic of the CROWDSTRIKE part of the phone call into the cone of silence.
The Left and media (One and the same within the "Deep State") have been playing "Three
Card Monte" with America for a while; it stops now!
The "Impeachment" media show being run by the Lefty tool cretins in the House has
NOTHING to do with wrong doing by President Trump. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fear
that President Trump will expose the depth of the swamp and bring the criminals on the
Left down to Justice!
We are s close to getting to the bottom of the conspiracies that threaten our nation.
Time to make the America haters pay for the harm they have done to our nation!
We need open and in depth prosecution of the criminal activities of the Left. There
needs to be LONG prison sentences and, yes, even executions for those that seek to
undermine our nation.
People need to know that there our GRAVE penalties for betraying our nation!
In fact, when I first heard this story - that is: very recently - I was puzzled: why
should a major party in the Country that invented IT and is still at its leading edge,
ask an obscure firm of a crumbling, remote foreign State to do their IT security
research? I'm not saying that Ukraine is a s++thole Country, but... you get me.
Either they have very much to hide, or they fear some closeted rightwing geek that works
in any of the many leftist US technofirms. Or, CrowdStrike were involved from the
beginning of the story, from the Steele dossier perhaps?
The whole Crowdstrike fiasco has been around for years - plus became a solid CYA part
of the Mueller report too - just in case the Democrats needed to bury it later.
don't you get it? The DNC is completely infiltrated by Ukrainian graft. Even Joe Biden
was on the take. Why won't they run their IT? (there is no Research in IT here, just
office software)
If you want to sell and deliver State Secrets and Intel to our enemies, then you
(Obama, the Clintons, the DNC) simply make it easier for THEM to access. They have done
this for years, and this is why they had to fill the DOJ, the FBI and the State
Department with traitors and haters of America and American principles. Barack Hussein
Obama, the Clintons, their evil administrations and even two-faced RINOS like McCain,
Romney, and Jeff Sessions were actively involved. This is treason pure and simple, and
all of the above could be legitimately and justifiably hung or shot without recourse, and
rightly so!
I have known about "Crowdstrike" since Dec. 2017. Pres. Trump is just subtlety
introducing background on what will be the biggest story of treachery, subversion,
treason and corruption ever. QAnon that the fakenews tries to vilify as a LARP has been
dropping crumbs about "Crowdstrike", Perkins Coir, Fusion GPS, FVEY and so much more!
Crowdstrike mentioned 7x in the last 2 years. I can't urge people enough to actually
investigate the Q posts for themselves! You will be stunned at what you have been
missing. Q which says "future proves past" and "news will unlock" what I see in the media
now is old news to those of us following Q. Q told us that "Senate was the prize" "Senate
meant more" that the investigations started in the House would now move to the Senate and
all this that the Dems and Rinos have been trying to hide is going to be exposed.
Fakenews corporate media has litterally written hundreds of hit pieces against Q - me
knows "they doth protest to much" - Recent Q post told "Chairman Graham its time. Senate
was the target"
Keep up with the Q posts and Pres. Trump's tweets in once place:
https://qmap.pub/ - And if you are still having a hard time believing this is legit
Pres. Trump himself has confirmed Q posts by "Zero Delta" drops - if you think this is
fake - try and tweet within 1 minute of when Pres. Trump does BUT your tweet has to
anticipate his! YOU have to tweet first and HE has to follow you within 1 minute.
MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS you are in the same immediate space or communicating at
the time of the tweets! To all you doubters that think Q is just a by chance scam - NO
WAY. There have been MANY, MANY of these ZERO DELTA PROOFS over the last 2 years. The
most recent was Nov. 20th.
Crowdstrike in the dog who did not bark. The Democrat cone of silence they put on even
the mention of the word has been the most damning clue this is where the real action
is.
The assertion that a digital image of the computer can be transmitted quickly all
around the world is not necessarily correct in my experience as a cyber security analyst.
I'm not an upper echelon type, but I am aware that it can take up to weeks to transmit
such images depending on the hard disk, where it is, and the connections/network to your
device creating the image. The FBI should have physically taken the device since there
was a suspicion of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton. Had it been Donald Trump's computer I
do not doubt the FBI would either have imaged it on the spot or taken the device.
Last night I completely removed Catalina-Safari on my older Mac Book Air and
re-installed Mohave-Safari from my backup to the day before I installed Catalina
including the data and system just like it was before. It took around 5 hours and was
cabled and not on Wi-Fi and it was perfect and reset the clock, my old e-mails and the
newer ones as well. I can't believe being hooked into real broadband or fiber couldn't do
the same in a relatively short period of time, but still significantly longer than a
thumb drive or external hard drive.
One variable is how big your hard drive is. If it is a big drive at a remote location,
say somewhere in California to the Midwest, it can take weeks for a forensic backup. I
only say that because . . . well, I'm not allowed to say. But you get it.
The assertion is a figure of speech. Today's IT infrastructure companies sell the
service of maintaining clones in real-time in two or more locations for safety purposes.
VMware and other off-the-shelf products makes this kind of setup easy to deploy. Did
Crowdstrike offer that service and did the DNC buy it, that is the question? And, if so,
did Crowdstrike keep the image on their backups in Ukraine?
(Note: it is not obvious that such a setup would preserve the forensic data the FBI would
be looking for, but its a start).
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com, ..."
"... Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. ..."
"... State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. ..."
"... The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to January
2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. ..."
"... All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint
project with Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
..."
"... All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. ..."
"... All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media
activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on
the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize
allegations against Paul Manafort. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa
and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. ..."
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could
substantially alter the public's understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment
probe.
As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12
tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these
memos might answer.
Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies
about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary
Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine
corruption and U.S. foreign aid?
CNBC ,
Reuters and
The Wall Street
Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully
considered during the impeachment proceedings.
State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko . He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first
meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko's account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure
Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations
and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?
State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.
There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether
that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did
State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money
and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors' concerns legitimate?
The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to
January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden
ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma?
Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden's role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies
to justify Biden's threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn't fired?
All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine.
The U.S. government's main whistleblower office
is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy
business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct
described by the whistleblower?
OSC has concluded there is a "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" involved in these activities.
All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.
What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors
to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma
or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the
various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?
All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue
a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official
George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma's corruption reputation. Did Hunter
Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end?
What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?
All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home
of the company's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma's American representatives
were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter
Biden's name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma's efforts
to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?
All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department
officials believed Hunter Biden's association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president,
and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden's office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies
tell Joe Biden's office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?
All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social
media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such
monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence
on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts
to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they
react? What were these federal agencies' reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials
had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra
Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government
agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in
2016 on Trump and Manafort?
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
It does serves the interests of military-industrial complex. And this is all that matters.
Notable quotes:
"... IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic "Lebensraum" into xUSSR space. ..."
"... In this sense, Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor Cohen: ..."
While the discussion of this issue on emotional level is clearly fun, the key question here is: did the economic conditions
in the USA changed in a way that the majority of population from now on will consistently support a far right party (or a far
right faction within the Republican Party).
And to support far right (neofascist) ideas as a reaction to the process of sliding standard of living and the lack of job
opportunities in conditions of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the associated process of de-legitimization of neoliberal
elite (Schiff)
Marxism used to teach us that the way people live define the way people think ;-)
I am also alarmed at the support of Ukrainegate among esteemed commentariat. When you consider "military assistance" as the
way to pressure the country, the first thing to discuss is whether this military assistance serves the USA national interests
or not. This was not done.
IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far
right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part
of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic
"Lebensraum" into xUSSR space.
This was the case, long before Trump, when the USA demonstrated clearly neofascist tendencies in foreign policy. In this sense,
Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor
Cohen:
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first public protests against Zelenskiy. ..."
"... Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition. ..."
"... Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future. ..."
"... The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the government's program of domestic reform for 2020 could change this. ..."
"... At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The return from self-imposed exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This power struggle further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised. ..."
"... A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another mass protest movement. ..."
"... Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of competitive influence seeking between Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood. ..."
"... For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47 percent trust his parliamentary faction. ..."
"... Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia. ..."
"... The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea. ..."
"... But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!) and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig. ..."
"... Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future. ..."
"... How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border? ..."
"... His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against him and the Ukraine citizens. ..."
The country's new president faces a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the
events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan, write Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko.
It's been six years since the start of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, which led to the
ousting of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. By the time his successor Petro Poroshenko
was elected in May 2014, the domestic political scene in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics in the contested EU-Russia neighbourhood
surrounding it had fundamentally altered
.
Today, the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who
replaced Poroshenko in April 2019, is now facing a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical,
to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan.
Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in April and July 2019 created a political situation in Ukraine with an unprecedented
concentration of political power. Zelenskiy and his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's
parliament, and so complete control over
the appointment of the government . The president also
separately
appointed the prosecutor general, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence.
This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making
in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called
turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first
public protests against Zelenskiy.
Foreign Policy Controversy
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to
accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine
resulted in an outcry
from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively
short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became
more remote
in light of this domestic opposition.
Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists
also disagreed over who needed to fulfill which preconditions for negotiations, when and in what sequence.
Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and
ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the
agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces
have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations
could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a
recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future.
Opinion polls from September show that 23 percent of Ukrainians support military confrontation in eastern Ukraine, up from 17
percent a few months previously. As the prospects of reintegration increase under Zelenskiy's administration, so does domestic opposition
to it.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice,
whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary
groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
The initial motivation of these veterans to protest may have been what they saw as Zelenskiy's
alleged surrender by entering into direct talks with Russia. Zelenskiy has directly confronted them now by ordering them to withdraw
from the disengagement zone, but their opposition to the president's plans
continues .
Domestic Dissatisfaction
What might prove particularly dangerous for Zelenskiy is a possible convergence of so far distinct political camps that oppose
different policies of the new government. If the veterans who are at odds with Zelenskiy over his foreign policy choices were to
join forces with those who oppose him over a number of controversial domestic policies, the potential for destabilisation would significantly
increase.
The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for
positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the
government's program of domestic reform
for 2020 could change this.
Proposed budget cuts will particularly
affect public spending on healthcare, education, social security, and local governance.
New labor laws will curtail the rights of employees. A land
privatization bill, also planned for 2020, has proved
highly
unpopular as people fear a repeat of the highly corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in the 1990s when criminal groups (some
of them linked to current oligarchs) managed to capture the main Soviet industrial assets at the expense of the population at large.
In our view, these measures may, in the long term, contribute to turning Ukraine into a more stable and better functioning state.
However, their short-term consequences include decreasing social standards, higher unemployment, and a
continuation of Ukraine's brain and skills drain.
About 1m people leave Ukraine every year.
At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The
return from self-imposed
exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting
Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This
power struggle
further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and
economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised.
A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only
affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another
mass protest movement.
Geopolitical Reset?
Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of
competitive influence seeking between
Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood.
By being drawn
into the domestic politics of the U.S. and the ongoing impeachment
inquiry of Donald Trump , Zelenskiy has exposed Ukraine's vulnerability to external pressure, including from its Western partners.
Add to this Trump's personal antipathy to Ukraine (allegedly
describing it
as a "corrupt country full of terrible people") and the willingness of European leaders
to reset relations with Russia, and Ukraine's room for manoeuvre
appears even more diminished.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues
to depend heavily, including for
the implementation of much-needed domestic reforms.
For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in
one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47
percent trust his parliamentary faction.
Zelenskiy's own approval ratings also dropped from their previous high of around 80 percent by 10 percent in early September after
he secured a prisoner exchange with Russia. This indicates
that political capital may be ebbing away from the reform project with which he is identified because
popular expectations of fast and painless change cannot be met by Ukraine's new political class.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which
drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability:
Russia.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry's Comment Policy . Allegations unsupported by
facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers
will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons,
please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
The U.S.A. and the D.O.D. should not have American military trainers and advisors stationed in Ukraine nor should our government
be providing war material (some of it lethal) to the government of Ukraine. This military aid threatens the stability of the entire
region. The flagrant aggression of the U.S. A., Great Britain, and NATO into Ukraine's domestic affairs is a textbook example
of blatant balance-of-power geopolitics. As usual, this aggression is being directed and driven by such think tanks as the Atlantic
Council, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its junior American partner, the Council on Foreign relations. This
is a dangerous game that these two leading NATO countries are playing.
The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and
the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against
a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting
their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea.
Ukraine has an extremely diverse set of cultures and ethnicities within its borders. It has never been a truly independent
and unified nation. Throughout is long history that stretches back into antiquity it has been a battleground and a highway for
invading armies in both directions. NATO's gradual buildup in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler. Stephen
F. Cohen's new edition of "War with Russia?" is coming out in January 2020. Whether you agree with Professor Cohen's premises
for his argument it is worth taking a look at this gentleman's argument.
The U.S. military should depart immediately from Ukraine and the USG should stop funding Ukraine's government with any military
aid and assistance. Ukraine is looking a lot like the early pre-war stages in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Ukraine's governing system
is far more corrupt than the governing system of South Vietnam ever was.
Eugenie Basile , November 21, 2019 at 05:20
It is true that the only winner of the first Maidan was Russia. It got rid of a totally corrupt and financially broke snake
pit called Ukraine, while managing to secure Crimea and the strategic military port of Sevastopol. Now it is up to the EU and
US revolution organisers to keep on distributing cookies in order to prevent a total collapse of what is left of a divided country.
If a second Maidan occurs that would be a way for the West to get out of there in a hurry. The West has more to win than Russia,
this time.
Jimmy gates , November 21, 2019 at 01:19
CN live coverage of this, coupled with Oliver Stones two films "Ukraine on Fire " and "Revealing Ukraine " should help clear
up the confusion and crap that has been ladled on the public for over five years.
What we are seeing is not only a coup in Ukraine, but the destabilization of both the US and Russia in the stages of coup.
Crazily, the possibles for peace might be the collapse of the impeachment hoax and exposure of the plot that went haywire: that
two game show hosts were elected, in the US and Ukraine. The gods must be crazy.
Bob , November 22, 2019 at 03:20
Question; What happens now with Gazprom's offer to extend for another year the present contract due to lapse soon? Will the
new Prez be allowed to accept or even negotiate the offer?
Anonymot , November 20, 2019 at 22:16
The very small, but vigorous group who object loudly and the small, but vicious group that want to go to war over the Russian
province are probably the same crowd who were paid by our corrupt and one-eyed backers of the coup in the first place. Permanent
war is not desired by any citizenry anywhere, just those who sit in offices and decide by hocus pocus that it's a good idea. Our
one-eyed people (yes, there are some blood thirsty women at the top, too) need a pair of one-eye-correcting glasses. One-eyedness
causes a loss, not of vision so much as perspective.
Either they have made a brainless mess and lost everywhere they have initiated war since Korea or else endless wars and permanent
conflict are their policies. The latter is as stupid as the former. In each case, there is nothing realistically to be done to
stop it. It is ingrained into the way our entire political parties think as well as into the entire class of decision-makers in
each and every one of Washington's agencies. It's a mindset, not a few people. It was just as much both Clintons and Obama as
it was the Bush and Cheney gang. Trump is a wee bit special, because he has that mindset, but he's also foul and intellectually
retarded.
Note that those we prefer, Sanders, Warren, have not even whispered beyond a platitude here and there about foreign policy,
foreign affairs or foreign wars. The sole person who is running with a presidential mindset is strangely enough, a woman warrior,
Tulsi Gabbard! And her platform is to break up that mindset and deal with competitors with all of the strength this country has
left via diplomacy – and with peace as a goal. She also has her own progressive, but realistic domestic platform.
But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!)
and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers
from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig.
The kind of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and independence that Gabbard has is anathema to The Bushes and Clintons, the Deep
State folks.
Otherwise there will be and endless supply of think tankers and one-eyed profs to stir up pots like Kiev and Zelenskis ad infinitum.
Robert Carl Miller , November 20, 2019 at 20:29
The US orchestrated the coup of 2014 using the fascists already in Ukraine and Ukrainian Americans (and children and grandchildren)
who were OUN-B and were brought to the US under the Crusade For Freedom. The first generation were stone-cold fascists who fought
alongside the Nazis during their invasion of the USSR. The current DNC/CIA alliance has planned for Ukraine to heat up the cold
war with Russia.
The problem is that the Ukrainian army is broken and aside from the fascist units most average Ukrainians don't want to fight
the Russians or their brothers in Donbas. The US is calculating that its military aid and some unmentioned US troops will be able
to overcome the Donbas by force. If the US and Ukraine somehow draw Russia into this fight, which is exactly what the US militarists
want, there will be one of two outcomes: Either Ukraine will be wiped out quickly by Russian forces or there will be a nuclear
war.
As Russia finishes its Nord Stream 2 and with multiple other gas pipelines in the works to feed Europe's energy needs the US
energy industry, which constructed LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast, has seen its dreams dashed. No longer does selling
LNG to Europe make any economic sense for.
Wait! We spent 5 Billion on regime change, a color revolution that succeeded only because we hired neo-Nazi shock troops to
spearhead the ouster of Yanukovych, a duly elected oligarch. Months later, after Ukraine's public sector had crumbled, in came
Biden with Burisma and Cargill with its GMO, which highlighted the neoliberal intentions behind the Western coup sponsorship.
Fortunes were made in the energy and agricultural sector, during the same winter that many Ukrainians were without enough heat
and food. But, that 's neoliberalism for you. Their suffering was just what we intended.
The civil unrest began only when Yanukovych rejected the EU-IMF austerity package in the November preceding the February coup
d'etat. That package required that Ukraine assist NATO militarily, buy weapons from US defense contractors, cut pensions, cut
social services, and slash the already tattered safety net while privatizing commonly held state assets. But, interestingly enough,
it required Ukraine to increase its military spending
The world bankers were intent upon squeezing the last bit of juice left in the Ukrainian turnip, In other words, we wanted
Yanukovych to become as pliant as the drunken Yeltsin was in the hands of Bill Clinton in 1993, which marked the beginning of
a disastrous and deadly decade for the Russian Federation.
Instead, Yanukovych, sounding the death knell for his own regime, rejected the EU -IMF austerity package, compounding this
mortal sin by signing an energy deal with the Russian Federation, which agreed to finance Ukrainian debt at 5% when international
bankers were charging 12% to finance this crippled country's loan. Putin was actually nicer to this basket case than we were,
though his motives are not altruistic, though perhaps not as draped in pretext as our own.
All the above is true and verifiable, but no one in the Lamestream Corporate Media, which includes MSNBC as well as FOX, will
report the current Ukrainian crisis in the context of the above facts. Those who master the world economy, having already mastered
the politicians and the media, can dominate and set the parameters of the debate without notice or without drawing attention to
themselves and their agendas.
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 12:28
John: Very good to remind us of these facts. I too remember that as Ukraine floundered in bankruptcy both Russia and the EU/US
proffered competing $15b rescue packages. Thanks for revealing the contrasting details of those offerings, which I wasn't fully
aware of.
As many here have already noted, how does it favor Russia to have a broken, unstable neighbor on its border? Even before these
authors served up that closing bon motte, their claim that the usual austerity cruelty measures of the IMF, WB, etc. will "in
the end" help Ukraine, was a dead giveaway.
And I am head-scratchingly curious why CN would post a piece such as this. To give us some light entertainment, like shooting
ducks in a barrel? I do agree with one of the authors' assertions though, that Zelenskiy's situation is precarious, as is anyone,
anywhere the US is intent on spreading its tentacles.
So Zelenskiy wins an election by 70% on a platform to normalize relations with Russia and in addition his Servant of the People
party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. What is the threat he faces? What "challenge"? Is the writer thinking of the extremists
from western Ukraine rising again to produce a new anti-Russia hate-fest on Maidan, supported by the usual western meddlers? Not
many of the comments seem very convinced.
Mark Thomason , November 20, 2019 at 15:48
The Maidan events were protest against specific problems. None of those problems have changed. They have not even been addressed.
It has just been revolving abusers, "new boss same as the old boss."
Overlaid on that has been war, and all that entails, draining what remained of Ukraine's hopes.
The West has seen in that only what it wanted to see, which has little to do with what motivated the Maidan events. Those were
used, manipulated by the West, not addressed or helped.
The new guy could do better, perhaps only because he could hardly do worse. However, to say it might all blow up on him is
only to say that pressure has been building since failure of the last effort, and someday it is likely to blow.
Anna , November 20, 2019 at 12:34
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well there will only be one winner
from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia." By Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham
and Tatyana Malyarenko, a professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
Why does the tenor of this article bring to mind the Integrity Initiative? See: mintpressnews.com/the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/253014/
"The Integrity Initiative claims that it is "counter[ing] Russian disinformation and malign influence," and indeed, the main players
behind it appear intent on hyping the Russian threat to justify ramped up military budgets and a long-term war footing."
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 12:31
The deep state will continue to milk this Ukraine nightmare for their continuous mfg.of weapons and creating animosities between
the West and Russia. The deep divisions within Ukraine will play into the hands of the nefarious ones that crave chaos, the destroyers
of nations.
TimN , November 20, 2019 at 08:20
I see I'm not the person who was flummoxed by the conclusion of the article. The biggest outside obstacle to peace and stability
is the "West," of course. The "West?" You mean the US. Say that, not the euphemism.
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 13:11
I know what you mean and I hear you, as I am just as guilty of using the term "West" .It is the US which is driving this nightmare
and not the total of Western nations either .Both the Democrats and the Republicans are really not in control of the governance
of the United States .That control of the corrupted system as I see it ,is politically and judicially .The recently disclosed
Epstein pedophilia affair which is now clear that it had/has CIA and Mossad connections leads me to believe most of the politicians
and the legal system apparatus is deeply compromised and therefore have lost all control of good and fair governance if ever there
was such a thing .
Good point though ,it has become a habit to blame the West when in reality just certain factors of the West .I would certainly
include the UK in with the US as both being very compromised .
Donald Duck , November 20, 2019 at 05:45
The present situation in Ukraine is just how the US/EU wanted it. A permanent irritant on Russia's western borders. Unfortunately
this means that Ukraine is a malfunctioning state – the poorest in Europe – which is literally bleeding people at the rate described.
As a failed state Ukraine is going deeper into a hole of poverty and misery which will eventually lead to a national disintegration
as the various oblasts decided to go their own way.
Hans Zandvliet , November 19, 2019 at 21:49
It sounds to me like a rather russophobic article, like very many Ukranians are. I find it quite srtiking that the authors
are still using the term Maidan Revolution, while Stratfor's CEO George Friedman called it "the most blatant coup in history".
Anyone who still has doubts that it was a coup should watch Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"
Russia is not even a signatory of the Minsk Agreements. Russia, just like France and Germany were only mediators in the negotiations
between the ethnic Russians of the Donbas region and the fascist regime in Kiev. Russia has absolutely nothing to "win" from a
divided and failed Ukrainian state on its borders. To Russia it's just a pain in the arse, which is what the military industrial
complex in Washington has gained by their Ukrainian coup.
John A , November 20, 2019 at 10:37
Exactly. As a rule of thumb, if an article uses 'Kyiv', a recent Ukrainianisation of the long accepted 'Kiev' in English, it
is going to be anti-Russia.
Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is
the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia
has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future.
Alan MacDonald , November 19, 2019 at 21:47
Promising situation for new alignment of interests
DavidH , November 19, 2019 at 20:58
Something doesn't seem right.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues to depend heavily, including for the implementation of
much-needed domestic reforms.
If the majority elected him to end the war, why would it play well domestically? There seems to be a wave of this, and then
a wave of that. Sort of same picture in Bolivia too.
Thanks to CN and the writers for news we never hear (though we certainly should). Great embeds too. How's the new prosecutor
doing? And how is the war in the east presently being fought? I think I heard remarks on these things on Loud&Clear. But
I switched to a "hotspot" in August. Was thinking then that all Loud&Clear shows were "saveable" and also that "CN Live!" was
saveable the former aren't, the latter only a few. And turns out I don't always feel like going out after work seeking free YiFi
to stream all this stuff while I'm sit'n in a joint like I imagined I would. So, for me for the most part it's gotta be in "print."
It would be nice if yall could do like Nader's Radio Hour, and make all the old CN Lives saveable.
Consortiumnews.com , November 19, 2019 at 22:05
Every minute of every episode of CN Live! can be found on our YouTube page.
Personanongrata , November 19, 2019 at 19:27
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's
continuing instability: Russia.
How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border?
AnneR , November 20, 2019 at 08:17
You have pointed out to me – thank you – another crystal clear indicator that these two authors are anti-Russian, profoundly
so.
It absolutely does not favor Russia to have an unstable, chaotic, fascist and US supported, instigated, militarized Ukraine
on its border. That is utter baloney, and they have to know that.
After all, that was one of the reasons for Soviet Russia spreading beyond its national borders after WWII – to create a buffer
zone against any more invasions from the west, to stop western nations killing Russians by the millions, to stop any attempt by
the west to grab Russian resources (still on NATO's cards).
Russia wants a peaceful, friendly neighbor, borderland country – not a virulent, dangerous chaotic mess one.
jo6pac , November 19, 2019 at 19:07
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well"
His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against
him and the Ukraine citizens.
RJB , November 19, 2019 at 18:01
What does Russia gain by Ukraine's continued instability?
luke , November 19, 2019 at 16:35
Poor analysis. Am I as a working class lad seriously that much more informed than a professor whos life should be dedicated
to studying this?
No mention of the US involvement in the coup. No mention of the word coup. No mention of fascists, the term used to describe
US armed autonomous fascist battalions was 'right wing militias'. Top it off with the opinion that neoliberal budget cuts will
eventually help things, because a quick look at the history books tells us no such thing.
Makes me think of a professor I know who told me how proud he was that the US has the freedom to make a film documenting Cheney's
war crimes.
I responded that it made me sick that he could watch such films and still be a pathetic apologist.
He shrugged it off and went back to his overpaid position poisoning the youth. If he had the opinions I have, he wouldn't be
a professor though would he?
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 11:54
luke: You are my father.
Remember all the hokum and "experts" paraded on the MSM during W's assault on Iraq? There was one ever-present talking head
from the ME (I've forgotten his name) that was so obviously a US boot-licker that he made me nauseous each time I saw him.
Very good observations and comment.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thank you for this overview. It is good that the corruption and economic disaster are pointed out – as they have been in polls
as the biggest problem in the minds of the citizens. 1 million emigrants per year is a catastrophe.
You write:
"If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West "
As you explain, this would please the far right (fascist) paramilitary groups and extreme nationalists from Galicia and Volhynia,
quite a small minority.
How about the Russian-speaking half or more of Ukrainians and the Russian ethnic group, making up a majority? Those who share
most of their culture with citizens of Russia? That have lots of ties there?
Because of this and also common sense, wouldn't many think that peace and stability with Russia would benefit Ukraine?
What do you see that Russia stands to gain from continued problems in Ukraine? Surely, Russia (and Ukraine) would be much better
off with peace, safety, stability and close ties and trade between these very close sibling nations.
This concluding remark lacks argument, is reasonably unfounded and quite simply silly.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 16:02
To clarify: with "This concluding remark", I mean the concluding remark in the article, that only Russia stands to win.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 15:43
In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Just as important, where is the proof the Russians hacked the DNC computers (hat tip always
to LJ) - since Roger Stone was banned from getting this information by the judge who just
sent him away for life.
CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward
because, it is not going away. Democrats refusal to even mention it, let alone their
obsession trying to relentless label nameless CROWDSTRIKE as a loony, right wing conspiracy
theory simply does not pass the smell test.
Particularly since Schiff does his very best to deep six even mention of Trump's requested
Ukraine CROWDSTRIKE investigation. https://illicitinfo.com/?p=13576
Deep state CROWDSTRIKE collusion is starting to walk like a duck, quack like a duck and
look like a duck.
My bet is that the impeachment circus was started by those Dems who want to get rid of Biden.
So they start a circus where Biden's corruption case is a major issue. Moreover, this forces
Trump to open the evidence against Biden already during the impeachment process, and not only
after Biden winning the primaries.
Great analysis as usual. My comment is on your last line:
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
This is not necessarily about bringing Trump down via impeachment because though almost
certain to be impeached, he is almost as certain to be acquited in the Senate where a 2/3
majority is needed and even if some GOP Senators vote for conviction joining all Dem
Senators, reaching 67 is a tall order.
What then is all this about? It's obviously about the 2020 election and not just the
Presidency but the House and the 35 Senate seats (23 GOP and 12 Dem) up for grabs. This is
for all the marbles. The Dems/anti-Trump GOP have a formidable base made up of the powerful
coastal elites, establishment media and as importantly the so-called deep state in DC, the
bureaucrats in the State Dept/CIA/FBI/DOJ and the courts to back them. The Dems are
struggling to unify against a theme but the impeachment is one thing that's a clear litmus
test and what they will rally around in 2020.
That Trump will be impeached is a near certainty as much as that his conviction in the
Senate will fail. Look for:
- How many Dem Reps vote for impeachment or if those in GOP states flip.
- If any GOP Reps flip to impeachment.
- If any GOP Senators support conviction (almost certainly there are 4 including Mitt
Romney)
Meanwhile the GOP has tricks of its own and the upcoming FISA report due Dec 9 which
apparently will in-effect accuse the Obama admin of 2016 election meddling will be taken up
in the GOP controlled Senate.
Both these dramas will serve as the backdrop for the countdown to the 2020 election in
less than 12 months on Nov 3, 2020.
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
"... So the Ukrainians traded their corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with it). ..."
"... Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down (American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"). ..."
"to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and
resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true
offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less
untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation)."
This may be even worse than Lawrence depicts. It is clear that Vindman in his opening
remarks made it clear that the consensus policy of experts (like John Bolton) had been
following an agenda from the Obama administration (or before, but implemented under Obama,
Biden and Nuland) and it is verboten to change anything, despite constitutionally these
people at best only having advisory roles to the President (and constitutionally the
President can ask for their opinions in writing; CYA even back then!) The Ukrainian Americans
involved in the coup (national security from Vindman's perspective) are deeply committed
since 2014, and they expect to reap the benefits with no interference from Trump. And the
Democrats/ Ukraine-Americans "running the show" are probably much more corrupt than
Ukrainians governing their country before 2014.
I have started Oliver Bullough's "Money Land" and was aghast at the luxury items
Yanukovich had stolen through corruption and accumulated at his many properties. Surely with
so much money going to corrupt Yanukovich and his henchmen, the coup would have been a
blessing for the Ukrainian people! Right? I was shocked to find that after the overthrow of
Yanukovich in 2014, the median per capita household income in Ukraine, which had risen
steadily from $2032 in 2010 to $2601 in 2013, had dropped over 50% to $1110 to $1135 in 2015
and 2016, and has only risen to $1694 in 2018 (ceicdata.com).
So the Ukrainians traded their
corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt
neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their
pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with
it).
Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such
bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in
loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in
skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down
(American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
Wilberweld says: November 7, 2019
at 2:11 pm GMT 100 Words Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly
when talking with Henry Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men
you've destroyed". Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Klapper. So he
is viewed as weak, an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a
"penalty-free activity
Phil, you need to get on the State Department and NSC re the coup against Trump by the
Ukraine cabal . The State Department has been stuffed with people like the below who try to
set US policy according their personal loyalties and /or hatreds or love for any foreign
country. And as we all know the State Department lost all objectivity when the Jews
infiltrated it decades ago to run out the 'Arbarist".
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment Ukraine testimony against Trump
Fiona Hill -- -- -- -- Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description "Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. .same spin Jews put
on "Israel fighting for US and world interest against Iran'.
Their testimonies were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what
Trump said or didn't say.
It is clear and was even said by Hill in her testimony that they .."should formulate foreign
policy, not they president'. And in several cases that is what they have done going even
further with sanctions on countries then what was called for and the unattentive Trump just
accepts it .
This Trump coup is coming from the Deep State of the NSC and the State Department, not the
CIA this time.
"... Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose." ..."
"... : by telling the president that he was not a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name. ..."
"... by the time he issued his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling. ..."
"... On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern summarized the findings: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now, either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020, too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope. ..."
With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies
hope.
Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose."
The president is familiar with these rules by now, as they're the same ones that governed the investigations into Russian meddling
in the 2016 election. FBI Director James Comey told Trump at the outset that he was not a target of the investigation.
Yet anonymous quotes and other questionably sourced reports continued to appear in the press claiming that Trump was a Russian
asset-as Hillary Clinton might bluntly put it-and so the president asked Comey to say in public what he had told him in private.
Comey refused, and Trump soon fired him.
This act of self-defense, or pique, depending on your point of view, triggered calls for the appointment of a special counsel
to take over the investigation-which ballooned from an investigation that didn't center around Trump into one in which Trump's behavior
toward Comey was grounds for investigating the president. Comey had made a power play: by telling the president that he was not
a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's
elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to
the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name.
Other politicians might play by those rules out the desire for self-preservation. Trump chose not to. And so, an ex-FBI
director, who may have had hopes of becoming director once again, took over the investigation. Comey would not go unavenged. Mueller
ultimately found nothing criminal or meriting a recommendation of impeachment in Trump's behavior. But by the time he issued
his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage
and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and
then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling.
The Ukraine corruption that is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment project involves the same logic if somewhat different
players. On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The
story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David
Stern summarized the findings:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
If a foreign power involves itself is a U.S. election like that, shouldn't America ask questions? And shouldn't aid money to that
foreign power be held up until those questions were answered-not least because withholding those funds might be necessary to compel
cooperation with the investigation and to get the foreign interest to mend its ways? The questions Trump had to ask in this case,
however, involving what ties Ukrainians had to prominent Democratic Party figures, could and would, of course, be portrayed by Democrats
and the media sympathetic to them as a kind of election interference in its own right. Why, Trump was demanding a quid pro quo from
Kiev-the funds in return for information about the Democrats or an investigation that would embarrass a possible 2020 nominee.
Again, as Trump's enemies would have it, he loses if he acts (by firing Comey, by urging Kiev to look into questionable behavior
by or benefiting Democrats), and he loses if he doesn't act (and simply accepts mischaracterizations of the Russia investigation
in the press or Kiev's intrigues with Democrats). Trump has a predilection to defy his enemies-something they might now have come
to count on-so rather than taking the beating they want to mete out to him, he hits back, and then they cry foul. The media intensifies
its insinuations that Trump has broken one or more laws (though just which law remains vague and hardly even argued, let alone proven),
and the president's foes reach for their institutional weapons: the special counsel provisions and now impeachment proceedings. When
Republicans do not go along with the kangaroo court, well-paid ex-conservatives are hauled out to bemoan the lost integrity of a
party whose last president misled the country into ceaseless wars in the Middle East-with these very same ex-conservatives having
led the cheers for those interventions.
Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because
Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further
manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama
was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton.
Ukrainians are only acting in self-interest here:
they understandably want to enlist U.S. power in every way possible as a check upon Russia. The prospect of American politics taking
a turn toward rapprochement with Russia stirs Ukraine to take one side in our elections and Russia to take another. This is an old
familiar pattern in American politics-as old as the Washington and Adams administrations, when revolutionary France and counter-revolutionary
England had interests in our elections, and America's ideological factions were inclined to favor one power or another. Neutrality
was the course that George Washington urged, and by and large, it was the one that won out, even when the French-sympathizing Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison came to power.
A lesson from George Washington would stand the leaders in Washington, DC in good stead today. But Democrats in Congress have
other ideas: Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now,
either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican
senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020,
too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the
more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the
cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough
to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope.
nopeace > jeremypw • 2 hours ago
The Jan 2017 piece referenced above disproves your entire post. It points out that Democrats used Ukraine n the 2016
election (long before Trump ever the Ukraine or Biden entered the race.
BTW, there wasn't just one country where the drug-abusing, bad discharged Biden-boy made gross amounts of money from countries
trying to buy influence in the Obama administration through his father. There were several, including China. The difference is
that his father admitted on video to threatening withdrawing billions in U.S. aid if the prosecutor of his son was not fired.
True quid pro quo.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt?
What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity.
I just can't see what Trump is supposed to be guilty of except making this
transparent.
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and
unconvincing, given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I
suppose we should all welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent
is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the ' shomer ' (guardian) of wistleblowers.
Just watched your Quid Pro Joe bragging that he was going to sign the Paris Peace Accords = a
treaty to end the Vietnam War that was signed in 1973. LMAO
"... Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal: ..."
"... " Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. " ..."
"... The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page: ..."
"... With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very, very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter. ..."
With the Trump impeachment procedures ongoing and the connection to his conversation about the
Biden family with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, there has been very little coverage of an
important aspect of the relationship between Washington and Kiev. While none of us can speak to
the actual intent of Donald Trump's remarks be it for personal gain or for other reasons, there
is background information that may help illuminate the context of the discussion between the
two world leaders.
In case you haven't read the pertinent section of the transcript of the conversation, here it
is:
" President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that
you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any
future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the
United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States
and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard
on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him
having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate
even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just
recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we
will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody
but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most
experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you
Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also
plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as
the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I
can assure you.
President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good
and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way
they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr.
Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I
would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy
very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that
would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the
people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution
and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you
can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all,
I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute
majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate,
who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or
she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.
The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the
honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top
of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to
us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in
our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall
her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad
ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she
admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new
President well enough.
President Trump: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr.
Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get
to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very
badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to
get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many
Ukrainian friends, their incredible people." (my bolds)
Now, let's look back in time to 1998. On July 22, 1998, a treaty was signed between Ukraine and
Washington.
The Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev on the aforementioned date. Here is an
excerpt from the The original letter of submittal from the Department of State to the
President's office dated October 19, 1999 which states the following:
"I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and
Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the Treaty''), signed at
Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent to ratification. Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an exchange of notes under which the
Treaty is being provisionally applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Provisional application would cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar
bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with
Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our
ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses.The Treaty is designed to
be self-executing and will not require new legislation." (my bold)
The Treaty was then transmitted by the President of the United States (Bill Clinton) to the
Senate on November 10, 1999 (Treaty Document 106-16 -106th Congress - First Session) as shown
on this letter of
transmittal from Bill Clinton's office:
Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal:
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving
documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or
other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related
to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September
27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the
President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on
February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page:
Here are the first two pages of the Treaty which outline the scope of assistance that is to
be offered by both nations as well as the limitations on assistance:
... ... ...
If you wish to read the Treaty in its entirety, please click
here .
With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very,
very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking
Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter.
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
"... "I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt." ..."
"... "We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where the media would have played such a role? ..."
"... "I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said. ..."
The anti- Trump "Resistance" has devastated core American
institutions and broken longstanding political norms in seeking to defeat and now oust from office President Donald Trump, said Kimberley
Strassel, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and member of the Journal's editorial board.
"And this, to me, is the irony, right? We've been told for three years that Donald Trump is wrecking institutions," Strassel
said in an interview with The Epoch Times for the "American Thought Leaders" program.
" But in terms of real wreckage to institutions, it's not on Donald Trump that public faith in the
FBI and the
Department of Justice has precipitously fallen.
That's because of Jim Comey and Andy McCabe. It's not on Donald Trump that the Senate confirmation process for the Supreme Court
is in ashes after what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. It's not on Donald Trump that we are turning
impeachment into a partisan political tool."
The damage inflicted by the anti-Trump Resistance is the subject of Strassel's new book, "Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump
Haters Are Breaking America."
Strassel uses the term "haters" deliberately, to differentiate this demographic from Trump's "critics."
In Strassel's view, all thoughtful critics of Trump - and she counts herself among them - would look at Trump the same way that
they have examined past presidents - namely, to call him out when he does something wrong, but also laud him when he does something
right.
" The 'haters' can't abide nuance. To the Resistance, any praise - no matter how qualified - of Trump is tantamount to American
betrayal, " Strassel writes in "Resistance (At All Costs)."
She told The Epoch Times: "Up until the point at which Donald Trump was elected, what happened when political parties lost is
that they would retreat, regroup, lick their wounds, talk about what they did wrong.
"That's not what happened this time around. Instead, you had people who essentially said we should have won."
From the moment Trump was elected, this group believed Trump to be an illegitimate president and therefore felt they could use
whatever means necessary to remove him from office , Strassel said.
'Unprecedented Acts'
"One thing I try really hard to do in this book is enunciate what rules and regulations and standards were broken, what political
boundaries were crossed, because I think that that's where we're seeing the damage," Strassel said.
The "unprecedented acts" of the Resistance have caused the public to lose trust in longstanding institutions such as the FBI,
the CIA, and the Department of Justice, and cheapened important political processes like impeachment, she said.
The Resistance fabricated and pushed the theory that it was Trump's collusion with Russia that won him the presidency, not the
support of the American people, and lied about the origins of the so-called evidence -- the Steele dossier -- that was used by the
FBI to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, Strassel said.
"We have never, in the history of this country, had a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign," she said.
In an anecdote that Strassel recounts in her book, she asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
if there was anything in America's laws that could have prohibited this situation.
Nunes, who had helped write or update many laws concerning the powers of the intelligence community, replied, "I would never have
conceived of the FBI using our counterintelligence capabilities to target a political campaign.
"If it had crossed any of our minds, I can guarantee we'd have specifically written: 'Don't do that.'"
In Strassel's view, the Resistance is partially fueled by deep-seated anger, or what others have termed "Trump derangement syndrome"
-- an inability to look rationally at a man so far outside of Washington norms.
But at the same time, in Strassel's view, much of the Resistance is motivated by a desire to amass political power using whatever
means necessary.
"That involves removing the president who won. That involves some of these other things that you hear them talking about now:
packing the Supreme Court, getting rid of the electoral college, letting 16-year-olds vote," she said.
"These are not reforms. Reforms are things that the country broadly agrees are going to help improve stuff. This is changing
the rules so that you get power, and you stay in power."
The impeachment inquiry into the president, based on his phone call with Ukraine's president, is just another example of how the
Resistance is violating political norms and relying on flimsy evidence to try to remove him from office, she said.
Testimony in the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors, led by three House committees, and Democrats have so far refused
to release transcripts from the depositions of former and current
State Department employees.
"[Impeachment] is one of the most serious and huge powers in the Constitution. It was meant always by the founders to be reserved
for truly unusual circumstances. They debated not even putting it in because they were concerned that this is what would happen,"
Strassel said.
In the impeachment inquiries against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Strassel said, American leaders "understood the great importance
of convincing the American public that their decision to use this tool was just and legitimate.
"So if you look back at Watergate, they had hundreds of hours of testimony broadcast over TV that people tuned into and watched.
It's one of the reasons that Richard Nixon resigned before the House ever held a final impeachment vote on him, because the public
had been convinced. He knew he had to go," she said.
But now, instead of access to the testimonies, the public is receiving only leaked snippets and dueling narratives.
"You have Democrats saying, 'Oh, this is very bad.' And Republicans saying, 'Oh, it's not so bad at all.' What are Americans
supposed to think?" Strassel said.
Bureaucratic Resistance
Within the federal bureaucracy, there is a "vast swath of unelected officials" who have "a great deal of power to slow things
down, mess things up, file the whistleblower complaints, leak information, actively engage against the president's policies," Strassel
said.
"It's their job to implement his agenda. And yet a lot of them are part of the Resistance, too," she said.
Data shows that in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, government bureaucrats overwhelmingly contributed toward the
Clinton campaign over the Trump campaign.
Ninety-five percent, or about $1.9 million, of bureaucrats' donations went to Clinton, according to
The Hill's analysis of donations from federal workers up until September 2016. In particular, employees at the Department of
Justice gave 97 percent of their donations to Clinton. For the State Department, it was even higher -- 99 percent.
"Imagine being a CEO and showing up and knowing that 95 percent of your workforce despises you and doesn't want you to be there,"
Strassel said.
Strassel pointed to when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, publicly questioned
the constitutionality of Trump's immigration ban and directed Justice Department employees to disobey the order.
"It was basically a call to arms," Strassel said. "What she should've done is honorably resigned if she felt that she could
not in any way enforce this duly issued executive order.
"It really kicked off what we have seen ever since then: The nearly daily leaks from the administration, the whistleblower
complaints," as well as "all kind of internal foot-dragging and outright obstruction to the president's agenda."
According to a
report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in Trump's first 126 days in office, his administration
"faced 125 leaked stories -- one leak a day -- containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the
standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama."
Activist Media
Strassel says the media has played a critical role in bolstering the anti-Trump Resistance.
"I've been a reporter for 25 years," Strassel said.
"I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years
is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt."
Along the way, the media have largely abandoned journalistic standards, "whether it be the use of anonymous sources, whether it
be putting uncorroborated accusations into the paper, whether it's using biased sources for information and cloaking them as neutral
observers," she said.
Among the many examples of media misinformation cited in Strassel's book is a December 2017 CNN piece that claimed to have evidence
that then-candidate Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had been offered early access to hacked emails from the Democratic National
Committee. But it turned out
the date was wrong . Trump
Jr. had received an email about the WikiLeaks release one day after WikiLeaks had made the documents public.
"If it hurts Donald Trump, they're on board," Strassel said. And in many cases, the attacks on Trump have been contradictory.
"He's either the dunce you claim he is every day or he's the most sophisticated Manchurian candidate that the world has ever
seen. You can't have it both ways.
"He's either a dictator and an autocrat who is consolidating power around himself to rule with an iron fist, or he's the evil
conservative who's cutting regulations."
Contrary to claims of authoritarianism, Trump has significantly decreased the size of the federal government. Notably, he reduced
the Federal Register, a collection of all the national government's rules and regulations, to the lowest it's been since Bill Clinton's
first year in office.
"You can't be a libertarian dictator," Strassel said.
In addition to the barrage of attacks on Trump, the media has actively sought to "de-legitimize anybody who has a different viewpoint
than they do, or who is reporting the facts and the story in a way other than they would like them to be presented."
"They would love to make it sound as though none of us are worthy of writing about this story," she said.
"The media is supposed to be our guardrails, right? When a political party transgresses a political boundary, they're supposed
to say 'No, that's beyond the pale.'"
Instead, "they indulged this behavior," Strassel said.
"We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where
the media would have played such a role?
"In a way, I blame that for so much else that has gone wrong."
Long-Term Consequences
Strassel says the actions taken by the Resistance will have long-term consequences for America.
"I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said.
For example, if Joe Biden wins the presidency in 2020
but Republicans take back the House, would the Republican-dominated House immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Biden
for alleged corruption in Ukraine?
"I wouldn't necessarily use the word [corruption], but there's a lot of Republicans who happily would. And if they thought
they'd get another shot at the White House, why not?" Strassel said.
It's short-term thinking, she said, just like Sen. Harry Reid's decision in 2013 to drop the number of votes needed to overcome
a filibuster for lower-court judges.
"Did he really stop to think about the fact that it paved the way for Republicans to get rid of the filibuster for Supreme
Court judges?" Strassel said.
If there's any rule in Washington, "it's that when you set the bar low, it just keeps going lower," Strassel said.
"Donald Trump is going to be president for at most another five years. But the actions and the destruction that's coming with
some of this could be with us for a very long time," she said.
"Should anyone allow their deep disregard for one particular man to so change the structure and the fabric of the country?"
Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani "A Hand Grenade" by
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:25 0 SHARES
Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016
election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the
New York Times
.
When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander
M. Haig Jr.'s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony,"
according to the Times.
Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later
leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley,
a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."
Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious
removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and
two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.
Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set
to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper
- a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.
Looks like we have our whistleblower. My only question is, how does one whistle with such a bristly moustache draping their
hairlip?
So now we have Mr. Neocon and Mr. Liddle Kidz conjugating as the strangest of bedfellows? How will this play to their respective
bases? Are we to assume these people think this nations top law enforcement agent (POTUS) is to abdicate his duties therewith
just because the criminal is (at least according to our two tiered justice system) supposed to be beyond reproach?
Mr. Bolton, bright and determined as he is, has hitched his wagon to mad mare galloping full tilt over a precipice.
Looking for a return of uranium one to the headlines soon. In due time we will stich this Russia/Ukraine narrative back together
from a patchwork of facts. You traitors are fucked...royally fucked...and you know it.
So, Mr bolton, explain to us in simple terms how you appraise America's security and her related interests. Your camp is in
eclipse.
John Bolton:
"I was appauled...just flabbergasted...that the president was concerned that our intelligence apparatus was politicized to
the extent that its highest echelons were arrayed in an attempt to subvert a lawful and legitimate election. Never mind that six
other nations were tasked with abetting this treasonous plot...this is an outrage!!! The whole point of intelligence agencies
is to skirt the law with impunity, and once we (the unelected permanent breacracy) tell one of our minions like Biden or Hillary
that they're permanently immune from prosecution, we can't have some earnest pact of Patriots running around demanding law and
order."
What a sorry bunch of cretians.
We were so close...so close...to losing it all. But since the enemy is making clear we're playing zero sum, we're going to
end up with everything.
Brace yourself, California. If I were you, I'd study the legal framework of Reconstruction. Your plight will be of a kind.
Your state has been engaged in a systematic attempt to overthrow the government. Your leaders will be appointed for a generation
after this all comes out. Don't look to Beijing to save you...they kinda have their hands full.
So, I guess Bolton is no longer collecting free money like Hunter Biden was. I get it now how all these politicians have kids
overseas and open foreign corporations which our tax money goes in to by way of cutting deals overseas public officials to line
their pockets with our money. This how they get into government poor and become very rich! Giuliani is pointing this fact out
to the public with Trump and the swamp HATES IT!
The public now knows how these corrupt PUBLIC OFFICIALS in America have been fleecing the tax payers. This is a major hit on
the swamp.
Trump & Giuliani we're behind you thank you for showing us how the swamp has been ******* us for all these years.
Understand that the reason Schitt head won't allow public hearings is because the former Ambassador to Ukraine--Volker, shot
this whole **** fest down when he testified. There is no "there" there.
Bolton and the others are crying because of Trump's pull out. The left jumped on the war bandwagon under Billary a long time
ago. Necons work both parties.
If Bolton dislikes Guiliani that's the best endorsement of Rudy I can imagine. Bolton is a complete warmongering traitor who,
like McShitstain, desires a nice case of brain cancer.
Go Rudy, expose the corrupt Demonrats! We deplorables love human hand grenades. That's why we elected the Donald, and you apparently
are the perfect lawyer for our great God emperor.
"Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires," Biggs wrote in an opinion
piece for Fox News. "He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that
he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence
to try to remove the president from office."
... As I have said, I would be delighted if Trump went down and took Joe Biden with him. The
last thing this country needs is a Joe Lieberman with a smiling face serving as President
which is basically what Joe Biden is.
Hunter Biden is stepping down from a controversial board position at a Chinese-based
private-equity company, and has vowed to forego all foreign work if his father, former Vice
President Joe Biden, is elected president in 2020, according to
Bloomberg .
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
think.
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
certainty.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
pointless.
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
holding
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
path.
In a
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
foreordained.
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
change.
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
even formed
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
non-plan.
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
now).
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
particular order.)
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
real issues.
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
corruption.
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
elsewhere).
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
US society.
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
entail;
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
only exception).
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
"... My belief is that many things are classified for the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much. ..."
"... In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten worse since the 2014 coup. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides. ..."
"... And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to work. ..."
"... For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with. ..."
"... The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to be Trump's prison bride. ..."
"... The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence. ..."
"A second whistleblower is now considering filing a complaint about President Donald Trump's
conduct regarding Ukraine, the New York
Times reported Friday.
This whistleblower has "more direct information about the events than the first
whistle-blower," according to the Times. It's a claim that, if true, could bolster the
credibility of the initial complaint that triggered the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into
whether Trump solicited election interference from Ukraine.
The first whistleblower's complaint, which was released in redacted
form to the public in late September , alleged that on a July 25 phone call Trump pressured
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to push for investigations into potential 2020 rival Joe
Biden." Vox
------------
The lawyer representing this person states that he has "multiple whistleblowers" as clients.
Ah! How clever! Are all these public spirited citizens career employees of the CIA? Little
birds still twittering in the trees in my back garden tell me they are. This sounds like a CIA
conspiracy designed to force Trump from office. The WH and NSC staffs are peopled by some
political appointees and a horde of career people detailed from various departments of the
Executive Branch; CIA, Defense, State, Justice , Treasury, etc. The lending agency selects the
people who are lent. The opportunity for someone like Brennan who still has a lot of faithful
followers at CIA to plant a group of informants and operatives in Trump's WH has been evident
and remains so.
My instincts and the application of Occam's Razor lead me to the conclusion that there is an
"operations room" somewhere that is coordinating the efforts to remove Trump from office in
what does amount to a "soft coup d'etat." A fair minded person looking back over Trump's term
will see that the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration
and have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies.
This cannot be accidental and it will continue through his second term if he has one. Trump is
leader of a counter-revolution of the Deplorables. From the point of view of the Globalist Left
Trump must be removed and prevented from doing things like packing the federal judiciary with
pro-Deplorable judges. Stay tuned. PL
I have no connections with the CIA and I considered Trump to be incompetent ever since he
came down that escalator and continued downhill. I would think that many in the government
would agree with me and would have more firsthand knowledge of his misdeeds. So, it is
probably more of a consensus than conspiracy at hand.
Many see the income inequality as a big problem and unsustainable. We don't want the
historical remedies, which were the French and Russian revolutions. The good news is that
there are important discussions about it...
Unlike you I know a great deal about CIA. I have two medals from them for assistig their
overseas ops in specific cases. The fact that you are sympathetic to their campaign to eject
Trump from office means little. You have always hated Trump.
Do you wish to hold Deplorables accountable for Trump, in what way?
I can excuse Trump a great deal of his unconventional style and behavior for exactly one
reason; he was legitimately elected, according to the Constitution, to the office he
presently holds. This, together with the huge turnouts at his rallies, is evidence that a
sizeable segment of the population does not consider him corrupt and in fact still ardently
believe that he has their best interests at heart. Who am I to disagree?
If the Dems can produce real evidence of corruption then impeachment will be
appropriate. But what we are seeing right now is a plot to use impeachment as the
continuation of democracy by other means - heck Rep. Al Green even said so out loud. The Deep
State wants rid of Trump, but last time I looked, in the absence of High Crimes, it is still
the People who get to make this decision.
A while back our host came up with a brilliant alternative motto for the CIA;
"L'état, c'est nous". It seems clear that elements in the CIA now want to accomplish
regime change domestically. I hope that Trump accomplishes what JFK could not and scatters
them to the winds.
Sir,
Can you kindly tell me what specific crimes were perpetrated by Pres Trump say in comparison
to Pres Bush (starting an illegal war on trumped up charges in Iraq and many others including
use of torture) or by Pres Obama (overlooking the banksters fraud on the American people or
starting the illegal Libya operation). So you are willing to give the above two saints a
pass, and hold Trump for a higher standards, I am wondering what is this higher standard?
By all means, impeach him for high crimes. I don't know what those would be, and neither do
you. The Borg wants him gone because he is a disrupter to the established corrupt status quo
of both parties. I didn't vote for him in '16, but plan to in '20. Tulsi Gabbard is the only
Dem I would consider voting for.
Y'know, Biden isn't really "the candidate" at present, but simply an aspirant. So why is it a
big deal if in a phone call Trump suggests some sort of Douchebaggery on Biden's part was in
play with the deal involving the sinecure for his cokehead son? And furthermore, it seems to
me that Trump would relish having Biden, the eternal weak sister, as his opponent in next
year's election. So, the idea that this is a campaign tactic by Trump, to me just doesn't
pencil out. As for the WH lawn thing? Injudicious maybe, but I'd like to hear a cogent
explanation of why it's a violation of law.
Nancy has the majority in the House. 235 members in her caucus. All she needs is 218 votes
to send the Bill of Impeachment to the Senate for a trial. This charade they are playing by
not having a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is to prevent the minority from
having any voice in the proceedings. This is NOT about high crimes. This is an attempt at
political decapitation. As Democrat Rep. Al Green said - we need to impeach him or else he'll
be re-elected. Nancy and her posse don't want the American electorate from making their
choice if Trump should have a second term.
The big question is if 20 Republican senators will join all the Democrats in convicting
Trump? We know guys like Romney will, who else will join him from the GOP side?
An attack on democracy he claims. Yet he was one of the chief advocates of the Russia
Collusion hysteria wherein the Obama administration used both domestic & foreign
intelligence to ACTUALLY INTERFERE in an election. That was an attack on the very foundation
of our Republic.
Former CIA director John O. Brennan, whose security clearance was revoked by president Trump,
was given six minutes to talk on today's Meet the Press program on the NBC television
network--
"....the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration and
have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies."
Sir
Other than tweet furiously, my perception is that Trump has not fought back. Considering
the persistence of the putschists, I would have expected him to have been far more ruthless,
aggressive and pointed in taking the battle to the Deep State.
I don't understand what happened to the CIA. It has morphed from "a university gone to war"
to some kind of bizarro globalist socialist anti-American ideals HQ with a neocon twist. Did
that happen under Obama?
Does anyone know when the Dems started investigating Trump? Was it during the campaign? Or
the day after the election? Did they receive help from a British
intel operator? Silly me I've just assumed all of the lead contenders investigate
the competition.
It was never a "university gone to war." The first generation were OSS men from the
elites. The next generation of leaders were former military intelligence enlisted operatives
whom the elites recruited from the services as people who would do the hard work for them.
Want me to name them? The present generation are antifa types who have infiltrated the
system. They are Brennan and Clapper's natural allies. You do remember that Brennan voted for
Gus Hall?
There is no "line" in this case. Trmp is not a threat to the constitution. He has done
nothing to threaten the constitution. You leftists are simply attempting to eject him from
office qlong with your allies in the Deep State and the media, some of them in Fox News.
It's a war of Globalists Vs Nationalism/Populism. And Trump is in the way of the
Globalists who wants their Totalitarian Iron Fist Rule over all humanity.
Trump and Putin both advocate Nationalism Vs Globalist Tyranny.
I keep hearing the talking point 'that everyone, the EU, IMF (and of course God Almighty),
wanted Shokin removed because he was corrupt, that this was not Biden's idea'. Have any of
these elite stepped up and publicly said, 'I wanted Shokin dismissed'? I wish someone in the
MSM would ask Biden how he got the idea to pressure for Shokin's removal, who else did he
discuss this with.
Regarding the Deep State
By that I mean the permanent bureaucracy in our Intelligence Community that believes they
have a right/duty to enforce orthodoxy on neer-do-well elected officials; not a hidden govt.
(IMO they are incapable of governing, they can only destroy). Their main weapon is, surprise, information warfare, selectively leaking partly true info to
a compliant MSM. This is extremely effective. How would a President combat this?
Why doesn't the President use his power of declassification to either release the full
context of the leak or to declassify past operations that the IC would find embarrassing. I
would never, under any circumstances, favor releasing info that would harm the security of
the U.S., especially for political reasons. My belief is that many things are classified for
the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much.
I claim no special knowledge of the CIA, but Ukraine is a place that I know well.
Everyone in the Ukrainian government is corrupt, from the postman and the fire department
all the way up to the president. Everything there is for sale, everything, everywhere, all
the time.
Of course Shokin, the fired prosecutor, was corrupt. Everyone knows it.
In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings
simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten
worse since the 2014 coup.
That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a
year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides.
And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left
Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe
Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political
cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to
work.
For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks
otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians
to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with.
The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously
or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to
be Trump's prison bride.
As far as I am concerned, none of the parties come out of this looking good at all.
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
"... If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment? ..."
"... One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike. ..."
"... Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time for the election. Buckle up, indeed. ..."
"... The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger" ..."
"... The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent, but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. ..."
"... Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were ratting on the CIA. ..."
"... I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed. The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't. ..."
"... And Pelosi, when asked by the CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" ..."
"... There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have to look no further than her constituency, the donor class. ..."
"... Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's harmful acts to date. ..."
"... Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever, brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous. ..."
"... In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected. ..."
"... Once is the intra-elite competition between the intelligence community and Trump. ..."
"... Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue town than any other candidates. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it. ..."
"... The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks, of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism. One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct about the "Noise" part. ..."
"... The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses, more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has supported those policies in the past. ..."
"... Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political, which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against. ..."
"... And not a word about Clinton approving arms sales while Secretary of State and accepting gifts to their foundation? ..."
"... What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch. ..."
"... That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in office. ..."
"... Yes, Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee (Schiff) in charge, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee (Nadler). Odd. ..."
"... Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family! Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits. ..."
"... Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! ..."
"... Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later normalized and rationalized all this, of course.) ..."
"... In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for losing. ..."
"... Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than ever? ..."
"... It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves, that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway ..."
"... a world in which it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment. ..."
"... Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings will happen behind closed doors. ..."
"... Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the republicans or Trump (other than bombast). ..."
"... Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. ..."
"... As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership. His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the cause. ..."
"... Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence, halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged in US media? ..."
"... I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere. ..."
"... Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter ..."
"... Here, Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or political refuge. ..."
"... The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama. ..."
"... Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of the lies. Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful, prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME. ..."
"... I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to watch that theater live on a 60 inch screen. ..."
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden," said Biden's
brother James according to
this Politico story about how the Biden family cashes in on their well-placed relative.
... ... ...
If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that
say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment?
Two traps for a party that much of the nation depends on to rid them of the man the last
election elevated to power. Two reasons for independent voters -- those not Party loyalists,
not blue-no-matter-who, not Never-Trumpers, voters who never turn out for elections or rarely
do -- to not turn out for this one, when their voice and vote is needed most in this greatest
of watershed years
.
What's decided now, in this year and the next, will set the course of the nation and the
world for a dozen years to come -- or a dozen millennia if the chaos predicted by the most
pessimistic among us takes root and grows. After all, social and political chaos is a breeding
ground for authoritarian "solutions." We don't need any of those, and this may be the last
electoral chance to avoid them.
To reiterate a comment in the recent Water Cooler (this article is a better forum):
One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying
impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose
the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike.
Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine
about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation
origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be
trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time
for the election. Buckle up, indeed.
Yes, I've been wondering this also. The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow
too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so
it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger", as @InquiringMind
put it during the latest Water Cooler.
A recent decision was made by the intelligence organs to allow reporting of second-hand
information and be titled a whistleblower for your efforts. it is acceptable to spy (which
this is an example of, since it is not whistleblowing) and listen to conversations saying
they heard this or that was happening, report that through legal channels, and have it
accepted BECAUSE IT APPEALS POLITICALLY to the agency or the particular representative.
The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to
service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent,
but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free
flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. We're getting wise
– not completely, not with any assuredness that our info is complete, but enough to
cause tremendous doubt and distrust of the messaging coming from government and media
propagandists.
To me, the danger of this period is exactly the lack of organized opposition, politically
at home and among the nations of the globe, to this onslaught and flooding of the ears with
lies that become real due to that repetition. We are not united, and the convenient and quick
answers are flawed. The Communist Party was deeply flawed, and the International a craven
defender of Stalin, but we could certainly use some organization similar to fight this neocon
cancer now, before it metastisizes into worse, if that is possible. That being said,
impatience drives tribal thinking, already invading academia and the few public intellectuals
existing. I await the working classes hitting their limit. Buckle up, indeed
Hey, I'm not posing an answer, and see fear of one everywhere, so don't thank me. There is
a inchoate and diffuse anger brewing "out there", but it does not reflect our measured,
rather moderate knowledge of crime and abuse of power we observe daily. It will, given the
money and influence of the right wing, push over to such violent reaction it will make the
1930s seem like a birthday party. The left, or what is loosely left of it, badly needs
discipline and structure, but its traditional organs have been rent asunder and are not
trustworthy.
A thinktank? New party? Dunno it has to have room to grow, and our secret-sauce parties
and intel outfits have "six ways from Sunday" to mess with any of it. Clarity of political
thought seems to come from crisis and being cornered, but that clarity is not guaranteed to
be "healthy", babies going with the bath water-wise. Bernie is a short-term stopgap to the
bleeding IF he can wrap his mind around the movement and an understanding of the immediate
threats to its existence- i.e., the DNC.
Regarding the first sentence of your comment: The requirements of the law never changed,
the whistleblower used an old form anyway, and the recently changed form has been
replaced.
In any case, the IG's process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not
by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been
virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the
2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations
were credible and that Congress should be notified.
Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were
ratting on the CIA. This hearsay would be laughed out of a court of law absent other proof.
Further, I think we can dismiss the IG investigation as being anything not pressured by
establishment types threatened by Trump's vendetta against Obama and his wing of the neo-lib
global corporation, as it promises to open the can of worms that both parties are united in
foreign policy and who we deal with, and that unity spills over into McCarthy-like reaction
to any unpredictability and unreliability such as Trump's. We can't "get him" on his real
crimes, as that would leave all "them guys" exposed.
I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the
conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed.
The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't.
And Pelosi, when asked by the
CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" It will be extremely interesting to see how
much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators who will be casting decisive votes.
Thirty-three Republicans Senators will be excused and given cover. Is there a thirty-fourth
with the cojones to vote against removal and against the CIA's efforts to impose a color
revolution on American soil?
If this is really about 2020 then Democrats are even more stupid than I'm inclined to
believe. Krystal Ball said this morning that only 35% of the public supports impeachment. All
this effort will do is rile up Trump supporters. I recall what happened in the 1998 midterms
after the Clinton impeachment. There's every reason to believe this will turn around and bite
the Democrats in 2020.
Pelosi and Schumer are fine with that. If Democrats were to actually win, they'd have to
govern, and they can't do that.
There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have
to look no further than her constituency, the donor class.
From their perspective there has been too many uncomfortable policy debates, including
climate change, occurring on the campaign trail. As with Russiagate all of these discussions
will vanish from the corporate media.
Also, some of the donors have stated they will not donate to the Dems, and may in fact
donate to Trump, if Warren gets nominated.
Finally, purely for display of party unity, protecting Joe Biden, even if it brings him
down will have value. Also, this specific charge will not bring up any of other former "suits" illegal
actions.
Inasmuch as polling showing the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren exceed 30% while
Biden is down to 19%, if you can end with a inconclusive first round of voting at the
Democratic Convention, you can bring in the Supers and name the person of your choice.
As to the question of 'why now?', my guess is because the 'resistance' types see the
writing on the wall that they are going to lose with anybody but Sanders as the candidate,
and they aren't about to allow Sanders to win. RussiaRussiaRussia, porn stars, and everything
else they tried didn't work and they've got nothing else that would give the public at large
something to vote for .
As to that writing on the wall, I will offer some very anecdotal evidence, but I found it
telling. A few days ago I went to a rural county fair. Now granted these fairs likely attract
a more conservative crowd, however this particular fair was in the most liberal county in the
state. Took a look at the exhibition hall at the fair, full of quilts, 4th grade artwork,
canned tomatoes, etc. as well as booths for both the Republican and Democrat parties.
At the Democrat party booth, they had put out poster boards with a list of issues and you
were supposed to put a little round sticker next to the issue you felt was most important.
Boring policy wonk stuff. I don't even remember if anyone was manning the booth when we
stopped by, but if they were they made no attempt whatsoever to speak with us. My wife put
one sticker on a poster and walked away and we were the only people there at the time. In
fairness, clearly there had been people there earlier since there were a lot of stickers
stuck to posters.
At the Republican booth, there were a number of people in line engaging with those manning
the booth. And rather than just pining little stickers on a poster, the Republicans were
handing out Trump 2020 swag and letting people get photos with a big Trump cutout. IDoing fun
stuff. Walking around the fair later I saw one of the few Hispanics in attendance (this is a
very white county in an extremely white state) sporting a Trump 2020 tote bag as he and his
wife walked through the fair.
If I were to base a prediction on the evidence alone, I would say Trump and the Elephants
are going to hand the Asses their asses in 2020 and they can feel it coming.
I really don't see how this doesn't blow up in their faces, but they've got nothing
else.
This is my feeling on it. It's the Democrats' Benghazi, a string of congressional hearings
designed to produce dirt on Trump to sink him in the election. Actual impeachment and removal
is nahgunnahappen, as that requires 67 senators, which would require all Democrats in the
Senate, both independents, and 20 Republicans . It would be a minor miracle if five
Republicans signed onto impeachment.
However, with dirt slinging as the only useful outcome possible, it shows how incompetent
Pelosi is by limiting the inquiry to just the Ukraine business. The damning dirt could come
in any form out of any corner of Trump's ongoings, so why would you limit the dirt digging to
something that, on the face of it, doesn't scream it went any deeper than Trump's
implication. Especially as it didn't happen that long ago.
God, this is so stupid. Look, perhaps it is because I live in a different continent or I
have a twisted turn of mind but I am seeing something completely different at work here. Is
Trump Corrupt? Of course he is but in a completely ham-fisted way that makes it blatantly
obvious. With Trump you always have low expectations. But Thomas Neuburger talks about ICE
deaths, Puerto Rico, the Muslim ban but so what? Obama was guilty of far worse but no
Democrats will criticize him for any of it. An example? If you cover up an international war
crime such as torture, that is an international crime too and Obama definitely covered up for
the CIA tortures and "looked forward". And one ramification for that was the US now having a
ex-torturer as head of the CIA.
So here is my take. The past few months Americans were finally having subjects like
healthcare and college debt forgiveness getting some air time and some serious traction. The
Democrat candidates were being forced to give answers on their positions on such ideas. But
now? The Democrats have introduced impeachment which has all the success prospects of
Russiagate. Expect copious amounts of verbal diarrhea in the next few months which will allow
for no time for discussion of subjects like healthcare anymore. The DNC will shout down
anyone trying to do so by shouting "Impeachment!". And when the elections rock around in a
year's time and there is finally some minor space to start talking about such subjects, the
DNC will tell progressives "You know, you should have really brought this up in 2019 while
there was time to talk about it. Your bad."
Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the
Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's
harmful acts to date.
I tell people that Trump is a minor league con man because so many people assert that he
is a con man
Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was
prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company
friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever,
brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not
prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous.
In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected.
Obama is in a con man league of his own, as he benefits from the left's form of Obama
Derangement Syndrome.
Interesting that attacking trump on this is attacking Biden did dem elites give up on him?
don't see how he can survive, which seems to open the field for Warren sanders if so, not
what donors want, pelosi musta been forced by blue dogs cia.
Maybe good for sanders he needs rest, the stents will require recovery msm can't focus away
from impeach to celebrate his health problems
How long? Say one month?
Hopefully the dems great white hope Biden will be down and out by primaries Bernie might find
help in the south this time where it was a wall last time
Ca dem elites don't want Bernie, but electorate doesn't want Kamala
And Tulsi back on stage with her useful to focus on wars.
I think this vectors the right direction, Rev Kev. White noise to drown out clearly
articulated messages. If any of this were about actual evidence, Binney would've been called
to undercut the Crowdstrike assertions.
There are a couple of things that seem real. Once is the intra-elite competition between
the intelligence community and Trump. Epstein cracked a door and some light got through.
Trump seems to have taken the standard operating procedures personally.
Despite this, Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks
serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue
town than any other candidates.
The endgame comes with the primaries. Sander's campaign income has a verisimilitude with
greater weight than the polls. Even polls which aren't specifically rigged can't cope with
modern communications. The problem is, with electronic vote-flipping on top of old-school
methods, unless the paper ballots get in (which is against status quo interests), how can it
be made clear the vote is being rigged? Could public gatherings outside the polling places be
enough to offer an alternative count?
Plus, Sanders has set himself up as TINA. He has not spread his wealth of four decades of
credibility to anyone else. No Hindu is getting the Oval, so Gabbard is a gadfly, not an
option. Trump and the top three Democratic candidates could all actually die of old age.
The only thing I'd actually put a bet on in all this is that Trump will not be removed
from office via impeachment.
I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to
overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it.
The real determinate is which people 'care' about it. The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks,
of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism.
One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White
Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct
about the "Noise" part.
According to Ball in the "Rising" video, the percentage of people who support impeachment
is 35%. That pretty much covers all the "partisan hacks" you refer to.
To the average voter? This is just noise and nonsense. Regardless of how impeachment ends
(and one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that it will go nowhere), the concerns and
the anger of average voters are not going away.
Ditto, Ambrit- a rational response bestride the not caring noise.
The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders
is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses,
more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has
supported those policies in the past.
Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing
govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on
the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of
policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political,
which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against.
Right now, probably true. However, we've been victim to propaganda many times before
– WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.etc. We have an apparatus that has honed its abilities
to reach millions immediately through TV, press, video, websites, that puts former agit-prop
to shame. We have been swarmed with the same message, basically allowing those caught in lies
previously to suddenly be believed today, "because"
The truth of any proposition comes down to its provenance and our ability to get tired of
the repetition and cacophony surrounding us, thus surrendering the ground. If enough believe
the initial message, if enough see their bread buttered by it, then the rest of us are prone
to that surrender unless an outside agency we CAN rely on exists.
It is sad to say that "not caring" becomes a positive. 50% of the voting public does not
vote, and most who vote do not care if their vote is even counted properly. Do not care
equals no democracy at all.
What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally
discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and
they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's caucus finally made her do what she despises doing. That it should
benefit her party leadership's choice to replace Donald Trump is, of course,
coincidental.
There's still the nit that there's been no congressional vote authorizing her impeachment
inquiry, which will keep the process in the courts and delay proceedings longer than
necessary.
Ms. Pelosi's actions bring to mind the contradictory naval order, proceed with all
deliberate speed. It is a sign that the admirals acknowledge the necessity of doing
something, but tell their commanders it's on them if it goes South.
That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and
prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much
as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in
office.
California is the vanguard of the "Resistance" to Trump. Pelosi is from California, as is
Schiff. Two of the Intelligence Committee members are also from California (Jackie Speier and
Eric Swalwell) as the LA Times pointed out a few days ago ("
California to play an outsize role in impeachment inquiry of Trump "). This is probably
why the whole impeachment inquiry is centered in the Intelligence committee and not the
Judiciary.
Various Obama officials live or work in California. For example, Eric Holder was hired by
the California Legislature to fight Trump. David Plouffe, who works with the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative among other Silicon Valley groups, is helping a liberal group called ACRONYM with
anti-Trump digital messaging.
Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was
married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family!
Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits.
Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! The Wash Post even
had a fantasy piece about "President Pelosi" just a few days ago.
Thanks for that, saved me a bit of rushed commenting because I was going to quickly
comment on it before I noticed you had already.
California has 6 of the 24 members of the House Intelligence Committee: 4 of those 6
members hold 100% of Democratic (Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff) and Republican (Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes) leadership roles; there are 4 out of 14 in the total Democratic membership,
and 2 out of 10 in the Republican membership.
Also, Californian members make up 100% of the House membership of the Gang of Eight, , 2
Democratic and 2 Republican: respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes.
And lastly, both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris (despite her
newbiness), are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the only State to have both Senators as
members.
As a decades long California resident, what sickens me the most about this is California
legislators (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, but may as well be Republican given the
stunning inequality/austerity imposed in California) preside over the highest numbers of
unsheltered homeless in the country. A full third of California residents have been forced
onto Medi-Cal (where millions can't find a treating doctor for the life of them), or don't
qualify (despite not being able to afford their rents), yet can't afford any insurance.
Concurrently, State Legislators and that duplicitous, slimy creep Newsom just signed off on
an Obama inspired California
Healthcare Mandate Penalty , although there were crickets at California's Franchise Tax
Board when it came to following the IRS in going after Facebook's stunning and blatant 2010
Ireland Asset transfers Tax evasion (to the tune of billions now, and next to impossible to
determine what the current status of it is), they would much rather go after their
increasingly impoverished populace who can't afford a CPA, let alone an attorney.
> In other words, the rightness of impeachment was never a consideration for Democratic
Party leaders.
Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the
table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless
surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later
normalized and rationalized all this, of course.)
So one would not have expected principle or the "rule of law" or any of those other
shibboleths to enter into the liberal Democrat decision-making process. It never does.
This person starts out with an establishing remark that convicts Trump, and goes on from
there. Unlike a true impeachment process, no 'real' groundwork is laid down. Furthermore, by
half-heartedly mentioning "issues" with the Pelosi formulation, in effect, that Biden is just
as bad as Trump, the author lays the groundwork for the 'impeachment' of both Party's "main"
candidates. The piece reminds me of the logic of the Alice in Wonderland trial: "Sentence
first – verdict afterwards." All this, my cynical sensibility reminds me, sotto voice,
for an insane Queen.
Impeachment has always been a political process. After all, it is a function of the Congress,
the prototype of politics. To take the authors buttressing point, that the 'essence' of
impeachment should be the pure logic of the deeds in question casts the entire process of
impeachment in the light of virtue signalling. How else would a disinterested observer
characterize a process where the process itself is not initiated with the anticipation of a
useful outcome? In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for
losing.
This piece, if any, shows plainly the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
political process today. The two "leading" candidates of the "rival" Partys are both
delineated to be frauds, figuratively and literally. Turning the mentioning of the earlier
English Parliamentary 'version' of impeachment on, as it were, it's head, one is lead to
consider that only something as all encompassing and determinative as an actual bloodletting
will be of any use to the Nation.
Be very careful what you ask for. You might get it.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's version of the English Civil War, minus the war."
It could be argued that getting rid of a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence is
orders of magnitude simpler than impeachment. In fact, it seems to happen about every ten or
twenty years on average in the UK. And no civil war required either.
The best analogue of today with then is that the English Civil War did not just remove the
Royalist leadership of the time, but an entire generation of Royalists. Does America really
want a twenty year interregnum?
We are already in the Interregnum. Trump was 'none of the above'. People talked about a
'clown car' and then Trump showed that a clown could actually accede to power, insofar as a
clown can manage the role. The Democrats responded with a clown show of their own. It's a
circus, although the clowns are pretty malign. Maybe people like that. Meanwhile, serious
people with serious political proposals, like Sanders, are on the outside looking in.
Someone's going to have to break a window.
Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's
changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly
filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than
ever?
All I can think of is that the Clinton derangement syndrome – the bitterness and
perceived injustice that the anointed one didn't get anointed – still has an iron grip
on the psyche of the DC Daristocrats. They're stone drunk on hatred, spite, and lust for
revenge and are hallucinating in broad daylight that they've got the hook to sell it.
I like the idea that this is all a clever ruse to keep the focus away from sanity in
health care etc., but it just doesn't look like they have that much sense. From the UK to the
the US, everyone's going nuts.
I bet it's good for fund raising, those I know who are most embarrassed by trump have a
fair amount of money and currently they are very excited. Whatever it is, it's not bernie (or
should I say &@cking bernie), it's not M4A, and it's not student loans, as commented on
above this line
It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves,
that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for
all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert
attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway
There is a huge amount of pressure from the public to get rid of Trump any way possible
and a lot of that, ironically, has been manufactured by the democrats themselves. That, I
suspect, combined with Hillary syndrome, is more what's behind this than the criminal, but
lucid, plan to obscure the popularity of programs benefiting the public.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the last 5 years of commentary then -- there's been
plenty of substance offered by those who are just as powerless as you.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
It's not clear the Democrats would notice any impropriety. What would be tearing them
apart is that they didn't get a seat at the trough (on the board) as well.
I would say 'Joe Biden's son's integrity' and 'the dubious right-wing Democratic Party
CIA-led arms sales-drive policy in the Ukraine.'
I don't think that Biden himself is particularly corrupt; the guy really is a terrible
hack. And I don't think legal corruption is necessarily what's at issue, but a world in which
it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and
help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment.
The wider context–villifying Russia, cleaning up Ukraine enough to justify
consorting with fascists and the far-right to keep all the balls in the air, needs to be
exposed.
There is a right way to do impeachment, and this ain't it. They could investigate the
Trump administrator for its rampant corruption – it's a very target-rich environment.
Instead, Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and
offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House
Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings
will happen behind closed doors.
So, they think that they're going to remove the duly elected
President behind closed doors, and they think the population will be okay with this? Do they
really live in such a bubble that they think people trust their judgment enough to do this?
It boggles the mind.
Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot
on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the
democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the
republicans or Trump (other than bombast).
Also, just a thought, having this discussion behind closed doors makes sense if Pelosi is
hoping they will come to their senses.
As to the right or wrong way to do impeachment, I think the democrats like the republicans
are simply beyond that or any notion of it other than the residue of dim memory that ends up
entirely as the decorative part in public speeches. I suspect they are quite simply oblivious
to such niceties as anything being wrong with using impeachment as a weapon rather than as a
means for justice.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi doesn't want it and wanted to repeat her 2007 play, but she doesn't
have 2008 certainty to offer (keep the powder dry I know but this was what that was about).
Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. The people who missed brunch
aren't exactly rationale or going to have this explained to them behind closed doors. Pelosi
has been slowly losing with the caucus, but most of the members are terrible and vulnerable
to an AOC-esque challenge especially in safe seats which most of the seats are. Again without
theven #resistance, safe seat Team Blue types are very vulnerable.
Adding that, imo, the rank and file voters did the work of electing Democrats to a House
majority, motivated partly by Clinton revenge, but also by policy issues. There's been
noticeable dismay in the corners of twitter where I wander at Pelosi's taking so long to act,
the inept performances of the few hearings so far, and now the proposed narrow focus.
my take is they're never actually going to pass articles of impeachment, which would hand
the process over to McConnell in the Senate. It will stay in the House and they will attempt
to nab Trump or perhaps one of his sidekicks like Giuliani on obstruction of the House
investigation. This is by now a fairly transparent strategy, and we will find out what the
elusive PA swing voter thinks of it soon enough.
As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership.
His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the
cause.
Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy
running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence,
halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged
in US media?
I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of
Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting
the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere.
Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will
not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not
declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter.
Here,
Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of
Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud
armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any
consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions
emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or
political refuge.
Wasn't the power to go to war exclusively reserved for Congress, to try to make sure that
the country wouldn't go to war on a lark? And wasn't the Bill of Rights enshrined to make
sure that the U.S. Government could not put people to death, at least without due
process?
I realize that this might mean that Congress would have had to impeach presidents left and
right. So be it; enlisted women and men can be severely punished for killing innocent people
(and for far less, such as disobeying orders). Why should presidents and vice-presidents
escape responsibility for high crimes of unjustifiable homicide (and, I must add,
countenancing torture)?
The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare
achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any
brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama.
Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of
the lies.
Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful,
prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME.
Is this the last desperation Hail Mary by the Democratic Party and the National Security
State to save themselves?
Has it already happened?
I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew
McCabe
has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to
watch that theater live
on a 60 inch screen.
"No one is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
as she announced the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter. The
phrase has become a Democratic mantra in the new impeachment push. But it could, in the end,
serve to highlight the weakness of the Democratic strategy.
The reason is, by stressing that Trump is not "above the law," Democrats are basing their
case against the president on the argument that he broke the law and must be held accountable.
But it's not at all clear that Trump broke any laws in the Ukraine matter. In the face of a
vigorous Republican defense, any argument on that question is likely to end inconclusively.
Democrats might better say, "No president is above impeachment," which lacks punch but is
more accurate. Doing so, however, would emphasize the political nature of the battle and could
make it more difficult for Democrats to win broad support for removing Trump. So they say "No
one is above the law." But what, exactly, does that mean?
In his analysis of the case, the intelligence community's inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, wrote that Trump might have violated campaign finance laws. "U.S. laws and
regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or
donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," Atkinson
wrote. "Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or
receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national, directly or indirectly, in
connection with a Federal, State, or local election."
That is, it appears, the strongest legal case against the president. Remember, in an
impeachment, no one is talking about criminal charges, so Justice Department guidelines that
the president cannot be indicted are irrelevant. The issue is whether Democrats will seek to
show that Trump violated the law, in order to strengthen their case that he must be impeached
and removed from office.
The problem is that the campaign finance question is highly debatable. The Democratic case
is this: Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate allegations that Joe
Biden and son Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in Ukraine. Any information Zelensky
provided to Trump would be a "thing of value" and thus an illegal foreign campaign
contribution.
"I think it's absurd," Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chair and a
frequent critic of campaign finance laws, said in an email exchange. "If 'anything of value'
were interpreted so broadly, it would mean that foreign governments are consistently violating
the ban in foreign spending, whenever they take official actions that may benefit one candidate
or another. Similarly, Americans would have to report such activity to the FEC. That is clearly
not the law."
"Absent the partisan juices that Trump sets off," Smith concluded, "no election law attorney
would ever say otherwise."
Smith's view of current campaign finance law reflects the attitudes of many Republicans and
conservatives. They see the laws as an infringement on political speech and see attempts to
broadly interpret those laws as a way to tighten limits on speech. (By the way, they have felt
that way for decades; it has nothing to do with Trump.)
A more practical analysis of what is wrong with applying the "things of value" standard in
the Trump-Ukraine case came from, of all places, the Mueller report. The special counsel's
prosecutors considered charging Trump campaign officials, including Donald Trump, Jr., with a
campaign finance violation in relation to the infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. The
Mueller report contained a detailed analysis of the issues involved and the reasons why the
special counsel's prosecutors concluded they could not make a winning case.
The issue involved Russians offering allegedly incriminating information on Hillary Clinton
to the Trump campaign. Even if Mueller believed he could convince a jury that the information
was a "thing of value" -- in effect, an illegal campaign contribution -- he had to concede that
"no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research
or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under
campaign-finance law."
Mueller was also unable to show that the Trump campaign officials knew the law enough to
know that accepting information might violate campaign finance statutes. Finally, Mueller had
no confidence that he could prove the offered information was actually worth anything. (The law
requires prosecutors to prove the information was worth at least $2,000 for a misdemeanor
charge and at least $25,000 for a felony charge.)
Discussing the Mueller Trump Tower issue, the former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
wrote : "So, while there might be some conceivable scenario in which acquiring information
from a foreign source for use in a campaign could be a federal crime, it is highly unlikely --
so unlikely that some Type A prosecutors wisely decided that the huzzahs they'd have gotten for
indicting the president's son were outweighed by the humiliation they'd endure when the case
inevitably got thrown out of court."
Weak as it is, the campaign finance violation case appears to be the Democrats' best chance
of showing Trump broke the law. But there are other possible cases. Some suggest Trump might
have solicited a bribe by offering foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden. That
would be an extraordinarily difficult argument to make.
Others suggest Trump obstructed justice -- another long shot. And still others suggest Trump
was involved in a conspiracy, which would require a showing not only that the president
committed crime but that he conspired with others to do it. Yet another long shot.
The bottom line is, it will be very, very hard for House Democrats to show that Trump
committed a crime in the Ukraine affair. Which is why some Democrats seem to be moving toward
accusing Trump of engaging in misconduct that is more difficult to define, like violating his
oath of office or betraying his country. Those are charges that seem solemn and weighty, but
are also fuzzy enough to use without getting into any detailed -- and losing -- legal
argument.
The Constitution says a president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." There has been a very
long debate on what that means. To lay ears, it sounds like the president must be shown to have
committed a crime to be impeached and removed from office. But the framers did not define "high
crimes and misdemeanors," and it is up to Congress to decide whether a president should be
impeached, and, if so, on what grounds.
So far, Democrats have not helped their cause by accusing Trump of criminal behavior. "No
man is above the law" sounds good, but it requires the impeachers to make a case that the
president did, indeed, break the law. In coming days, look for Democrats to seek an easier
route.
This is deep state operation, Russiagate II, pure and simple
Stephen Miller proved to be formidable debater. His jeremiad against the Deep State at 12:55 was brilliant. Former South
Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy says people have stopped sharing information with the House Intelligence Committee because
Chair Adam Schiff is the most deeply partisan member who is "leaking like a sieve"
The problem with Pelosi bold move is that she does not have votes for impeachment, but the dirt uncovered might sink any
Democrat changes for 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Miller is amazing at wrestling and smacking down this Democratic Operative Chris Wallace ..."
"... Wallace is a minion of the globalists. ..."
"... Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States. Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN. ..."
"... Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy Official Docs and State Department Docs. ..."
"... Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't. ..."
Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government
affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States.
Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN.
Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the
Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer
speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or
you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy
Official Docs and State Department Docs.
Wallace you sir you are a paritsan hack. Anyone can
read the docs too thats whats sad. I'm only 70 pages in and its bad for the Biden's jailtime
bad.
Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct
anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't.
"... The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history. ..."
"... While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally expected to support Johnson's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent." ..."
"... as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies. ..."
"... The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense." ..."
"... Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks. They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and even assassination." ..."
"... The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death." ..."
"... "I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ." ..."
"... Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished. ..."
When the GOP madly went after President Andrew Johnson, Senator Edward G. Ross ruined his own career to thwart them.
•
March 11, 2019
Senator Edmund G. Ross As Robert Mueller's pending report looms heavily over Washington, many are darkly speculating about a new
era in our history. When have there been so many investigations, such rank partisanship, such indifference to justice and the rule
of law?
Actually we have been here before.
The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's
book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history.
One story in particular stands out as the perfect antidote for our time: that of Edmund G. Ross, senator from Kansas. In 1868,
the United States came perilously close to impeaching its seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, because the Republican
majority in Congress was at odds with him over how to handle the defeated Southern states. Ross bucked his party, followed his conscience,
and cast a vote against articles of impeachment. He was vilified at the time; decades later, he would be hailed as having saved the
republic.
While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles
of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges
moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally
expected to support Johnson's impeachment.
"Public opinion in the nation ran heavily against the President; he had intentionally broken the law and dictatorially thwarted
the will of Congress!" writes Kennedy.
After the president was effectively indicted by the House, the Senate trial proceeded and high drama riveted the nation. "It was
a trial to rank with all the great trials in history -- Charles I before the High Court of Justice, Louis XVI before the French Convention,
and Warren Hastings before the House of Lords," writes Kennedy. Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which
the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent."
The actual causes for impeachment sound somewhat obscure to today's ears, although the tenth article, which alleged that Johnson
had delivered "intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues against Congress [and] the laws of the United States," sounds
positively Trumpian. The first eight articles concerned the removal of Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war in supposed violation
of the Tenure of Office Act. The ninth article alleged that Johnson's conversation with a general had violated an Army appropriations
act. The eleventh was something of a catch-all for the rest.
The counsel for the president argued convincingly that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. And even if there had been
a violation of the law, Stanton would have needed to submit to being dismissed and then sued for his rights in the courts -- something
that had not happened.
From Profiles in Courage :
as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President
a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House
on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies.
Telling evidence in the President's favor was arbitrarily excluded. Prejudgment on the part of most Senators
was brazenly announced. Attempted bribery and other forms of pressure were rampant. The chief interest was not in the trial or
the evidence, but in the tallying of votes necessary for conviction.
At the time, there were 54 members of the Senate, which meant 36 votes were required to secure the two thirds necessary for Johnson's
conviction. There were 12 Democratic senators, so the 42 Republicans could afford only six defections.
The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that
of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in
the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense."
The city was thronged by the "politically dissatisfied and swarmed with representatives of every state of the Union, demanding
in a practically united voice the deposition of the President," writes Kennedy. "The footsteps of anti-impeaching Republicans were
dogged from the day's beginning to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, considerations, and threats."
Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully
watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks.
They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and
even assassination."
The New York Tribune reported that Ross in particular was "mercilessly dragged this way and that by both sides, hunted
like a fox night and day and badgered by his own colleagues ."
While both sides publicly claimed Ross as their own, the senator himself kept a careful silence. His brother received a letter
offering $20,000 if he would reveal Ross' mind. The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes
before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death."
That day in the Senate, as Ross would later write, "the galleries were packed. Tickets of admission were at an enormous premium.
The House had adjourned and all of its members were in the Senate chamber. Every chair on the Senate floor was filled ."
The broad eleventh article of impeachment would command the first vote. By the time the call came to Ross, 24 "guilty" votes had
already been pronounced. As Kennedy writes, "Ten more were certain and one other practically certain. Only Ross's vote was needed
to obtain the thirty-six votes necessary to convict the President. But not a single person in the room knew how this young Kansan
would vote."
"I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life
desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer
was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ."
"Then came the answer again in a voice that could not be misunderstood -- full, final, definite, unhesitating and unmistakeable:
'Not guilty.' The deed was done, the President saved, the trial as good as over and the conviction lost. The remainder of the roll
call was unimportant; conviction had failed by the margin of a single vote and a general rumbling filled the chamber ."
When the second and third articles of impeachment were read 10 days later, Ross also pronounced the president "not guilty."
Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When
they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished.
Kennedy writes:
Who was Edmund G. Ross? Practically nobody. Not a single public law bears his name, not a single history book includes his
picture, not a single list of Senate "greats" mentions his service. His one heroic deed has been all but forgotten. Ross chose
to throw [his future in politics] away for one act of conscience.
Yet even if he fell into obscurity, history would vindicate Ross. Twenty years after the fateful vote, Congress repealed the Tenure
of Office Act, and the Supreme Court later held that "the extremes of that episode in our government" were unconstitutional.
Prior to Ross's death, the American public realized its errors too, and the same Kansas papers that had once denounced and defamed
Ross declared that his "courage" had "saved" the country "from calamity greater than war, while it consigned him to a political martyrdom,
the most cruel in our history ."
Kennedy does a wonderful job recounting this momentous episode, with the rich suspense and colorful imagery that it deserves.
Ross's words jump from the page as if they were written for our own age, and his bravery in the face of partisan political pressure
has withstood the test of time.
To end with Ross's own words:
In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial . If the President
was to step down a disgraced man and a political outcast upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office
of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after be subordinated to the legislative
will. If Andrew Johnson were acquitted by a nonpartisan vote America would pass the danger point of partisan rule and that intolerance
which so often characterizes the sway of great majorities and makes them dangerous.
We should bear that in mind today.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner . Her work has been featured on Fox News, the
Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered , a book
about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
"... Of course, I understand your motives for Impeachment are not wholly altruistic. With corporate donations drying up and growing pressure from Progressive primary challengers making Establishment incumbents increasingly nervous, you need some way to excite your old school base for the important election season to come. ..."
Thank you so much for inviting me to your Impeachment Party. It's really great to hear
you've finally found something to nail Trump with. Good for you! You've been looking so hard
these past three years. So nice to see all that effort finally pay off!
(Of course, some might say you should have spent that time looking for solutions to all the
problems the country is facing, but hey, let's not get crazy! Right?) And your amazing valor
doesn't stop at Biden. Oh no. You are even willing to let Republicans dredge up Hillary's email
scandal long after people had all but forgotten about Crowdstrike. The Romans who stood in
front of the charging elephants at Cannae would be proud.
... ... ...
Of course, I understand your motives for Impeachment are not wholly altruistic. With
corporate donations drying up and growing pressure from Progressive primary challengers making
Establishment incumbents increasingly nervous, you need some way to excite your old school base
for the important election season to come.
That's why it's even more testament to your pluck that you would choose such a transparently
hypocritical and overtly political hill on which to take your final stand, especially after
2016 showed so clearly that going after Trump personally only makes him more popular.
So I
say onward Impeachment soldier!
By the time the primaries roll around, your brave Establishment beserkers will have divided
the party and discredited the leadership to such an extent that rank and file Dems will be
begging for a Progressive intervention.
The key question here is: Is Nancy Pelosi a CIA controlled politician who followed Breenan instruction to open the second stage
of the color revolution against Trump. Her long service in House Intelligence Committee suggest that this is a possibility.
Nancy Pelosi just took the biggest gamble of her entire political career. If she is ultimately successful, she will be remembered
as the woman that removed Donald Trump from the White House, and Democrats will treat her like a hero for the rest of her life. But
if she fails and Trump wins in 2020, the backlash that she created when she tried to impeach Trump is likely to be blamed, and she
could potentially lose her leadership role in the House. Of course at that point she probably wouldn't want to remain in the House
much longer, and she would be hated by many Democrats for the rest of her life for subjecting them to four more years of Trump. So
it really is all on the line for Nancy Pelosi, and she never should have gone down this road if she wasn't absolutely certain that
she could deliver.
And at this point, most Americans don't want impeachment proceedings to happen. For example, just check out what a Politico/Morning
Consult poll just found
In the poll -- conducted Friday through Sunday, as stories circled about Trump allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic candidates hoping to oust him -- 36 percent of respondents said they believe
Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump in response to the
Ukraine controversy. If it's found that Trump did use his presidential power to force a foreign leader to help take down a political
rival, 55 percent of U.S. adults said they would support removing him from office, according to a recent YouGov survey.
Forty-four percent of those polled said they'd "strongly support" removing Trump if the allegations are true, while another
11 percent said they'd "somewhat support" it.
But as it stands right now, on the national level this is a very unpopular decision by Pelosi, and it could potentially hurt Democrats
among key blocs of voters
Worse yet, impeachment isn't selling where Democrats made their best gains in the midterms. A majority of suburban respondents
oppose starting the impeachment process (35 percent/50 percent), with a wider gap among rural respondents (27/59), while urban
voters are more ambivalent than one might guess (47/35). Impeachment trails by double digits in the South (33/53), Midwest, (36/48),
and even in the Democrat-friendly Northeast (37/48).
Another reason why this is potentially a giant mistake by Nancy Pelosi is the fact that all of this focus on Ukraine is almost
certainly going to damage one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.
All of a sudden, everyone is talking about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Ukraine. A lot of voters are going to look into what happened,
and they are not going to be pleased. And this comes at a time when Elizabeth Warren is surging in the polls, and real votes will
start to be cast in just a few months.
Up until recently, the Biden campaign had successfully kept the focus off Hunter Biden and Ukraine , and Joe was widely considered
to be the heavy favorite to win the nomination.
But now everything could change thanks to Nancy Pelosi.
And what if this push toward impeachment is not successful? Trump's base is going to be extremely fired up by all of the political
drama over the next several months, and if Trump survives it is going to be a huge boost for his campaign.
All of the recent polls indicated that a Democrat was likely to win in 2020, and there was a very good chance that the Democrats
were going to take the Senate too, but now this could dramatically shift public opinion and change everything.
Nancy Pelosi is rolling the dice, and if she fails it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party. The following
is how
Matthew Walther summarized the situation that she is facing
Pelosi knows this will not be popular. She knows more than that. She knows that it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party,
that it will inflame the president's base and inspire even his most lukewarm supporters with a sense of outrage. She knows that
in states like Michigan, upon which her party's chances in 2020 will depend, the question of impeachment does not poll well. She
knows, further, that Joe Biden will not be able to spend the next 14 or so months refusing to answer questions about the activities
of his son, Hunter, in Ukraine, and that increased scrutiny of the vice president's record in office will not rebound to his credit.
She and her fellow Democratic leaders had better hope that someone like Elizabeth Warren manages to steal the nomination away
from him before this defines his candidacy the way that Hillary Clinton's emails and paid speechmaking did during and after the
2016 primaries.
And it isn't going to be easy for Pelosi to be successful, because she is going to need 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump,
and right now Democrats only hold 47 seats.
In the end, this is yet another example that proves that America's political system is deeply broken, and we desperately need
a seismic change .
Because no matter what the end result is, this entire episode is going to be a giant stain in the history books.
If future generations of Americans get the chance, they will look back on this entire saga with disgust.
And if our founders could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves, because this is not what they intended.
Rudy Giuliani leveled serious new claims at the Bidens in a series of Monday morning tweets.
Chief among them is a claim that $3 million was laundered to former Vice President Joe Biden's
son, Hunter , via a "Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus-US" route - a revelation he claims was "kept from
you by Swamp Media."
NEW FACT: One $3million payment to Biden's son from Ukraine to Latvia to Cyprus to US.
When Prosecutor asked Cyprus for amount going to son, he was told US embassy (Obama's)
instructed them not to provide the amount. Prosecutor getting too close to son and Biden had
him fired.
Today though it's the $3 million laundered payment, classical proof of guilty knowledge
and intent, that was kept from you by Swamp Media. Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus-US is a usual route
for laundering money. Obama's US embassy told Cyprus bank not to disclose amount to Biden.
Stinks!
Trump's personal attorney then
mentioned China - where journalist Peter Schweizer reported Joe and Hunter Biden flew in
2013 on Air Force Two. Two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1
billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion , according to an article by Schweizer's in the New
York Post .
Biden scandal only beginning. Lots more evidence on Ukraine like today's money
laundering of $3 million. 4 or 5 big disclosures. Also the $1.5 billion China gave to
Biden's fund while Joe was, as usual, failing in his negotiations with China is worse.
Giuliani then went on to tweet that the Bidens lied about not discussing Hunter's
overseas business .
On Saturday, Joe Biden said he "never" spoke with Hunter about the Ukrainian energy company
that Hunter sat on the board of while being paid $50,000 per month. As you're doubtless
aware by now, the elder Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees from
Ukraine if they didn't fire the investigator probing the company, Burisma.
Biden says he never talked to his son about his overseas business. Do you think we can
prove, with our fact a day disclosures, it's a lie-a false exculpatory statement. Do we have
to prove, or do you already know, it's a lie, and an incriminating statement.
Hunter, however,
admitted in July that the two did speak about his Ukraine business "just once," telling the
New Yorker " Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing,' and I said, 'I do' "
Rudy then lashed out at the Democratic party, which he said would "own" Biden's scandals if
hey don't "call for investigation of Bidens' millions from Ukraine and billions from
China."
If Dem party doesn't call for investigation of Bidens' millions from Ukraine and billions
from China, they will own it. Bidens' made big money selling public office. How could Obama
have allowed this to happen? Will Dems continue to condone and enable this kind
pay-for-play?
Here's what we know about Hunter's dealings in China based on Schweizer's
reporting via our
May report :
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar
private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009
and controlled by Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime
associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China ,
and partnered with the Thornton Group - a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James
Bulger - son nephew of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger (h/t @Guerrilla_Magoo
for the correction).
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended
their warm welcome" to the "Thornton Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman
Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation
and opportunity," however details of the meeting were not published to the English-language
version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter
Biden's father, the vice president, met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as
part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe
Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the
Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as
a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a
unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont
Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest
competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers
.
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership
of, had any role in the deal with Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont
name became increasingly involved with China . Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai
Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. - New
York Post
And while Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the
Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business
opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments
Limited was negotiating and sealing deals with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts.
That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca,
announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the compan y. The terms of
the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US
properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was
precisely the investment opportunity Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in
the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Limited and
Gemini Investments. " We look forward to a strong and successful partnership. "
The morning after the car was dropped off, a phone number belonging to a renowned local
"Colon Hydrotherapist" called the Hertz . The caller identified himself as "Joseph McGee," who
told the employees that the keys were located in the gas cap as opposed to the drop box.
Amazing how so many countries would scramble to do business with Hunter - a guy with
virtually no experience who was discharged
from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine - who just happened to be the Vice
President's son.
If this not of the Biden run, I do not know what can be. He now has an albatross abound his neck in the form of interference
in Ukrainian criminal investigation to save his corrupt to the core narcoaddict son. Only the raw power of neoliberal MSM
to suppress any information that does not fit their agenda is keeping him in the race.
But a more important fact that he was criminally involved in EuroMaydan (at the cost to the USA taxpayers around five billions) is swiped under the carpet. And will never be discussed
along with criminality of Obama and Nuland.
As somebody put it "with considerable forethought [neoliberal MSM] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will
faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a
wage as possible."
For days we've been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States after a whistleblower
lodged an 'urgent' complaint about something Trump promised another world leader - the details of which the White House has refused
to share.
Here's the scandal; It appears that Trump, may have made promises to newly minted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - very
likely involving an effort to convince Ukraine to reopen its investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, after Biden strongarmed
Ukraine's prior government into firing its top prosecutor - something Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have pursued for months
. There are also unsupported rumors that Trump threatened to withhold $250 million in aid to help Ukraine fight Russian-backed separatists.
And while the MSM and Congressional Democrats are starting to focus on the sitting US president having a political opponent investigated,
The New
York Times admits that nothing Trump did would have been illegal , as "while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities
with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community
to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit."
Moreover, here's why Trump and Giuliani are going to dig their heels in; last year Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl
Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn't fire their top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin - who was leading a wide-ranging
corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board Hunter Biden sat on.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them
and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the
conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired . And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on
Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
In short, there's both smoke and fire here - and what's left of Biden's 2020 bid for president may be the largest casualty of
the entire whistleblower scandal.
And by the transitive properties of the Obama administration 'vetting' Trump by sending spies into his campaign, Trump can simply
say he was protecting America from someone who may have used his position of power to directly benefit his own family at the expense
of justice.
Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are acting as if they've found the holy grail of taking Trump down. On Thursday, the House
Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) interviewed inspector general Michael Atkinson, with whom the whistleblower
lodged their complaint - however despite three hours of testimony, he repeatedly declined to discuss the content of the complaint
.
Following the session, Schiff gave an angry speech - demanding that acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire share
the complaint , and calling the decision to withhold it "unprecedented."
"We cannot get an answer to the question about whether the White House is also involved in preventing this information from coming
to Congress," said Schiff, adding "We're determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is to make sure
that the national security is protected."
According to Schiff, someone "is trying to manipulate the system to keep information about an urgent matter from the Congress
There certainly are a lot of indications that it was someone at a higher pay grade than the director of national intelligence," according
to the
Washington Post .
On thursday, Trump denied doing anything improper - tweeting " Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand
that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself. "
"Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on
such a potentially 'heavily populated' call. "
Giuliani, meanwhile, went on CNN with Chris Cuomo Thursday to defend his discussions with Ukraine about investigating alleged election
interference in the 2016 election to the benefit of Hillary Clinton conducted by Ukraine's previous government. According to Giuliani,
Biden's dealings in Ukraine were 'tangential' to the 2016 election interference question - in which a Ukrainian court ruled that
government officials meddled
for Hillary in 2016 by releasing details of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's 'Black Book' to Clinton campaign staffer Alexandra
Chalupa.
And so - what the MSM doesn't appear to understand is that President Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden over something
with legitimate underpinnings.
Which - of course, may lead to the Bidens'
adventures in China , which Giuliani referred to in his CNN interview. And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which may have helped his son Hunter - who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Journalist Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
Journalist Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion
Meanwhile, speculation is rampant over what this hornet's nest means for all involved...
The latest intell hit on Trump tells me that the deep-state swamp rats are in a panic over the Ukrainian/Obama admin collusion
about to be outed in the IG report. They're also freaked out over Biden's shady Ukrainian deals with his kid.
Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which
expanded to $1.5 billion
Lets clarify this a bit. The 1 billion came from the RED CHINESE ARMY, lets call spade a spade here. And why? To buy into (invest
in ) DARPA related contractors. The RED CHINESE NAVY was so impressed with little sonny's performance (meaning daddy's help),
that they handed over an additions 500,000.
Without daddy's influence as VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that FREE PLANE RIDE on Air Force TWO with daddy holding
sonny's little hand, little sonny never would have gotten past the ticket booth.
"House Democrats are also looking into whether Giuliani flew to Ukraine to 'encourage' them to investigate Hunter Biden and
his involvement with Burisma."
LOL looking into someone looking into a crime that may have been committed by a Democrat... they're some big brained individuals
these dummycrats.
Putting him in the hot seat would be to ask why he sponsored a coup and backed a neo Nazi party. When he starts to lie, put
up images of the party he back wearing inverted Das Reich arm bands and flying flags. Now that would be real journalism.
The Bidens show precisely that power corrupts. They both need to be investigated and then jailed. To the countries of the world
that depend on the USA for any kind of help, they had to deal with Joe 'what's in-it-for-me' Biden? What a disgrace for America.
I think every sitting President, Vice President, senator, and representative needs a yearly lie-detector test that asks but
one question: "did you do anything in your official duties that personally benefited you or your family?"
Didn't you ever wonder how so many senators and representatives end up multi-millionaires after a couple terms in office?
Why the fuuk do we have have to put up with this jackass. All the talk on cable, etc, is all ********. Trump is a fuuking crook,
and Barr is his bag man,. He has surrounded hinmself with toadies, cowards , incompetents and a trash family. Rise up, call your
representatives, March on DC get this crook out of office.
Call anyone you can think of, challenge them to overcome their cowardice, including members of congress, cabinet, your governor
Same could be said for the Democrats and all their Russian collusion lies and Beto wants to FORCE people to sell their weapons
to the government, right.......
" ...The complaint <against the president> involved communications with a foreign leader and a "promise" that Trump made, which
was so alarming that a U.S. intelligence official <who monitored Trumps call> who had worked at the White House went to the inspector
general of the intelligence community, two former U.S. officials said. ..."
What this tells:
1. If president Trump is monitored this way our spooks know the number of hairs in our crotches...
2. If we convicted on promises most in congress would be hung by the neck til dead for treason for not following the constitution...
Anybody that thinks that Trump, having had Roy Cohn as his mentor, and working in cut-throat NY real estate for years, AND
having dealt with political snakes for many years..would allow himself to be taped saying something on a call that he KNOWS the
Intel Community is listening in, is not paying attention.
This will backfire on the Dems and the media. Trump set them all up again..
My guess is the Dems will be hounding the IC for the complaint, will call Barr and the DNI in an investigation ran live on
CNN and MSNBC..that will show how corrupt Biden was. Everytime you hear Alexandra Chalupa's name come up, look for the MSM to
go ballistic..she is the tell in this one also. It cannot be allowed for the plebes to find out how Manafort was setup, Ukraine
assisted the DNC in the fake Russian election interference farce..hey, guess what, guess who is an ardent Ukraininan nationalist?
The head of Crowdstrike. Chalupa and Alparovich, the names that will bring down more dirty Dems than anyone in history.
For days we've been treated to MSM insinuations that President Trump may have betrayed the United States
Trump is a traitor, but he does not work for either Ukraine nor Russia but instead he works for Israel first and foremost!
He even admits it himself. Lol he doesn't even give a shite when Israel taps his phone :)
House Democrats are also looking into whether Giuliani flew to Ukraine to 'encourage' them to investigate Hunter Biden and
his involvement with Burisma.
This bunch of filthy swine should be looking up each others asses for answers. Actually the Ukrainians have been screaming
for over a year at the DOJ and FBI to take the evidence they have. But the rotten to the core Democrat socialist lefties wanted
to block it.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
+ Apparently, Obama and Biden only caged kids who deserved to be caged.
+ Biden continues to lie about his position on the Iraq war and he lies so badly that no
one, not even Bernie, bothers to call him on it.
+ Whatever brain-eating disease Biden has seems to be contagious, gnawing inexorably through
the gray matter of the other candidates
+ CNN: "Biden had his best debate." Ok, I know I
didn't drop acid tonight. Did Wolf Blitzer spike the company water cooler?
+
Really, Baltz ? Biden was incoherent on NATFA, lied about the Iraq war, couldn't describe
his health care plan, derided black families, stumbled over his immigration record & went
completely loco at the end. Other than that
DNC is a criminal organization and the fact that Debbie Wasserman
Schultz escaped justice is deeply regreatable.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0. ..."
"... Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed a different policy. ..."
"... The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class. But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party. ..."
"... I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place. Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party. ..."
"... As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. ..."
"... They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently damaged by immigration. ..."
"... If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their ethnicity and it's territory every time. I ..."
"... My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement. Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public. ..."
I hope that the candidate who is clearly the voters' choice, Bernie Sanders, may end up as the party's nominee. If he is, I'm
sure he'll beat Donald Trump handily, as he would have done four years ago. But I fear that the DNC's Donor Class will push Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris or even Pete Buttigieg down the throats of voters. Just as when they backed Hillary the last time around, they hope
that their anointed neoliberal will be viewed as the lesser evil for a program little different from that of the Republicans.
So Thursday's reality TV run-off is about "who's the least evil?" An honest reality show's questions would focus on "What are
you against ?" That would attract a real audience, because people are much clearer about what they're against: the vested
interests, Wall Street, the drug companies and other monopolies, the banks, landlords, corporate raiders and private-equity asset
strippers. But none of this is to be permitted on the magic island of authorized candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who was
purged from further debates for having dared to mention the unmentionable).
Donald Trump as the DNC's nominee
The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing
social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial
markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0.
DNC donors favor Joe Biden, long-time senator from the credit-card and corporate-shell state of Delaware, and opportunistic California
prosecutor Kamala Harris, with a hopey-changey grab bag alternative in smooth-talking small-town Rorschach blot candidate Pete Buttigieg.
These easy victims are presented as "electable" in full knowledge that they will fail against Trump.
Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending
for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of
all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed
a different policy.
The Democratic Party's role is to protect Republicans from attack from the left, steadily following the Republican march rightward.
Claiming that this is at least in the direction of being "centrist," the Democrats present themselves as the lesser evil (which is
still evil, of course), simply as pragmatic in not letting hopes for "the perfect" (meaning moderate social democracy) block the
spirit of compromise with what is attainable, "getting things done" by cooperating across the aisle and winning Republican support.
That is what Joe Biden promises.
The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class.
But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic
column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party.
The Democratic National Committee worries that voters may disturb this alliance by nominating a left-wing reform candidate. The
DNC easily solved this problem in 2016: When Bernie Sanders intruded into its space, it the threw the election. It scheduled the
party's early defining primaries in Republican states whose voters leaned right, and packed the nominating convention with Donor
Class super-delegates.
After the dust settled, having given many party members political asthma, the DNC pretended that it was all an unfortunate political
error. But of course it was not a mistake at all. The DNC preferred to lose with Hillary than win with Bernie, whom springtime polls
showed would be the easy winner over Trump. Potential voters who didn't buy into the program either stayed home or voted green.
No votes will be cast for months, so I don't know how Mr. Hudson can say that Sanders is "clearly the voters choice." He would
be 79 on election day, well above the age when most men die, which is something that voters should seriously consider. Whoever
his VP is will probably be president before the end of Old Bernie's first term, so I hope he chooses his VP wisely.
In any case I laugh at how the media always reports that Biden, who has obviously lost more than a few brain cells, has such
a commanding lead over this field of second-raters. The voters, having much better things to do, haven't even started to pay attention
yet.
And, how could anyone seriously believe in these polls anyway? Only older people have land lines today. If calling people is
the methodology pollsters are using, then the results would be heavily skewed towards former VP Biden, whose name everyone knows.
I lost all faith in polls when the media was saying, with certainty, that Hillary was a lock to win against the insurgent Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate beside Trump with charisma today. With her cool demeanor, she is certainly the least unlikeable.
She would be Trump's most formidable opponent. But the democrats, like their counterparts, are owned by Wall Street and the Military
Industrial Complex. Sadly, most democrats still believe that the party is working in their best interests, while the republicans
are the party of the rich.
If you watch the debates tonight, which I will not be, you will notice that Tulsi Gabbard won't be on stage. That is by design.
She is a leper. At least the republicans allowed Trump to be onstage in 2016, which makes them more democratic than the democrats.
Plus they didn't have Super Delegates to prevent Trump from achieving the nomination he had rightfully won. Something to think
about since the DNC, not the voters, annointed Hillary last time.
If the YouTube Oligarchs still allow it, I plan on watching the post-debate analysis with characters like Richard Spencer and
Eric Striker. Those guys are most entertaining, and have insights that are not permitted to be uttered in the controlled, mind-numbing
farce of the mainstream media.
Elizabeth Warren seems a more likely nominee than Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren is phony as phuck(PAP). Just like forked tongued Obama she's really just a tool for the neo-liberal establishment,
which does make her more likely.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place.
Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would
be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party.
As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. Many of
them may be progressives but they refuse to understand the very non-progressive consequences of mass immigration (Or, one should
say over-immigration) or globalisation more generally. The increasing defection of such individuals to the Liberal Democrats in
Britain is a fascinating example. They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently
damaged by immigration.
It is interesting to see the see-saw effect of UKip and now the Brexit party in the UK (Well, in England). With them first
drawing working class voters from Labour without increasing Conservative performance, bringing about a massive conservative majority
and now threatening to siphon voters from the Tories with the opposite effect.
But UKip and later the Brexit party almost exist through the indispensable leadership of Nigel Farage and a very specific motivating
goal of leaving the EU. I can't see a third party rising to put pressure on the mainstream parties.
If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their
ethnicity and it's territory every time. I f the centre left refuses to understand this (Something that wouldn't have been
hard for them to understand when they still drew candidates from the working classes) they will continue their slide into oblivion
as they have done across the Western world. (Excluding 2 party systems and Denmark where they do understand this)
My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment
will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal
with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population
has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement.
Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation
is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to
dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public.
The novel internet mass media outlets that allowed such unpoliced political discussion to reach mass audiences will be pacified
by whatever means and America will slide into an Italian style trans-generational malaise at a national level for some time.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
Trump is trying to change the RNC away from Globalist elites and towards Christian Populist beliefs and Main Street America.
I am some what hopeful, as the U.S. is not alone in this trajectory. There is a global tail wind that should help the GOP change
quickly enough.
The true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination. A bold choice will have to break through to keep the RNC from backsliding into
the clutches of Globalist failure.
I think Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016. This time around it is not that clear because so many of his supporters in 2016
feel burnt.
Badly burnt. Or Bernt. He threw his support for Hillary, even if it was tepid, and then got a bad case of Russiagateitis which
his base on the left really hated. His left base never bought Russiagate for a minute. We knew it was an internal leak, probably
by Seth Rich, who provided all the information to Assange. He still seems to be a strong Israel supporter even if has stood up
to Netanyahu.
And while it may seem odd, many of his base on the left have grown weary of the global climate change agenda.
He has not advocated nuclear power and there is a growing movement for that on the left, especially by those who think renewables
will not generate the power we need.
But since Sanders does seem to attract the rural and suburban vote more than any other Democrat, Sanders has a chance to chip
away at Trumps' base and win the Electoral College. Another horrible loss to rural and suburban America by the Democrats will
cost them the EC again by a substantial margin, even if they manage to pull off another popular vote win.
the republican party is as globalist as you can find,and I'm sure you will be the first one to inform us when the global
elite including those in America throw in the towel,
Some elite Globalist NeverTrumpers, such as George Will and Bill Kristol, have thrown in the towel on the GOP. This allows
their "neocon" followers to return to their roots in the war mongering Democrat Party. So it *IS* happening.
The real questions are:
-- Can it happen fast enough?
-- Can it be sustained after Donald Trump term limits out?
I'm not bold enough to say it is inevitable. All I will say is, "There are reasons to be at least mildly hopeful."
Has everyone forgot the last time the DNC openly cheated Sanders he said nothing publicly, but then endorsed Clinton? Sanders
knows he is not allowed to become president, his role to prevent the formation of a third party, and to keep the Green Party small.
Otherwise he would jump to the Green Party right now and may beat the DNC and Trump.
Sanders treats progressives like Charlie Brown. Once again, inviting them to run a kick the football, only to pull it away
and watch them fall. He recently backed off his opposition to the open borders crazies, rarely mentions cuts to military spending
to fund things, and has even joined the stupid fake russiagate bandwagon.
Note that he dismisses the third party idea as unworkable, when he already knows the DNC is unworkable. Why not give the Green
party a chance? Cause he don't want to win knowing he'd be killed or impeached for some reason.
@Carlton Meyer The
Stalinist DNC openly cheated Tulsi Gabbard when they left her off the debate stage last night. When asked about it on 'The View'
recently, Sanders said nothing in her defense, or that she deserved to be on the stage. Nice way to stab her in the back for leaving
her DNC position to support you last time, Bernie. Socialist Sanders wants to be president, yet is afraid of the DNC. Nice!
Those polls were rigged against Tulsi, and everyone who is paying attention knows it. But, far from hurting her candidacy by
not making the DNC's arbitrary cut, her exclusion may wind up helping her. Kim Iverson, Michael Tracey, and comedian Jimmy Dore,
anti-war progressive YouTubers with large, loyal followings, have lambasted the out-of touch DNC for its actions. Tucker Carlson
on the anti-war right has also done so.
One hopes that the DNC's stupidity in censoring her message may wind up being the best thing ever for Tulsi's insurgent candidacy.
We shall see. OTOH, who can trust the polls to tell us the truth of where her popularity stands.
@RadicalCenter Do you
forget about Trump's declaration that he wants the largest amount of immigration ever, as long as they come in legally? There
are no good guys in our two sclerotic monopoly parties when it comes to immigration. Since both are terrible on that topic, at
least Tulsi seems to have the anti-war principles that Trump does not.
"... Corporate media polls are fake. There is no effin' way that Biden is or ever was the "front runner" for the D Party nomination. His entire candidacy is fake, so obviously contrived -- just like Hillary's -- it's a wonder that the DNC and their corporate propagandists ever believed they could get away with it. ..."
"... All their "arguments" in favor of Biden are nothing more than cover stories being laid out in advance for the purpose of validating the contrived result they are dead set on producing. Even their cover stories are goddamn coverups! ..."
Corporate media polls are fake. There is no effin' way that Biden is or ever was the "front runner" for
the D Party nomination. His entire candidacy is fake, so obviously contrived -- just like Hillary's -- it's a wonder that the DNC
and their corporate propagandists ever believed they could get away with it.
All their "arguments" in favor of Biden are nothing more than cover stories being laid out in advance for the purpose of validating
the contrived result they are dead set on producing. Even their cover stories are goddamn coverups!
The "polls" are fake. Corporate media outlets -- aka Ministries of Propaganda -- fabricate them out of whole cloth and then babble
insensately about "electability" and "inevitability," and about how the senile hack Biden is "the only one" who can beat the shitgibbon
chump, blah blah blah. The whole goddamn charade is so effin' obvious, a 3 year-old could see through it.
Come on Murca! Aren't you tired of being lied to and manipulated and robbed day after day? The fascist ratbastards in the R and
D Parties are first rate dumbasses who can't even tell believable lies anymore.
The DNC nomination will go to the candidate most likely to support the desires of the wealthy, those who own and run the country,
not to one of that group who will attempt to upset that apple cart, if elected President. That makes Joe a shoe-in and all he
has to do is not collapse as in falling to the floor requiring he be carried off by ambulance attendants, on stage, during a debate.
That selecting Joe out of that group will cause great concern among the Democratic voters such that they might just not vote
thereby throwing the election to Trump is of little concern to the DNC executive. If by some miracle Joe does become President
no harm will come to the interests of the wealthy so win or lose, it is the same win win result in the end.
One big question facing candidates and voters more than 30 years later is whether President Trump's routine falsehoods have
changed the standards by which other presidential aspirants, including Biden, should be judged.
> "A four-star general had asked the then-vice president to travel to Kunar province in
Afghanistan, a dangerous foray into "godforsaken country"..."
In the version I heard, Biden's helicopter landed under sniper fire, and he had to dodge
bullets as he ran for cover. Oh no, wait, that was Hillary, in Bosnia.
One longs for the days when American presidential candidates had actually fought in major
wars, but did not talk much about it.
"Joe Biden: It Would Be an Insult to My Dead Son for Everyone to Have
Healthcare" [
Vice ].
A Biden ad:
"In all, the ad is saying that healthcare is personal to Joe Biden
because his son died; that as a father, he believes the best and most legitimate way to honor
his dead son's legacy would be to implement further incremental regulatory reform, along the
lines of what Barack Obama did; and that people who disagree and think that radical reform is
necessary -- among them, presumably, the
80 percent or so
of Democrats who say it's important to nominate a presidential candidate who supports
Medicare for All -- are dishonoring his son's legacy. A hell of a pitch!"
Rarely does the news make me laugh out loud but thank you Joe Biden: I'm Not Going Nuts - Vote Biden 2020. His presidency would
be even funnier than Trumps and that is really saying something.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
"... He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like an ultimatum to me. ..."
He can keep his tax returns. I want to see a brain scan. You know, of all the things to call CT, I would advise against the Ukraine portfolio. It's been vetted by US intelligence,
for starters. That's why we won't issue travel Visas to the Ukrainian attorneys involved.
to Ukraine. Nope. He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them if they didn't fire the prosecutor
who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like an ultimatum to me.
The other reason why the Ukraine attorneys won't be allowed here is because they might expose how Hillary got them to play
along with Russia Gate. And those charges against Manafort? Obama knew all about that in 2014 , but he decided to hold on to them
just in case he needed them down the road.
The thing is that Manafort was trying to get Yanukovich to take the EU deal instead
of the Russian one. But again I want to know when Podesta is going to be charged for doing the same things that Manafort did?
Oh yeah he's in the Clinton side of things.
Jimmy Dore is an outstanding stand-up comedian, political commentator, host of "The Jimmy Dore Show" available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3M7...)
and as a podcast available on iTunes.
Notable quotes:
"... Biden must be high from all of that hairspray he's been sniffing. Lol ..."
"... Can't wait to see the blue MAMA hats... ..."
I can see Trump's re-election message now. Never mind what a yuge dissapointment I am to you
who elected me. Re-elect me so the investigations continue!
Neoliberal corruption in full display. As we see forms of nepotism evolve with time...
Notable quotes:
"... Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem. And just like his Ukraine scandal , it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries. ..."
"... Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now Secret Empires discovered that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5 billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the New York Post . ..."
"... Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities. ..."
"... Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner ..."
"... It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers . ..."
"... It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont. ..."
"... "We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive, who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous." ..."
"... Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal. ..."
"... The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector. - New York Post ..."
"... Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world. ..."
Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem.
And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the
New York Post .
" If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who has scant experience in private
equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that's because it is " -
Peter Schweizer
Perhaps this is why Joe Biden - now on the 2020 campaign trail - said last week that China wasn't a threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a shot at Biden's comment during a speech at the Claremont Institute's 40th anniversary gala,
saying "Look how both parties now are on guard against the threat that China presents to America -- maybe except Joe Biden."
Back to Hunter...
Schweizer connects the dots, writing that "without the aid of subpoena power, here's what we know :"
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned
entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009 and controlled by Hunter Biden, John
Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China , and partnered with the Thornton Group
- a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger - son of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger.
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended their warm welcome" to the "Thornton
Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and opportunity," however details of
the meeting were not published to the English-language version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden's father, the vice president, met
with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two
to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial
behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of
investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the
son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers .
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership of, had any role in the deal with
Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont name became increasingly involved with China.
Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. -
New York Post
National Security implications
As Schweizer also notes, BHR became an "anchor investor" in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) in December 2014.
The state-owned energy company is involved with the construction of nuclear reactors.
In April 2016, CGN was charged by the US Justice Department with stealing nuclear secrets from the United States , which prosecutors
warned could cause "significant damage to our national security." CNG was interested in sensitive, American-made nuclear components
that resembled those used on US nuclear submarines, according to experts.
More China dealings
It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government
for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such
as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments Limited was negotiating and sealing deals
with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts. That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was
buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager
to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was precisely the investment opportunity
Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings
Limited and Gemini Investments. "We look forward to a strong and successful partnership."
That partnership planned to use Chinese money to scoop up US properties.
"We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive,
who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous."
Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation
of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee
of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal.
Tying it back to Ukraine
While we have previously reported on the Bidens' adventures in Ukraine, Schweizer connects the dots rather well here ...
Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner in the Rosemont
Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe
Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials . The vice president was bringing with him
highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry
and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping
more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.
The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas
company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any
background or experience in the energy sector. -
New York Post
Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month while Burisma was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and elsewhere.
Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired
his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma
Holdings.
Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting
the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
Joe Biden says that he had no idea Hunter was on the board of Burisma (for two years after he joined), and that the two never
spoke about the Burisma investigation. The former VP claims that Shokin's removal was required due to his mishandling of several
cases in Ukraine.
As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very
potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world.
Biden is another scumbag Democrat Lawyer who's the original 'pay for play' politician...A 40+ year history in Political Office
with Zero accomplishments except enriching himself and his family...A complete fraud and hypocrite liar.....Lawyers should have
never been allowed to run for Office at any level.....Look at all the corruption that has been and is being exposed at the different
bureaucracies...Virtually all the corruption has been willfully committed by Lawyers....Pathetic....
Interesting.... I put: "The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow
an elected President because he stands in " the way of "profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected
councils and retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
But came out:The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow an elected
President because he stands in the profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected councils and
retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
To make it sound as if it is Trump profiting.... By no means is that true... Its the " long term" Washington officals that
have been profiting. Not a possible 8 year President.
My phone also wont let me thumbs up people i would like to but only a few and also replying is " verboten".
These algorhythms and blocks and censorship is an abuse of constitutional rights which is bad enough, but even worse is that
these rights got monopolized by various corporations who bought stock in facebook/ googles options that was stolen from Leader
technologies source code ( which Mark zukerberg couldnt write on a good day... He is a front guy and again we have British privy
council involed with Clegg head of facebook now voice for Mark... Because Mark is a cut out).
This whole social media internet thing has been hijacked and weaponized by Washingtons same people as Dossier scandel... James
Chandeler attorney and backstaber of Leader technology.
See leader technology vs facebook..... But i digress.
Michael T. McKibben's career spans two phases: international Christian music ministry, and technology innovation. In 2006,
he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for what is now called "social networking."
Biden & Kerry aren't the only ones with a China problem. "Secret Empires" also listed Mitch McConnell having a huge China problem
through his wife's shipping company. I bet he doesn't run for re-election. Winning.
they all own one another - that's the essence of the problem in politics. and why they have tried so hard to get that outsider,
trump, out of the country club.
China funded Bill Clinton's election campaigns through James Riady, an Indonesian Chinese man involved in hard drug smuggling
and arms trafficking. The money was laundered through Little Rock banks and corporations. (See Victor Thorn's Hillary and Bill
, all three volumes.)
"Come on man! This is a joke! He's my son and he's a great buddy. I mean yeah he was drummed out of the Naval Reserve because
of his cocaine habit, but come on man, you know, everybody does it! Just ask my good friend Barack, he's a clean, good looking
darkie whose done his share of blow. And yeah Hunter fucked his dead brother's widow, but come on man! Have you seen her ****
and ***. I might have made a move on her myself, but hey man I'm married."
Joe Biden, From the endless Fear and Mongering Presidential campaign of 2020.
IRS/SEC/FBI are not investigatory agencies. They are barrier agencies. They protect the anointed, letting them do as they wish,
and stomp on anyone else who tries to get in on the gravy train.
Sociopaths are the reason all governments, regardless of the particular 'ism', eventually fail...
Looking at human history, fascism is the most common form of government for humans. At least it is the most honest - that the
sociopaths are ******* everyone else.... These days we try to hide it by lofty idealism that is incompatible with a predator/prey
real world.....
Representative democracy, socialism and communism all fail and all fail for the same reason - sociopaths...
We should be honest with ourselves that there is a small, but statistically significant percentage of the human population
that are sociopaths (and more are being born every generation). We can call them predators and we are the prey...any concentration
of power attracts sociopaths regardless of the fancy label we put on the political system. Within a short time the system is inundated
with sociopaths who invariably game the system to death for their own individual benefit....
Don't like the reality in which you find yourself? Stop voting for sociopaths, stop giving them power...
What political party or system even acknowledge the sociopath problem? That's right, none...so don't expect anything to change
after the reset...the pleubs will chose a new sociopath for their leader, who will **** them, and things will go on as they always
have...
Only way to combat this is to decentralize power as much as possible...this doesn't solve the sociopath problem, but it does
spread them out and keeps them from ganging up together to **** over the peasants...but I won't hold my breath....
Is this a good time to take a look at 1) Front Men 2) Front Companies 3) Shell Companies 4) Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV/SPE)
5) Offshore Accounts, Offshore Donations, Offshore Campaign or PAC or Party Contributions, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers 6) USA
as Tax Haven for foreign accounts 7) USA as an Empire 8) The Rise Of The Fourth Reich notes in book by Jim Marrs
"... Looks like Robert Mueller was a dirty cop hired to confirm fairy tales of Russian collusion peddled by a Clinton wing of Dems (DemoRats) sing Trump. And he enjoyed the full support of several intelligence agencies brass (especially FBI brass; initially Stzkok was one of his investigators) ..."
"... Before that Mueller was in charge of 9/11 and Anthrax scare investigations. So he is a card caring member of the neoliberal elite which converted the USA into what can be called the "National Security State" ..."
"... In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a fruitless investigation ..."
"... the USA squabble over Parteigenosse Mueller Final Report between two factions of neoliberal elite makes the USA a joke in the eyes of the whole world ..."
"... Hopefully, a more sound part of the USA elite, which Barr represents, will put some sand into those wheels. His decision to investigate the origin of Russiagate produced almost a heart attack for Pelosi. And the fact that he decided to skip his auto-da-fé at the House adds insult to injury. Poor Pelosi almost lost her mind. ..."
"... Out of democratic challengers IMHO only Tulsi Gabbard can probably attract a sizable faction of former Trump supporters and she is the most reviled, ignored, and slandered by DNC liberals and neocons alike candidate. ..."
"... The truth is that the color revolution against Donald Trump (a soft coup if you wish) failed. Now he badly needs to win in 2020 to avoid an indictment in NY State when he leaves the Presidency. It is just a matter of survival for him. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats will help him by putting their weakest pro-war candidate like the aged, apparently slightly demented neocon Joe Biden. With his rabid neoliberal past, neocon foreign policy past, Ukrainian skeletons in the closet and probably participation in the Obama administration dirty and criminal attempt to derail Trump using intelligence agencies as the leverage. ..."
"... Just like is the case with Boeing the situation for neoliberal democrats does not look promising. The world is starting to crash all around them. ..."
The F.B.I. surveillance didn't come out until after the election. Therefore it couldn't impact the election. McConnell threatened
to shriek "partisan politics!" if Obama said anything publicly about the Russian issue. Obama didn't. Claims of partisan behavior?
Bullshit.
What about proven attempts of entrapments and inserting spies into Trump campaign?
Mifsud and Halper's stories come to mind (Halper's story has an interesting "seduction" subplot with undercover FBI informant
Azra Turk). FBI and Justice Department brass acted as dirty mafia style politicians. McCabe and Brennan are two shining examples here. Probably guided personally by Obama, who being grown in a family of CIA operatives
probably know this color revolutions "kitchen" all too well.
BTW Hillary did destroy evidence from her "bathroom server" while under subpoena.
Looks like Robert Mueller was a dirty cop hired to confirm fairy tales of Russian collusion peddled by a Clinton wing of
Dems (DemoRats) sing Trump. And he enjoyed the full support of several intelligence agencies brass (especially FBI brass; initially
Stzkok was one of his investigators)
Before that Mueller was in charge of 9/11 and Anthrax scare investigations. So he is a card caring member of the neoliberal
elite which converted the USA into what can be called the "National Security State"
Which looks like classic Mussolini Italy with two guiding principles of jurisprudence applied to political enemies:
(1) To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law (originated in 1933) .
(2) Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime (that actually comes from Stalinism period of the USSR, but the spirit is the
same) .
It was actually Barr who saved Trump from obstruction of justice charge. He based his defense on the interpretation of the
statuses the following (actually very elegant) way:
In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did
not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired
a fruitless investigation
Of course, that upset DemoRats who want President Pence to speed up the destruction of the USA and adding a couple of new wars
to list the USA is involved.
Mueller was extremely sloppy and one-sided in writing his final report. Which is given taking into account his real task: to
sink Trump. As Nunes aptly observed about his treatment of Mifsud as a Russian agent :
"If he is, in fact, a Russian agent, it would be one of the biggest intelligence scandals for not only the United States,
but also our allies like the Italians and the Brits and others. Because if Mifsud is a Russian agent, he would know all kinds
of our intelligence agents throughout the globe
likbez , May 4, 2019 10:11 pm
run75441,
Yes, of course, in the current neo-McCarthyism atmosphere merely passing the salt to a Russian guest at a dinner party makes
you "an unregistered foreign agent" of Russia bent on implementing Putin's evil plans and colliding with Russian government ;-).
It looks like you are unable/unwilling to understand the logic behind my post. With all due respect, the situation is very
dangerous -- when the neoliberal elite relies on lies almost exclusively as a matter of policy (look at Kamala Harris questioning
Barr -- she is not stupid, she is an evil, almost taken from Orwell 1984, character), IMHO the neoliberal society is doomed. Sooner
or later.
Currently, the USA squabble over Parteigenosse Mueller Final Report between two factions of neoliberal elite makes the
USA a joke in the eyes of the whole world and Democrats look like Italian Fascists in 30th: a party hell-bent of dominance
which does not care about laws or legitimacy one bit and can use entrapment and other dirty methods to achieve its goals.
Hopefully, a more sound part of the USA elite, which Barr represents, will put some sand into those wheels. His decision
to investigate the origin of Russiagate produced almost a heart attack for Pelosi. And the fact that he decided to skip his auto-da-fé
at the House adds insult to injury. Poor Pelosi almost lost her mind.
Neoliberals and neoconservatives joined ranks behind Russiagate and continue to push it because otherwise they need to be held
accountable for all the related neoliberal disasters in the USA since 1980th including sliding standard of living, disappearance
of "good" jobs, sky-high cost of university education and medical insurance, and the last but not least, Hillary fiasco.
Trump ran to the left of Clinton in foreign policy and used disillusionment of working close with neoliberal Democratic Party
to his advantage promising jobs, end of outsourcing, end of uncontrolled immigration, and increased standard of living. He betrayed
all those promises, but, still, that's why he won.
And that why the neoliberal establishment must present his election as de facto illegitimate, because otherwise they would
be forced to admit that the bipartisan consensus around both financialization driven economics (casino capitalism) and imperial,
war on terror based interventionism that are the foundation of the USA neoliberal elite politics since Clinton has been a disaster
for most ordinary Americans -- of all political persuasions.
Out of democratic challengers IMHO only Tulsi Gabbard can probably attract a sizable faction of former Trump supporters
and she is the most reviled, ignored, and slandered by DNC liberals and neocons alike candidate.
The truth is that the color revolution against Donald Trump (a soft coup if you wish) failed. Now he badly needs to win
in 2020 to avoid an indictment in NY State when he leaves the Presidency. It is just a matter of survival for him.
Neoliberal Democrats will help him by putting their weakest pro-war candidate like the aged, apparently slightly demented
neocon Joe Biden. With his rabid neoliberal past, neocon foreign policy past, Ukrainian skeletons in the closet and probably participation
in the Obama administration dirty and criminal attempt to derail Trump using intelligence agencies as the leverage.
Just like is the case with Boeing the situation for neoliberal democrats does not look promising. The world is starting
to crash all around them.
Newly released evidence suggests Ukraine played key role in creating
Trump–Russia collusion narrative at behest of Obama officials
As Ukraine underwent dramatic changes
in 2014, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden played a critical role in the Obama
administration's involvement in the revolution that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych.
Following the revolution, Biden would use his influence to help force the creation of the
troubled National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). Notably, during the 2016 election campaign,
information leaked from NABU about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that helped to create
the false narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.
Biden also would use the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to
pressure Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor general. At the time, the
prosecutor had been investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas giant that had appointed
Biden's son, Hunter, as a board member.
President Donald
Trump 's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, recently said, "Keep your eye on Ukraine." In his
comments to the
Washington Examiner , Giuliani highlighted the "plot to create an investigation of
President Trump, based on a false charge of conspiracy with the Russians to affect the 2016
elections."
Obama Administration's 2014 Involvement
On or shortly before Feb. 4, 2014, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary for European and
Eurasian affairs in the Obama State Department, had a conversation with the U.S. ambassador to
Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, which was intercepted and leaked .
In the call, Nuland and Pyatt appeared to be discussing the ouster of Yanukovych and the
installation of opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister.
Nuland favored opposition leader Yatsenyuk over his main rivals Vitali Klitschko and Oleh
Tyahnybok, telling Pyatt: "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the
governing experience. He's the what he needs is Klitschko and Tyahnybok on the outside."
Toward the end of the conversation , then-Vice President Biden
was discussed as being willing to help cement the changeover in Ukraine:
Geoffrey Pyatt: "We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come
out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to
Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into
place."
Victoria Nuland: "So, on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [Biden's national security
adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need Biden, and I said
probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's
willing."
Nuland and Pyatt met with Ukrainian opposition leaders Klitschko and Yatsenyuk, along with
then-President Yanukovych, just days later on Feb. 7, 2014.
Events then moved swiftly. On Feb. 22, 2014, Yanukovych was
removed as president of Ukraine and fled to Russia. On Feb. 27, 2014, Yatsenyuk, the
candidate favored by Nuland, was installed as prime minister of Ukraine.
Klitschko was left out. Notably, Yatsenyuk would later resign
in April 2016 amid corruption accusations.
Biden's Involvement in Ukraine
In April, Biden would get personally involved, as would his son, Hunter. On April 18, 2014,
Hunter Biden was
appointed to the board of directors for Burisma–one of the largest natural gas
companies in Ukraine.
Four days later, on April 22, 2014, Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine ,
offering his political support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk's shaky new government.
Poroshenko, a billionaire politician, was elected as president of Ukraine on May 25, 2014.
Biden became close to both men and helped Ukraine obtain a four-year, $17.5
billion IMF package in March 2015.
In October 2016, Foreign Policy wrote a lengthy article, "
What Will Ukraine Do Without Uncle Joe ," which described Biden's role in the removal of
Ukraine's general prosecutor, Victor Shokin. Shokin, the choice of Poroshenko, was portrayed as
fumbling a major corruption case and "hindering an investigation into two high-ranking state
prosecutors arrested on corruption charges."
The United States pushed for Shokin's removal, and Biden led the effort by personally
threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. In an interview
with The Atlantic, Biden recalled telling Poroshenko: "Petro, you're not getting your billion
dollars. It's OK, you can keep the [prosecutor] general. Just understand -- we're not paying if
you do." Shokin was removed by
Poroshenko shortly thereafter, in early 2016.
But according to reporting by The Hill, at the time of his firing, Shokin had been
investigating Burisma. Shokin's investigation into Burisma had previously been
disclosed in June 2017, by Front News International.
Burisma is
owned by Nikolai Zlochevsky (also known as Mykola Zlochevsky), the former minister of
ecology for Ukraine. According to
Front News , Zlochevsky issued
a "special permit for the extraction of a third of the gas produced in Ukraine" to his own
company, Burisma.
According to the Ukrainian nonprofit Anti Corruption Action Center, Zlochevsky owns 38
permits held by 14 different companies -- with Burisma
accounting for the majority with 33 of the permits. Zlochevsky left Ukraine after
Yanukovych fled to Russia during the Ukrainian Revolution known as
Euromaidan.
Investigation Into Burisma
In the spring of 2014, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office opened an investigation at
the behest of the UK prosecutors office, which was investigating money laundering allegations
against Zlochevsky and had
just frozen $23.5 million in assets allegedly belonging to him in early April 2014. Shokin,
who wasn't appointed as general prosecutor until February 2015, wasn't yet involved in the
case.
Ukrainian prosecutors
refused to provide the UK with needed documents, and in January 2015, a British court
ordered the assets unfrozen. This action was pointedly called out in a
speech by Pyatt, who stated, "In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the
UK authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian
people."
Instead of receiving cooperation from Ukrainian prosecutors, they "sent letters to
Zlochevsky's attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was
freed by the UK court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus."
On Feb. 10, 2015, Shokin was appointed prosecutor general of Ukraine, and he picked up the
investigation into Burisma, which reportedly continued until his formal resignation in February
2016.
Around the same time that Zlochevsky's assets were being frozen in the UK, Burisma appointed
Hunter Biden to its board on April 18, 2014. Hunter's compensation had never been disclosed by
Burisma, which is a private company, but Ryan Toohey, a Burisma spokesman,
told The New York Times that Biden's compensation was "not out of the ordinary" for similar
board positions.
However, according to The Hill's
reporting , Hunter Biden's firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was receiving regular
payments -- "usually more than $166,000 a month" -- from Burisma. The payments ran from the
spring of 2014 through the fall of 2015 and reportedly totaled more than $3 million.
The Hill article included a written answer from Shokin, who told Solomon that his
investigation into Burisma had included plans for "interrogations and other crime-investigation
procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden."
According to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, following Shokin's forced
dismissal, the Burisma investigation was transferred to Sytnyk's NABU, which then reportedly
closed the investigation sometime in 2016.
The Kyiv Post on March 27 published an
editorial written by three members of the Anti-Corruption Action Center in Kyiv that
disputed Lutsenko's interview with The Hill. They claim that two cases relating to Burisma are
still being investigated by NABU:
"Two cases regarding the extraction of licenses by Zlochevsky's companies and embezzlement
of public funds at the ministry's procurements during Zlochevsky's Ministerial tenure remain
active and are investigated by NABU."
They also claim that "none of the criminal proceedings against Burisma were closed by NABU."
They acknowledged that the case concerning illegal issuance of licenses to extract natural
resources were transferred to NABU in December 2015, but claim that SAP missed procedural
deadlines for a lawsuit on canceling those licenses.
The politics within Ukraine are extremely complicated, and corruption is endemic, often
leading to conflicting accounts of events.
US Pressure to Investigate Manafort
In January 2016, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutors and officials from Obama's National
Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ) met in
Washington, according to an April 26
article by The Hill.
The meeting, which was reportedly billed as "training," apparently also touched on two other
matters -- the revival of a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine's
Russia-backed Party of Regions and the closure of an ongoing Ukrainian investigation into
Burisma.
According to The Hill's reporting, the Ukrainian Embassy confirmed that meetings were held,
but said it "had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the
meetings."
A Jan. 22, 2016, NABU press
release confirmed that NABU Director Artem Sytnyk was in Washington from Jan. 19 to 21.
At the same time as the NABU meeting with Obama officials, Vice President Biden
also met with senior Ukrainian officials. On Jan. 21, 2016, Biden
met with Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine. According to the
White House release , the two leaders agreed "to continue to move forward on Ukraine's
anti-corruption agenda."
Just six days earlier, on Jan 15, 2016, Biden had met with Ukrainian Prime Minister
Volodymyr Groysman, promising to commit $220 million in new assistance to Ukraine that
year.
Notably, several months later, Sytnyk and Ukrainian Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko
would
publicly disclose the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger" to the media, which
implicated Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The revelation would force Manafort from
the campaign.
Leshchenko also served as a source for various individuals, including journalist Michael
Isikoff and Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative Alexandra Chalupa. In addition,
Leshchenko served as a direct source of information for Fusion GPS -- and its researcher,
former CIA contractor Nellie Ohr.
Another Ukrainian-related meeting also took place in January 2016 when Chalupa, a
Ukrainian-American, informed an
unknown senior DNC official that she believed there was a Russian connection with the Trump
campaign. Notably, this theme would be picked up by the Clinton campaign in the summer of 2016.
Chalupa also told the official to expect Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign.
How Chalupa knew to expect Manafort's involvement with the Trump campaign in January remains
unknown, but her forecast proved prescient, as Manafort
reached out to the Trump campaign shortly after, on Feb. 29, 2016, through a mutual
acquaintance, Thomas J. Barrack Jr. According to Manafort, he and Trump hadn't been in
communication
for years until the Trump campaign responded to Manafort's offer.
As The Epoch Times
previously reported , on May 30, 2016, Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr sent an email to
her husband, high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and three other DOJ officials to alert them
of the discovery of the "Reported Trove of Documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' 'Black
Cashbox.'" It was this discovery that led to Manafort's resignation from the Trump campaign in
August 2016.
On Aug. 14, 2016, The New York Times published an article
alleging that payments to Manafort had been uncovered from the Party of Regents' "black box" --
the 400-page handwritten ledger released by Leshchenko. The article proved to be a fatal blow
for Manafort, who resigned from the Trump campaign just days later.
NABU Ties to FBI
Following the successful overthrow of Yanukovych, Joe Biden had a direct hand in the
formation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), as he personally "pushed for the
creation of an independent anti-corruption bureau to combat graft," according to an Oct. 30,
2016, article by
Foreign Policy .
NABU was formally established in October 2014 in response to pressure
from not only the U.S. State Department and Biden, but also by the International Monetary Fund
and the European Commission.
Despite the international push, the fledgling anti-corruption unit took more than a year to
actually become a functioning unit. During this time, NABU officials began establishing a
relationship with the FBI. In early 2016, NABU Director Sytnyk announced
that his bureau was very close to signing a memorandum of cooperation with the FBI and by
February
2016 , the FBI had had a permanent representative onsite at the NABU offices.
On June 5, 2016, Sytnyk met with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt to
discuss a more formalized relationship with the FBI and, on June 30, 2016, NABU and the FBI
entered into a
memorandum of understanding that allowed for an FBI office onsite at NABU offices to focus on
international money laundering cases. The relationship was renewed
for an additional two years in June 2017.
NABU has repeatedly refused to make the memorandum of understanding with the FBI public and
went
to court in 2018 to prevent its release. After receiving an unfavorable opinion from the
Kyiv District Administrative Court, NABU appealed the ruling, which was overturned in its favor
by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal.
Sytnyk, along with parliamentarian Leshchenko, became the subject of an investigation in
Ukraine and in December 2018, a Kyiv court
ruled that both men "acted illegally when they revealed that Manafort's surname and
signature were found in the so-called black ledger of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych's
Party of Regions," the Kyiv Post
reported on Dec. 12, 2018.
The court noted the material was part of a pre-trial investigation and its release "led to
interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests
of Ukraine as a state."
Leshchenko had publicly adopted a strong anti-Trump stance, telling the Financial
Times in August 2016 that "a Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American
foreign policy" and that it was "important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he
is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world." Leschenko
noted that the majority of Ukrainian politicians were "on Hillary Clinton's side."
In December 2017, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko
accused Sytnyk of allowing the FBI to conduct illegal operations in Ukraine, claiming that
the "U.S. law enforcers were allegedly invited without the permission required and in breach of
the necessary procedures." Lutsenko
continued by asking, "Who actually let the foreign special service act in Ukraine?"
Taras Chornovil, a Ukrainian political analyst, also questioned the FBI's activities,
writing that "some kind of undercover operations are being conducted in Ukraine with direct
participation (or even under control) of the FBI. This means the FBI operatives could have
access to classified data or confidential information."
Lutsenko called for an audit of NABU,
claiming to "possess information of interest to the auditors" and was pushing for Sytnyk's
resignation, along with that of Nazar Kholodnitskiy, the Specialized Anti-Corruption
Prosecutor's Office (SAP). According to
reporting by Euromaidan Press, Lutsenko's efforts failed "thanks to the reaction from
Ukraine's American partners."
Michael Carpenter, an adviser to Joe Biden, personally issued a public warning to Lutsenko
and others pushing for Sytnyk's removal, stating, "If the Rada votes to dismiss the head of the
Anticorruption Committee and the head of the NABU, I will recommend cutting all U.S. government
assistance to #Ukraine , including security
assistance."
Sytnyk remains in his position as NABU's director.
Pinchuk's Ties to Leshchenko,
Clintons
On April 11, 2019, Greg Craig, Obama's former White House counsel and a partner at law firm
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, was indicted
for lying about and concealing his work in Ukraine. Craig, who reportedly worked closely with
Manafort, was paid
more than $4 million to produce an "independent" report justifying Ukraine's trial and
conviction of the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. Notably, Craig's name was not
included in the "Black Ledger" leak from Leshchenko and Sytnyk.
The indictment notes that "a wealthy private Ukrainian" was fully funding the report. In a
recent YouTube video
, Craig publicly stated that "it was Doug Schoen who brought this project to me, and he told me
he was acting on behalf of Victor Pinchuk, who was a pro-western, Ukrainian businessman who
helped to fund the project."
"The Firm understood that its work was to be largely funded by Victor Pinchuk," Skadden
wrote in recent FARA filings .
Pinchuk put out a statement on Jan. 21, denying any financial involvement:
"Mr. Pinchuk was not the source of any funds used to pay fees of Skadden in producing their
report into the trial and conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko. He was in no way responsible for
those costs. Neither Mr. Pinchuk nor companies affiliated with him have ever been a client of
Skadden. Mr. Pinchuk and his team had no role in the work done by Skadden, including in the
preparation or dissemination of the Skadden report."
Pinchuk is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He owns Credit Dnipro Bank,
several ferroalloy plants and a media empire. He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of
former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
Pinchuk has been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Between April 4 and April 12,
2016, Ukrainian parliamentarian Olga Bielkova had
four meetings , with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies), Liz
Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Department), and David Kramer
(McCain Institute).
FARA documents
filed by Schoen showed that he was paid $40,000 a month by Pinchuk (page 5) -- in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with congressmen and media (page 10). It's
unknown how many of these meetings, if any, took place.
Schoen also helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street
Journal reported on
March 19, 2015, how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in
order to pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Tymoshenko–a political
rival of Yanukovych–from jail. And the relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons
continued. According to the Kyiv
Post :
"Clinton and her husband Bill, the 42nd U.S. president, have been paid speakers at the
annual YES and other Pinchuk events. They describe themselves as friends of Pinchuk, who is
known internationally as a businessman and philanthropist."
Although exact numbers aren't clear,
reports filed by the Clinton Foundation indicate that as much as $25 million of Pinchuk's
donations went to the Clinton organization.
Pinchuk also has ties to Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP who leaked the information on
Manafort. Leshchenko had been a frequent speaker at the Ukrainian Breakfast , a traditional private event
held at Davos, Switzerland, and hosted by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation and has also been
pictured with Pinchuk at multiple other events.
"... Biden is ahead according to whom?! There is a glut of more dynamic and visionary Democrats. ..."
"... Only establishment hacks endorse the republican-lite elite Biden. ..."
"... with the direction us foreign policy is moving right now across the isle concerning venezuela, biden seems to be a well fit with his kissinger reference for the renewed interest in straight out CIA driven coups in latin america, the monroe doctrine and right-wing death squads hunting down dirty brown commies. ..."
"... He is in his own words a true centrist, which means, he will always compromise to the right, which is more inhinged and greedy than ever. A Biden presidency would be one more sellout to corporate America and would pave the way for another Trump. ..."
It's not the age. Biden has always been an airhead. I really hope he doesn't get the nomination just because he's friends with
Obama. Goofy old white dudes who put their foot in their mouths is the GOP's thing. We need someone fresh with a clear mind and
good ideas. Warren... please...
One of the problems with American politics is that it is being run by people (on both sides) who are not going to be alive
in 20 years so they have no vested interest in the future of the country. All they care about is that they make as much money
for their families so they can buy fresh air, fresh water and live apart from the huddled masses.
Biden isn't a good candidate. He seem dumb to me. He's just living off of Obama success. Just a shadow from Obama. Go with
Bernie.
ScaryHairyHarry
Only establishment hacks endorse the republican-lite elite Biden.
Jay Zenitram
Let the gaffs begin ...
John Chessant
Biden voted for the Iraq War. Don't forget that!
Sulanis
Sure Joe Biden is the guy you pick if you like the same old same old every day in the sack. Joe Biden is the status Quo
candidate that will do nothing to change the country for the lower and middle class. Joe Biden is about as democratic as the
massive corporations who donate to him. Seriously look at his past and he is on the wrong side of history on almost every
major issue that has come before the senate. So yeah, if you want the same old mercenary style, then by all means vote for
Biden, However, if you want change and people who are actually talking about and releasing policy than Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren are your people. However, who the hell wants to make sure that people don't go bankrupt over healthcare
bills.
Trust me as a Canadian we have have our healthcare covered by the government and the other half is covered by private
insurance. Private insurance is needed if you want to see a dentist, get medication, see a psychologist, get glasses, and
more. Canada needs to look at a complete system like Bernie Sanders is proposing because as a whole the process of health care
for all, just makes sense and gives the government real power when it comes to pricing on medication and other health
services.
When I say going to hospital or clinic and leaving without paying a fucking cent or calling the insurance is a blessing in
disguise. Its so freeing to know that I am not going to get a medical bill for thousands. However, when it comes to the other
items i have mentioned most places know how shitty the private insurance companies are and refused to deal with them. They do
this by making you pay the full amount due, then letting you deal with the insurance company, often getting denied, or losing
on funds because of deductibles that have to be paid.
Daneelro
I'm NOT looking forward to an election in which Biden is the Dem candidate. Biden is in the pocket of moneyed interests
(who do you think attended that "pritivate fundraiser"?) Biden is on the right of the Democratic Party and is too friendly
with Republicans to fight the unavoidable fights to come. Worse, Biden is a bad campaigner and will inevitably self-destruct,
hopefully not in the general election but in the primary already.
darillio
with the direction us foreign policy is moving right now across the isle concerning venezuela, biden seems to be a well
fit with his kissinger reference for the renewed interest in straight out CIA driven coups in latin america, the monroe
doctrine and right-wing death squads hunting down dirty brown commies.
Lennox Baumbach
Seriously, nobody should 'like' or support Biden. Most of the good image people have of him comes from Obama, whose
presidency itself was partialy very flawed. Biden's record is atrocious and he WON'T support any meaningfull progressive
policies, that would actually improve peoples living conditions. He is in his own words a true centrist, which means, he
will always compromise to the right, which is more inhinged and greedy than ever. A Biden presidency would be one more sellout
to corporate America and would pave the way for another Trump.
Waryaa Wariiri
When are the establishment and corporate-owned media shows going to stop their daily plug-in promos for Biden? It is so
obvious, for we are not children.
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
... Consider what it says about the state of America's political system that in the
left party, the presumptive frontrunner for the presidential nomination did not think
twice about kicking off his campaign with a fundraiser hosted
by the founder of a union-busting law firm, days before appearing at a major union-hosted
rally. And why should he? He gets the money, and then he gets the union support.
...I am not mad at Joe Biden. He is a type. His type is "The Old Way of Doing Things." Now
that he is in the race, his type is represented. He rounds out the field. Now, Democratic
voters truly have the entire buffet of choices, from "True Leftist Insurgent" to "Bland,
Winning Young Résumé-Polisher" to "Indistinguishable Ambitious Congresspersons"
to "The Same Old Kind of White Guy As Always".
If Biden has an ethos, it's an antiquated, anachronistic centrism, not even focused on finding a pragmatic middle that most of the
public can get behind, but on "reaching across the aisle." In other words, somewhere between centrist Democrats and an increasingly
far-right GOP lies the sensible, moderate, center-right voter that he believes populates the country.
Nothing epitomizes Biden's politics better than the speech he gave in
2011 at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center, named after the Republican Senate Minority Leader who had at that point
just finished up historically routing Biden and the administration he served. McConnell, who had
candidly admitted his top
goal was making sure Obama was "a one-term president" unless he did the GOP's bidding, had turned a sixty-vote Democratic supermajority
into an unavoidable necessity, stifling Obama's legislative agenda and even
slowing economic
recovery to produce the Democrats' "shellacking" in 2010. He then used this as leverage to get one of the most lopsided
legislative "deals" in memory, trading the
extension of unemployment insurance for the continuation of tax cuts for the rich, a markedly lower estate tax, and other giveaways
that infuriated Democrats.
Three months later, Biden warmly celebrated McConnell and his success
at having crushed the Democrats at their moment of historically rare political power. He painted the tax giveaway, which House Democrats
angrily
rebelled against and even Obama compared to negotiating with hostage-takers, as a textbook example of effective bipartisan compromise.
And he reminded the audience about the essential unity of those who ran the government: whether they were liberal or conservative,
Tea Party or Blue Dog, "they all ran for office because they love their country" and "because we basically all agree on the nature
of the problems we face." McConnell had bulldozed Biden's house, and Biden sent him a gift hamper.
But Biden's delusions about how the institution he had spent most of his adult life serving in functions is just one part of the
story. Biden is a Third Way Democrat with a seemingly congenital aversion to anything that smacks of populism, at least of the left-wing
variety. With a career in politics forged mainly in the "long Reagan era," Biden has built up an image based on loudly shunning and
bucking "liberal special interests" -- that era's code word for civil rights activists, unions, women's groups, and the poor. As
he told the National Journal in 2001, the Clintonite Third Way is both "where the American people are" and "where the Democratic
Party should have been." Resorting to "class warfare and populism" will only hand power to Republicans.
Of course, now that Biden is preparing to run on
Obama's legacy , he will tell you that
he's always been the darling of liberal groups. "The traditional judgements of whether or not you were, quote, a 'liberal,'" he recently
said, was "what your positions on race were, on women, what's your position on LGBT community, what's your positions on civil liberties.
You know, I'll stack my record on those things against anybody who's ever run, who is running now, or who will run."
The trouble for Biden is, his record on all of these matters and others isn't particularly great.
Biden catapulted to prominence in the 1970s by
rebelling against school integration
through busing. Biden reached across the aisle to his friend Jesse Helms -- one of the most virulent racists in modern politics --
to launch relentless verbal and legislative attacks on school busing that, if taken literally, would have scaled back the government's
power to desegregate more broadly, and he bragged that he'd made it okay for other liberals to do so. This was all OK because, as
Biden frequently claimed, he had been a civil rights activist. Later he was forced to admit he had simply
worked at an all-black swimming pool during the Civil Rights Movement.
The next couple of decades saw Biden
turn his attention to
another issue : waging "war" against drugs and crime. Eliminating parole, civil asset forfeiture, harsh mandatory minimums for
drug possession, the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity, dozens of new death penalties, and unprecedented resources poured
into building new prisons and arresting people to fill them with: Biden was not a marginal player in enacting all this and more.
He was one of the driving forces, constantly bragging about his role in policies that devastated black communities, policies adopted
for nakedly electoral purposes. "I would like to see the conservative wing of the Democratic Party," he once
quipped .
It's no coincidence that the two issues Biden leaned on most heavily in the first half of his career to show off his centrist
credentials were also ones that made life markedly worse for African Americans: political "moderation" after the 1960s usually meant
how far you were willing to go to thumb your nose at the cause of civil rights. So Biden's close relationship with another of Congress's
most storied racists -- Strom Thurmond, whom he later
warmly eulogized as a "brave
man" who "truly wanted to help" -- is no surprise either.
The 1990s-era crackdown on immigrants -- the period when the vast deportation apparatus now in the hands of Trump was largely
built -- was another Biden cause. He
was a loyal soldier
in this crusade, supporting a special ban on accepting immigrants if they were HIV positive; easing rules for deportation, even
for legal residents with families; restricting immigrants' access to welfare; and even at one point suggesting deploying troops to
deal with undocumented immigrants. A plan later devised by Biden to slow migration from Latin America only further fueled the violence
and misery that migrants were fleeing in the first place, paving the way for future migration crises, for which, as vice president,
he would prescribe the same self-defeating solutions.
The 1990s also saw Biden take
aim at civil liberties , authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal writ of habeas corpus
," as one legal scholar
later reflected . It
was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era Patriot
Act, which, in his view, didn't go far enough . He inserted a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization
of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military within US borders, before transforming into a civil liberties
defender in the latter part of the Bush presidency, once the political winds had shifted.
Biden also spent the 1990s voting for a
string of neoliberal
policies : NAFTA, one of the most devastating political defeats for unions in recent memory, and one where Biden was a crucial
vote that switched to help it pass; the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which he had earlier decried as "mak[ing]
Herbert Hoover's economic policy a constitutional mandate," a claim that if anything understates the case; Clinton's appalling welfare
reform; and the repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall prohibition on banks engaging in risky securities dealings. He did this
all while moaning endlessly about excessive government spending.
Not long after the turn of the twentieth century, Biden enthusiastically voted for the greatest foreign policy disaster of the
twenty-first: the Iraq War ("I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again"). It was the worst of a pattern for Biden, who
backed Margaret Thatcher's war in the Falklands and was one of the key figures pushing for NATO's eastward expansion in the 1990s,
a needless provocation of Russia that the famed Cold War diplomat George Kennan, speaking more than a year before Vladimir Putin
took office, presciently denounced as "the beginning of a new cold war." Biden's strategy for Afghanistan is indistinguishable from
the one the Trump administration is now pursuing, and his "counterterrorism plus" approach -- the use of drone strikes and special
forces anywhere in the world -- became Obama's anti-terror policy, one that visited death and carnage to a long series of countries
and fueled the very threat it was supposed to extinguish.
Needless to say, Biden isn't just pro-Israel -- he's one of the
most Israel-friendly politicians
of his generation. Through speaking fees and campaign donations, Israel has been good to Biden his whole career, and Biden's
been good right back, from pushing for more US aid to voting to move the embassy to Jerusalem -- another extremist policy Trump cribbed
from Biden and his friends -- and even chiding the Bush administration for its criticism of Israel's assassination program. But being
"the best friend of Israel" in the Obama administration didn't get him far with Benjamin Netanyahu, who openly rebelled against the
US under Obama, and humiliatingly announced new illegal settlements in the middle of an official visit from Biden.
Finally, the
Biden family's propensity for engaging in money-making ventures that -- gee whiz, just somehow seem to constantly overlap
with Biden's political career -- will make him a perfect foil to Trump. Whether it's Biden's son, Hunter, being hired as a lobbyist
for a Delaware credit card company whose favored legislation Biden was voting for; Biden's brother mysteriously getting hired by
a mid-size construction firm shortly before it received a $1.5 billion government contract; or Hunter, again, joining the board of
a corruption-tainted Ukrainian gas producer while Biden spearheaded US policy on Ukraine. That last issue is likely a ticking time
bomb, with Ukrainian officials recently
disclosing to the Hill that Biden leaned on the country's government to fire its top prosecutor just as he was set to
investigate the gas company, including interviewing Biden's son.
The most damning thing is that Biden hasn't changed. While other candidates with similarly troubling records at least understand
the need to pay lip service to progressive ideas, there's little indication Biden has moved an inch in his thinking. He doesn't think
"five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble," and has
"no
empathy" for millennials. He still
supports the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. He
still thinks adding to the conditions that fuel migration is the best way to stop it. He still
wants to cut Medicare and Social Security.
In short, a Joe Biden nomination would likely be a disaster, alienating the same voters who deserted Hillary Clinton in 2016,
while running on a similarly lackluster platform. The only thing that could be more harmful is a Joe Biden presidency, which, to
take him at his word, would see the former vice president collaborate with an increasingly extreme GOP in an effort to achieve some
of the Right's most long-cherished goals, including paring back the last remnants of the New Deal. Even scarier is the likelihood
that such a disillusioning presidency could subsequently pave the way for a far-right populist even more virulent -- and competent
-- than Trump.
The good news is, a Biden nomination is far from inevitable, and his choice to run on a continuation of Obama's legacy will provide
the broad left an opportunity to relitigate that administration's shortcomings without taking aim at the preternaturally popular
ex-president himself. In the meantime, if someone you know is unfamiliar with Biden's record on
busing ,
mass incarceration
, neoliberal economics
, war and civil liberties
, abortion , or
immigration , there's
an easy way to acquaint them.
Branko Marcetic is a Jacobin staff writer. He lives in Toronto,
Canada.
"... "Joe Biden got tongue tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for President," Trump said in a tweet. "Get used to it, another low I.Q. individual!" ..."
President Trump on Monday attacked former vice president Joe Biden as "another low I.Q. individual," pointing to comments
the Democrat inadvertently made Saturday night suggesting he had already launched a 2020 White House bid. "Joe Biden got tongue
tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for President," Trump
said in a tweet. "Get used to it, another low I.Q. individual!"
My god.. You seriously can't make this stuff up... Trump takes clueless to a whole other level... There really is not a word that
describes the lack of self awareness Trump has... How can anyone take this man seriously???
Democratic party candidate Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine (1). Given that Biden is the most beatable
name to come forward so far Trump and his administration will do nothing major to involve the U.S. with the internal affairs of
Ukraine.
Macron and Merkel may wish to do something, but given personal unpopularity in their countries it is unclear what they can
deliver.
For the next 12+ months nothing of any significance will happen. If the Dems are foolish enough to nominate Biden, it could
become an issue next year. Trump and Putin would have aligned interests in stopping the Biden family's exploitation of Ukrainian
resources.
Although Joe Biden very often denounces the "cancer of corruption", this first episode shows that he has lied
several times, and that his attitude remains very questionable on this subject. You will also discover three characters at
the heart of UkraineGate. First, Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch through whom the scandal happened. Then, General
prosecutor Viktor Shokin, whose resignation was obtained under pressure from Joe Biden, less than ten months after his appointment.
And finally, the latter's successor, Yuriy Lutsenko, whom Biden was quick to describe as a "solid man"…
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Pat Lang says: April 8, 2021 at 9:54 pm
Ishmael Zechariah says: April 8, 2021 at 10:50 pm
Walrus says: April 8, 2021 at 11:22 pm
Thomas says: April 9, 2021 at 8:08 pm
Andrei Martyanov says: April 9, 2021 at 12:42 am
Peter Reichard says: April 9, 2021 at 6:28 am
john kliss says: April 9, 2021 at 6:35 am
JohninMK says: April 9, 2021 at 7:09 am
BillWade says: April 9, 2021 at 7:51 am
jonst says: April 9, 2021 at 8:34 am
Yeah, Right says: April 9, 2021 at 7:58 pm
jon stanley says: April 10, 2021 at 9:49 am
Seamus Padraig says: April 9, 2021 at 8:38 am
Terence Reeves-Smyth says: April 9, 2021 at 12:52 pm
Some Dude says: April 9, 2021 at 9:11 am
Per/Norway says: April 9, 2021 at 5:39 pm
phodges says: April 9, 2021 at 6:42 pm
J says: April 9, 2021 at 10:20 am
Ed Lindgren says: April 9, 2021 at 11:57 am
Patrick Armstrong says: April 9, 2021 at 4:15 pm
Deap says: April 9, 2021 at 7:32 pm
Eol says: April 10, 2021 at 3:20 pm
English Outsider says: April 12, 2021 at 10:08 am
@Dwaine.Castle852 2 hours ago
Reuters; EPA
Eric Zuesse
December 8, 2020 © Photo: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Victoria Nuland is shown greeting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015. © Reuters
/ Mikhail Palinchak 9 Follow RT on 
US foreign aid agencies paid for Kiev street violence - ex-US agent Scott Rickard
FILE PHOTO. Victoria Nuland during her visit in Kiev, Ukraine. ©Serg Glovny / Global Look
Press 81 Follow RT on 
© Reuters / Kevin Lamarque 57 Follow RT on 
Like Obama, like Trump: Biden embraces Goldman Sachs bankers after Electoral College win
Trump won, regardless of the election outcome because Trumpism is here to stay
Joe Biden and Barack Obama at a campaign event in Flint, Michigan, © Reuters / BRIAN
SNYDER 111 90 Follow RT on 
The right is losing political battles because they aren't even bothering to take part in the
culture war
Joe Biden and MIchele Flournoy © Reuters / Jonathan Ernst and Yuri Gripas 705 1 Follow RT
on 
'Journalists desperate to not know': Glenn Greenwald blasts media coverage of Hunter Biden
scandal in piece the Intercept censored
© REUTERS/Yara Nardi 128 1 Follow RT on 
Trump's Pentagon shuffle suggests either no more wars or just one with Iran
Wayne Dupree: Why I, as a black man, am voting for Trump, along with a large number of people
who consider themselves Democrats
Print
Rudy Giuliani speaks to reporters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 7, 2020 ©
Reuters / Eduardo Munoz 476 Follow RT on 
Trump was a symptom of American decline that Biden is unlikely to reverse
Caitlin Johnstone: Don't fool yourself, your Biden vote was not a 'vote against fascism'
Trump's reign has proved the US president is merely a figurehead. Does it really matter who
wins the vote?
What if neither Democrats nor Republicans want to win in 2020? No one wants the task of
changing the full diaper of US Empire
© Getty Images / David McNew / Staff 203 Follow RT on 
US Senate candidate, DE
FILE PHOTO © AFP / Getty Images ; SCOTT OLSON 121 3 Follow RT on 
FILE PHOTO: Hunter Biden introduces his father Vice President Joe Biden during the World Food
Program USA's 2016 McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony at the Organization of American
States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC. © Getty Images / Kris Connor/WireImage 270
Follow RT on 
FILE PHOTOS. © Reuters / Tom Brenner ; Reuters / Jon Nazca 18 Follow RT on 
Joe Biden and his son Hunterattend an NCAA basketball game in Washington, DC, January 30, 2010
© Reuters / Jonathan Ernst 44 Follow RT on 
JaWS 4 minutes ago
FILE PHOTO. © Reuters / Stephen J. Carrera 218 1 Follow RT on 
© Portland Police Bureau Several hundred people smashed up storefronts, torched American
flags and harassed motorists in Portland, Oregon, following a brief lull in nearly nightly
riots due to wildfires tearing through the state.
#Murder #Terrorism https:// thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/black-
lives-matter-activist-wearing-justice-beonna-taylor-shirt-walked-louisville-bar-murdered-three-people/
10:29 AM · Sep 20, 2020 18 21 people are
Tweeting about this
Share 
Copy
Print Related Articles
We are Better off Empowering Nations, Rather than Bombing them To create peace and
stability in other nations, we must elevate their people to ... by Daniel Khashabi
The Opportunity Cost of Endless War is Missing From the Democratic Debates Foreign policy
has been largely absent in the Democratic presidential debates . ... by Eli Clifton We're
starting to end endless war in Afghanistan, now let's do Iraq An attack this week on an
Iraqi base that killed two U.S. service members, and t... by Sarah Leah Whitson More from
Stephen Wertheim Endless War January 7, 2020 Trump Has No
Strategy in the Middle East, Only Vengeance Hawks hated the Iran nuclear deal because they
feared not that it would fail to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but that it would succeed
-- and thereby deprive the United States of a rationale to dominate the region and discipline
its foe. by Stephen Wertheim 
